Just got back from this movie. It was excellent, but the world isn't ready for it. Let me say Colin Farell did one hellava job and so did Oliver Stone for that matter.
But the heart of the movie was in his soldiers. That's where the meat and potaotes are, in the Macedonian soldiers. They follow Alexander to the far reaches of the world, and even in death, they continued.
The movie does a wonderous job protraying Alexander as he really was. A man of his own principle. His commanders killed him , but his soldiers loved him.
Now this movie isn't Lord of the Rings caliber, but well worth the price of admission at least once. I can honestly say out of all the movies that came out this year, Alexander stands as a movie that might just win Best Picture.
Oliver Stone captures Alexander's passion magnificantely.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Alexander
AlexanderFollow
Quote:
but the world isn't Mature enough for it
FTFY
I couldn't agree more. Alot of idiot reviewers keep spouting nonsense like, "oh, it's one step away from being a gay porno" or "oh it's just so gay". Try and find a review without the word "gay" in it. People don't seem to realize that "gay" wasn't even an issue in Alexander's time. You just loved who you loved. Anyway, once people grow up they'll be able to see the mad genius that is Oliver Stone.
/hijack
You'd be surprised how homophobic society is turning into. Every little movement you make now a days is measured on a gay scale.
Careful! You can't do that! "They'll" think your gay!
Hell, my best friend's mom told us the other day we hang out to often and the family is "talking."
BTW, we both have our own girl friends and such...but damn, me calling him "Bro" and us sitting in the SAME CAR (omg!) could lead people to beleive that I'm fu[/b]cking him up the a[b]ss!
Fu[b][/b]cking morons.
You'd be surprised how homophobic society is turning into. Every little movement you make now a days is measured on a gay scale.
Careful! You can't do that! "They'll" think your gay!
Hell, my best friend's mom told us the other day we hang out to often and the family is "talking."
BTW, we both have our own girl friends and such...but damn, me calling him "Bro" and us sitting in the SAME CAR (omg!) could lead people to beleive that I'm fu[/b]cking him up the a[b]ss!
Fu[b][/b]cking morons.
Quote:
Hell, my best friend's mom told us the other day we hang out to often and the family is "talking."
Deja voo. I have a friend, with shoulder length hair that I hang out with. First time my mom saw him, first thing out of her mouth was, "is he...gay?".
Then, I rent a house with him and some other friends, and now it's, "Are you all gay?".
I'd like to say to my family, "Yes, I moved in with him, but it has nothing to do with him being an intellegent, cool person who's responsible and has kept his job for nearly 2 years and actually pulls his weight around the house and is pretty much a perfect roomate, being the only one on time with bills besides me, it's because I like it when he F@cks me right up my tight ***, so thank you and good day."
I hate people. Except you guys of course.
Quote:
The movie does a wonderous job protraying Alexander as he really was. A man of his own principle. His commanders killed him , but his soldiers loved him.
The majority of his army was paid mercs and/or criminals.
Also he was not killed by his commanders, he died of a river fever probably Malaria.
He was one of the greatest Generals who ever lived, but he was also a cold blooded killer who slaughtered the women and children of those he defeated, and his army reflected that.
Quote:
Deja voo. I have a friend, with shoulder length hair that I hang out with. First time my mom saw him, first thing out of her mouth was, "is he...gay?".
Then, I rent a house with him and some other friends, and now it's, "Are you all gay?".
I'd like to say to my family, "Yes, I moved in with him, but it has nothing to do with him being an intellegent, cool person who's responsible and has kept his job for nearly 2 years and actually pulls his weight around the house and is pretty much a perfect roomate, being the only one on time with bills besides me, it's because I like it when he F@cks me right up my tight ***, so thank you and good day."
I hate people. Except you guys of course.
Then, I rent a house with him and some other friends, and now it's, "Are you all gay?".
I'd like to say to my family, "Yes, I moved in with him, but it has nothing to do with him being an intellegent, cool person who's responsible and has kept his job for nearly 2 years and actually pulls his weight around the house and is pretty much a perfect roomate, being the only one on time with bills besides me, it's because I like it when he F@cks me right up my tight ***, so thank you and good day."
I hate people. Except you guys of course.
Wouldn't it have just been easier to have simply said "Yes."?
Edited, Sat Nov 27 04:03:27 2004 by DarkRein
They left out the siege of Tyre for fucks sake and here I was willing to watch Oliver 'it's a goddamn conspiracy' Stone turn Alexander into a weak wristed mama’s boy just to see the Battle of Granicus but more importantly to me to see the siege of Tyre*.
Alexander wasn't a principled man, full of heady Hellenistic ideals. He was a ruthless, power hungry self absorbed *** who wanted to out do not only his father or any other mortal but the god and his ancestor Hercules.
*Alexander spent 7 months building a Mole, essentially a 200 ft wide earthen ramp from shore to the island of Tyre a half mile away across water nearly 20ft deep, the entire time under attack. By the time he was done he was not a happy camper, he had the entire city, men woman and children but to the sword.
Alexander wasn't a principled man, full of heady Hellenistic ideals. He was a ruthless, power hungry self absorbed *** who wanted to out do not only his father or any other mortal but the god and his ancestor Hercules.
*Alexander spent 7 months building a Mole, essentially a 200 ft wide earthen ramp from shore to the island of Tyre a half mile away across water nearly 20ft deep, the entire time under attack. By the time he was done he was not a happy camper, he had the entire city, men woman and children but to the sword.
The cinemetogrophy (sp?) was too damned choppy, I felt like my eyeballs were bouncing around in my skull the whole time. Other than that, no big complaints.
I guess the real question is... Were you entertained by the movie?
A lot of people compare the movie to real life historical events... for those of you making that comparison, go watch documentaries... this is a movie for entertainment purposes only... not a rebutle documentary on whether or not alexander was a ruthless tyrant. This is not intended to start arguement, it is just a statement that this is for entertainment, not education... therefore it does not need to be portrayed in a specific manner.
I have not seen it yet, but plan to when i get through the decoration phase for Xmas!
A lot of people compare the movie to real life historical events... for those of you making that comparison, go watch documentaries... this is a movie for entertainment purposes only... not a rebutle documentary on whether or not alexander was a ruthless tyrant. This is not intended to start arguement, it is just a statement that this is for entertainment, not education... therefore it does not need to be portrayed in a specific manner.
I have not seen it yet, but plan to when i get through the decoration phase for Xmas!
/hijack #2
Yet another reason to think that society is regressing...
Anyway, haven't seen the movie yet, but heard that it's more drama based, more 'inner conflict' than actual action and such. That true?
Quote:
People don't seem to realize that "gay" wasn't even an issue in Alexander's time. You just loved who you loved. Anyway, once people grow up they'll be able to see the mad genius that is Oliver Stone.
Yet another reason to think that society is regressing...
Anyway, haven't seen the movie yet, but heard that it's more drama based, more 'inner conflict' than actual action and such. That true?
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
The movie does a wonderous job protraying Alexander as he really was. A man of his own principle. His commanders killed him , but his soldiers loved him.
The majority of his army was paid mercs and/or criminals.
Also he was not killed by his commanders, he died of a river fever probably Malaria.
He was one of the greatest Generals who ever lived, but he was also a cold blooded killer who slaughtered the women and children of those he defeated, and his army reflected that.
He also claimed to be a god after cutting the Gordion knot, which he used to conquer Egypt without spilling a single drop of blood - which is kinda cool when you think about it.
As for the homosexual overtones, I'm not sure what's coming over the country these days... its pretty pathetic. We went through a sort of homosexual rennaisance in the mid to late 90's where it was not only accepted, but it became kind of a fad (metrosexuals anyone?). But recently the nation has been falling back on the more conservative side, and it seems to be more demonized by the day. Sadly most of those people don't realize that homophobia, and even the terminology of "homosexuality" are rather new constructs.
I wanna go see the movie now, namely because I wanted to see how realistic to history they were going to make it. I was worried that he was going to fall in love with "some woman," save the world from the "evil Greeks," and ride off into the sunset. I'm glad they're actually doing it mostly by the book.
Also... Alexander's death is also considered to have been linked to his chronic alcoholism. He destroyed himself after killing one of his best friends, and commanders, in a drunken brawl. I'll have to look again in my history books though, but I seem to remember there being a link there.
God I want to sig these soooo bad...
Sir Exodus wrote:
I'm ******* him up the ***!
BelKain wrote:
it's because I like it when he F@cks me right up my tight ***
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
God I want to sig these soooo bad...
Sir Exodus wrote:
I'm ******* him up the ***!
BelKain wrote:
it's because I like it when he F@cks me right up my tight ***
!!!!!!! All we need now is for Lubriderm to post.
Isten wrote:
/hijack #2
Yet another reason to think that society is regressing...
Anyway, haven't seen the movie yet, but heard that it's more drama based, more 'inner conflict' than actual action and such. That true?
Quote:
People don't seem to realize that "gay" wasn't even an issue in Alexander's time. You just loved who you loved. Anyway, once people grow up they'll be able to see the mad genius that is Oliver Stone.
Yet another reason to think that society is regressing...
Anyway, haven't seen the movie yet, but heard that it's more drama based, more 'inner conflict' than actual action and such. That true?
It's a very good movie. Very inspiring. I especially enjoyed the score to the movie done by Evangelis. Bought the soundtrack there after.
Greek history is not one of my favorite subjects to read into, but I thought the movie did enough to chronicle his exploits.
And for Tarv, the reason why I said the army loved him, was in the movie, the director portrayed this a few times, I didn't gather my info from a critic or a site. Ask me anything LOTR!
Cheers
Gadin wrote:
They follow Alexander to the far reaches of the world, and even in death, they continued.
Wow, Alexander knew how to raise fallen soldiers from the dead to fight for him!? I'm going to go see that today! I don't remember hearing anything about Zombie Pikemen in History class.
You suck at the writing
Quote:
The movie does a wonderous job protraying Alexander as he really was. A man of his own principle. His commanders killed him , but his soldiers loved him.
Next you will be telling me that William Wallace was urbane and well educated
*Braveheart was completely historically inaccurate.
Quote:
Ask me anything LOTR!
Who according to the book was he atually battleing at the time.
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
*Braveheart was completely historically inaccurate.
I wouldn't quite go that far... its just that not many people really know entirely what happened, since the time between Wallace's appearance on the scene and his execution was pretty damn short. There's not a lot of literature on it either, and the stuff that does exist is largely interpretation. Historically speaking, no one has a 100% positive idea about what went on because Wallace inspired so much fear in writers of the time, plus a large portion of what is known was spread via word of mouth for some time until being written. So, no one is 100% sure what actually happened.
The movie did capture a few important facts though... Wallace gets the Scots to start to unite and fight back against the British, and Longshanks was a prick of global scale (no offense to any Brits here). Every history book will agree on those two things.
It seemed to miss the fact that he was the son of a noble (Sir Malcolm Wallace), though it could've just focused on the fact that since he had an older brother, he didn't inherit anything from his father (no title, no lands). This information is still contested however, because there's links between other noble families and Wallace, all claim his kinship.
I'd think the most important facet of the movie though was the fact that it showed Wallace as starting the unification of the clans, and then Robert the Bruce picking up when Wallace was executed.
Edited, Mon Nov 29 11:17:55 2004 by scubamage
Whether you left coast liberals want to admit it or not the homosexual community is facing the repercussions for forcing their warped belief system into the mainstream throughout the 90's. Homosexuality has never been acceptable in any western society and in their attempt to change the christian ideology they have isolated themselves from anyone that was on the fence concerning the issue. Basically the majority of U.S. citizens are taking a step back and asking whether they think this type of message is good for the youth, and guess what they're deciding it's not.
Varus
Varus
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
Ask me anything LOTR!
Who according to the book was he atually battleing at the time.
Who killed Glorindel or he fought with?
Well to answer it anyways Glorfindel actually died in the Fall of Gondolin. There is the Glorfindel of Gondolin and the Glorfindel of Rivendell, but the 2nd might be Bombadil, but nobody really knows.
Actually, in the movie the two towers, Glorfindel(the man) is never a visible presence and his death is not truly concieved... however, in the books , glorfindel was fighting a Balrog, which subsequently handed his *** back to Glorfindel. Arwen was Glorfindels replacememnt in the movie, which has been the rise of alot of nitpicking and muttering from true fans... i agree with them and disagree... If arwen would have been in helms deep fighting the balrog, it would be fairly stupid and out of character... but on the other hand, a valiant glorfindel fighting and losing would have been a spectacle to see!(not to mention it was glorfindels most defining moment as a Character in the books).
Let me know if this is what you are referring to.
Let me know if this is what you are referring to.
Yeah I answered the where you did the who part. Good show!
A Balrog in the Tow Towers movie would have disrupted the flow of events just a wee bit.
A Balrog in the Tow Towers movie would have disrupted the flow of events just a wee bit.
Quedos to Maddstar Glorfindel was fighting a balrog.
<never said he died in the book>
<never said he died in the book>
Gadin,
It is widely accepted that Glorfindel of gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell are indeed the same character. Where the split occurs is where the director decides to use Arwen instead of Glorfindel in the movies to rescue froto from the wraiths. Hence the big debate with the true fans etc... Arwen has about 8 lines in all 3 books and is shown as a princess like character in the books.. in the movies, she is portrayed as a Heroine and is a major role especially in ROTK.
If the movie were to follow the book using Arwen in his place, you would have had Arwen fighting and dying against the balrog in helms deep, but instead the director elected to leave that scene out of the movie due to needing her to raise Aragorn to his true potential. The movie does not follow the books in all areas... as is clearly evident... In the books Glorfindel rescues frodo from the wraiths, not Arwen.....
It is widely accepted that Glorfindel of gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell are indeed the same character. Where the split occurs is where the director decides to use Arwen instead of Glorfindel in the movies to rescue froto from the wraiths. Hence the big debate with the true fans etc... Arwen has about 8 lines in all 3 books and is shown as a princess like character in the books.. in the movies, she is portrayed as a Heroine and is a major role especially in ROTK.
If the movie were to follow the book using Arwen in his place, you would have had Arwen fighting and dying against the balrog in helms deep, but instead the director elected to leave that scene out of the movie due to needing her to raise Aragorn to his true potential. The movie does not follow the books in all areas... as is clearly evident... In the books Glorfindel rescues frodo from the wraiths, not Arwen.....
Recent Visitors: 223
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (223)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Alexander
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC