Film Critics, Ba Hum Bug

[ruthaki]

Aha, Kenny! so you spotted that error too...Kassandros (I believe) had been left behind in Macedon and showed up in Babylon shortly before Alexander's death with an appeal from his father.
Thus he was implicated (with his younger brother, Alexander's cup-bearer) in Alexander's death. (Whether true or not, he was there and was Alexander's known enemy from boyhood.) I also didn't like the casting of Kassandros at all! ruthaki

[susan]

Ruth
Kassandros wasn't known to have been Alexander's "known enemy from boyhood" - this is just guesswork, I think largely by Renault. It might have been true but there's no hard evidence for it. Also, I think there's a chance that he was in Asia at the start of the campaign - certainly there was a Cassander present, but it may not be the same one.Susan

[boris]

I saw the film yesterday and thought it was very good, but not excellent. A respectable 4 out of 5 is my rating. The first half of the film was great, but the second seemed kind of erratic in its editing. I guess Stone was under time constraints and I get the impression that many scenes seem to have faced the chopping boards.Still, it was a beatiful film, and at times its like the ancient world is alive again. Of all the 'sword & sandal' film epics, its the most accurate attempt I've seen and a very good stab to portray Alexander and his world. It reminded me of the Mary Renault novels at times. It was definately closer to that than of Valerio Manfredi's works. I would have been happy either way though as I enjoyed both those trilogies!

The criticism about the scripting is valid but I dont think it was as bad as some people make out. The dialogue is believable, as are the characters of some of the protagonists. I think the main flaws with the scripting fall largely due to the erratic editing in parts, particularly in the second half of the film. I think a Directors Cut on the DVD release would help resolve this to some extent.A lot of the other criticisms the film has faced are very subjective such as some people not liking the films focusing on Alexanders mind and human weaknesses, and overlooking some of Alexanders military successes. In my opinion, a film of battle upon battle would have been unimaginative, and understanding the inner workings of the man (which is what made him tick) is important. Other subjective criticisms some reviewers have dwelled on in the media, range from not liking the use of Irish accents, to Colins appearance but I thought these where fine. And of course theres the bi-sexuality issue which has been greatly overblown, although I get the impression, due to the 'choppiness' of some scenes covering this, that Oliver Stone may of decided to cut them to avoid further controversy.Still, a very good 4 out of 5 is my rating for this much maligned film. There is still scope for another Alexander film however, perhaps taking a different approach. In fact, a high budget 'Band of Brothers' style mini-series would be the best way to go about things, but I cant see such a project happening for a while. Going back to Olivers Stones effort, I look forward to that directors cut when the DVD comes out on sale!

[kenny]

Susan Hail, Theres no confusing the Cassander in the movie,, It was the samer Cassander and character,, Who Alexander did bang against the wall fpor ridiculing his behaivour towards the Asians.I thought the paret where Roxane held a knife to Alexanders throat was totally useless we know Alexander was magnaminous but im sure if she held a knife to him like that he would have strung her up,, he made the deal to die young in glory butm not having his throat cut by a woman Im convinced he only married for political ends.Boris hail.I agree the result sometimes looked rushed but i go back to what I always maintain the movie would have gone for hours and hours and am sure Stone was in a muddle what to leave in,, I do hope Gibson takes the story at a more full length serialisation with Alexander even though I love Alexander to sit throught the movie to do Alexander real justice would be an endurance for sitting.But Boris it was indeed good what he did.Kenny

[amyntoros]

Boris, Stone seems to be implying in recent interviews that his DVD cut will be an edited version of the movie, cut down to about two-and-a-half hours. I rather think this would mean the elimination of almost all Jared Leto's scenes for a start. He's also been talking about taking a more linear approach to the story. This would obviously be an attempt to recoup some of the costs of the movie by increasing sales of the DVD, though Stone has also said he wants to make the story of Alexander accesable to fourteen or fifteen year olds. Obviously all the bad reviews and complaints have really had an effect on his perception of his own film. The big problem for me (and perhaps anyone else who *did* like the fim) is that I want to see an extended version which includes the hour of missing footage, and not a shortened and simplified story. If I'm really lucky, maybe he will include both version on his DVD.You can listen to a BBC radio interview where he talks about some of this at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontr ... 0105.shtml(Thanks to Susa - I think - on Dara's message board for that link.)Best regards,Linda Ann

[Loren]

I'm a new reader of this forum, but couldn't resist adding my two cents' worth about the film. To me, it was way wide of the mark, particularly because Alexander's great achievements were expensed in favor of conjectural incidents/dialogue. For example, why did Stone gloss over Granicus, Issus, Tyre, and especially the journey to Siwa--not precisely an achievement, but an exceptionally interesting incident--and instead focus on tedious Olympias and Alexander/Hehpaistion love ramblings? Hopkins' Ptolemy made an attempt to address the magnitude of Alexander's legacy, but it was surely lost in the comparatively meaningless drama overplayed by Jolie, etc. Stone did do his homework; the slo-mo scene of Alex and Bucephalus rearing up against the elephant is clearly based on an ancient coin depiction, etc. But I think the last word on the film came from my friend--whose real name is Alexander Megas, incidentally--who said, "I didn't know much about him before the film, and I still don't." I think Stone missed an opportunity.

[iskander_32]

LorenYour points are well expressed with emisions, If hed covered everything we all wanted we would need to camp out at the cinema for weeks,, Stone made choices and I think he did good with what he showed.kenny

[birdlover]

Hi Linda,I guess you have been visiting the Dreamworks site haven't you? Well, it's not my site (I don't own it), it's just where I post the most. But I knew what you meant.I listened to the audio clip you posted the link to (for some reason I missed it at the Dreamworks site. I don't know how I did that, but I did). I was a bit frustrated that Stone wants to cut some of the film for DVD version. I can't understand why. He said he wants 14 & 15 year olds to be able to see the film. A 14 or 15 year old can't see two men hug? There is nothing really offensive in that. I would be more worried about the violent battle scenes for kids that age, than anything else.This clip was an eye opener. I agree with you Linda. I wish he would add the deleted scenes and leave the rest alone. I liked the film, just the way it is. I want to see more not less. I was hoping that some of the additional footage would tie things together a bit more and make some of the scenes more coherent. I would hate to see Stone butcher his own film, for insignificant reasons. I don't want to open a can of worms, but this seems a bit hasty on Stone's part. Just my 2 cents.Dara

[susan]

Kenny
You misunderstand me - what I said was that there was a Cassander in Asia towards the start of the campaign; but I'm not sure if this was the same as Cassander son of Antipater. There were a limited number of Macedonian personal names, so there are endless Alexanders, Philips, Arridaeus etc; so it's not certain who the early Cassander in Asia was. But there's no doubt about it being Cassander son of Antipater in Babylon.Susan

[susan]

There's been much mention of Roxane and the dagger. This actually comes from one version of the Alexander Romance, so it's an old tradition and I think that it's great that they included it. I don't think that even Stone could have filmed a Central Asian version of the Romance - where Alexander is made impotent through a spell cast by Roxane's father; which is only removed when he hands over a lot of gold! Susan

[ruthaki]

Well, I just saw it for the third time and I'm still in awe! I agree with Dara that Stone should not cut any of the director's cuts. There is nothing at all in the film that a youth could not watch. It is a tastefully done movie without gratuitous violence or sex the way most American films these days are made (0r at least a good many of them!) This third time of viewing I noticed a lot of the subliminal scenes I hadn't noticed before: Pausanius being abused at the wedding party and the times that Alexander 'saw' his father (such as the scene with Cleitus when C. morved into Philip. Very clever! I loved it again the third time as much as the first and my friend (also a writer and Alexanderphile) also loved it. After the movie a woman in the washroom said "Did you find it 3 hours of boring crap??" Of course not. And she said the same. She loved it. And later in the evening we heard the same from other persons. It made me feel good that people were viewing the film and getting something valid out of it. And I'm sure if I see it a fourth time I'll feel the same way!

[amyntoros]

Hi Dara,Yes, I've been lurking over at Dreamworks. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were the creator/moderator of the forum on the Alexander movie. I'm afraid that if Stone does shorten the DVD version this way, then it will be solely an industry/marketing decision and not one based on Stone's true feelings about his film. And I suppose I understand that decision, although I cetainly regret it, as my concern is for the artistic merit of the movie. But I'm afraid that fourteen-to-fifteen year olds are generally at an intolerant age, and they want/expect their heroes to behave in a certain way and within today's accepted code of morality, though, as you said, any level of violence isn't even an issue. And as even so-called *adult* reviewers focused intensely on the sexual aspects of Alexander, Stone intends to eliminate this *distraction* on the DVD. At least that's the way it appears to me in the interview. Best regards,Linda Ann

[amyntoros]

Susan, did you find this version of the Romance during your travels in Sri Lanka?Linda Ann

[birdlover]

Hi Linda & Ruth,Linda, you were half right. I am the moderator for the forum, but Jawad is the man in charge over there. He created the site for Dreamworks. He needed moderators (there are several for the different forums) and I said I would keep an eye on the Alexander forum for him. So no need to apologize.Ruth, I saw the film twice (it's gone from where I live) and I enjoyed it both times. The second time I saw it was in a really nice theatre with high quality digital picture as well as THX sound. It added greatly to the experience. I also went with two different people, both times. The first person knew nothing about ATG and she really liked it and the second knew a bit about him and loved it. You do see more each time you view it. I picked up a lot more the second time. Thats why it would be sad if he watered down the DVD.I agree with you Linda, that his decision to cut parts of the film for DVD is a marketing/industry decision. I know he said he is proud of the film and I am sure he really does not want to do this. Part of me wonders why he would want to go that route. If the film made 150 million dollars, I don't think he would even consider cutting anything. But I think it may be the only way to salvage the film and at least make up for some of the losses at the box office. I still don't think there was anything between Alex & Heph that was offensive. But the film got tagged with "Alexander the Gay" from the beginning. That killed it before it even came out. People didn't bother to see what was in it. They just stayed away. The film had other problems as well. Critics picked it apart from one end to the other. So given all those issues plus the bi-sexual issue, the film never had a chance to find it's own identity. It was crushed under the weight of all the criticism it received. All of these issues were too much for the film to overcome. There was not much buzz on the film, either. So people speculated about what was in the film. Then the reviews from the preview screenings started to come out and the speculation turned negative. That didn't help things. By the time the film hit the multiplex it was dead on arrival, which was sad. I really liked the film. I thought it was better than "Troy". I thought the cast was good. I especially have to give kudos to Colin Farrell (Val Kilmer was terrific, as well). He did a fine job with he role. I think some of what was said about him was unfair. I am sure there is even more good footage o

[birdlover]

Part 2 of my post...of his performance that I hope we see. I would take any footage. I have seen stills of scenes that were not included and they looked good. I still hope Stone will at least give us deleted scenes on the DVD.Anyway, from what I hear Baz Luhrmann is still planning his ATG film. I have read that he is going to tackle the bi-sexual issue as well. If Stone's film couldn't survive it, in the very tame way he did it (hugging), I don't know how Luhrmann will do it. Good luck to him!Dara