Leonardo di Caprio in The Aviator

[jan]

I know that there has been much discussion about Leonardo di Caprio in his potential performance as Alexander. I just saw The Aviator. He is vindicated in this movie as he gives a great performance in his role as Howard Hughes. However, it must be said that he had a great start with a great screenplay, director, and cast. It all makes the sorry anticipation about Alexander the movie look as though Leonardo gets the last laugh portraying Hughes instead of Alexander. However, he certainly made me believe that his Alexander would have been reviewed and accepted instead of rejected so soundly. I have always felt sorry for Colin Farrell as he deserved better, judging from earlier films of his.Leonardo di Caprio is great and the movie Aviator is great. It is a must see. It is the way movies should be done...it too explores the psychology of Hughes, as who doesn't admit that he is a real serious study for psychologists and psychiatrists everywhere. But at least this movie makes him a sympathetic and strong character.Who could believe that Alexander the Great could be made to look like Alexander the Wimp? Only someone like Stone could do that to him...and those of us who like Alexander, myself especially, do not like Oliver Stone's version of his fame and legend!While Colin Farrell is not exactly the character of Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers, there is little doubt that the Alexander film is a part of the trilogy of bad movies that Stone has made, Alexander the most Natural Killer of them all. I love Marly too!

[iskander_32]

I always said Dicaprio was a great choice for Alexander many laugh,, But if it comes just wait and see if I am right.
Kenny
Leonardo Natural born Alexander

[ruthaki]

I agree di Caprio showed some excellent talent and potential in "The Aviator". A fantastic film. But, sorry, I still loved "Alexander". Went out last night intending to see it for the third time (my friend's first) but it wasn't on so we saw "The Aviator" instead. I still intend to go back to see "Alexander" again. It may not have been the 'perfect' rendition people expected but I still found it very inspiring.

[jan]

Agh, Ruth, I just watched Colin Farrell last night on the David Letterman show in which he showed the clip from the Indian battle, featuring King Porus, who doesn't make it in the movie. I know you liked the imitation of the Battle of Issus mosaic with his bulging eyes, and that is the clip that was shown on the late night show. In it, if you recall, Alexander plunges his sword into several Indian fighters (who we never see) one right after another in succession, just thrusting in, thrusting out, and so readily and easily that it appears that those Indians just sat there and didn't give him even a bit of a fight. I really believe that Oliver Stone could have done Alexander better than that. Those are the reasons that I do not like this movie. It is preposterous to believe that an event like that would occur in such a battle. Oliver was grandstanding with his elephants rising on their hindlegs, and just using remnants of history in a shoddy manner which frankly insulted my taste for a great movie about a great hero.He underestimated his audience, and I feel that we as an audience must make demands upon our moviemakers or they will continue to give us shrift!

[amyntoros]

Considering that in various battles Alexander's army was seriously outnumbered by the enemy, there must have been many occasions where each Macedonian, Alexander included, delivered death blows to a great number of individuals. Though the figures are most likely exaggerated, there were still few deaths in the Macedonian army as compared with those they fought against. It strikes me that this scene was Stone's way of illustrating this and it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The battle scene in India is not meant to be the battle with Porus - it is an amalgamation of all the battles in the eastern campaign, including the battle against the Malli where Alexander did indeed fight alone against multiple enemies before he was seriously wounded by an arrow.Best regards,Linda Ann

[ruthaki]

Thanks, Linda. That's the response I wanted to write. That scene with the elephants was quite incredible and I can't think of another movie of it's kind that had that sort of action. Of course it was an 'amalgamation' of the Indian wars. In fact that almost fatal wound Alexander had was in a different battle (at Mallia, when he jumped over the wall...gee, too bad they hadn't shown that one!)
Yes, too bad we didn't see more of Porus but heavens, how much of his life could be shown when the movie was already over-length! (I heard Stone say in an interview, he likes to be spontaneous and just wanted to see what would happen when he turned a herd of elephants loose in the Thai jungle. The result, I thought, was pretty interesting!)

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I'm really not sure what you are considering 'preposterous' - that elephants can actually stand on their hind legs? Or that Alexander might conceivably have been able to kill three or four opponents without any of them getting the opportunity to strike back? Or what?None of these things is impossible - not least because elephants can stand on their hind legs ...I still haven't seen the film (it opens in the UK this coming Friday) but I have to say you do appear to find something different to dislike about the film every time you post. Was there *anything* you liked about it?All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Hi Marcus,After you see the movie, then it will be better to discuss this with you. I had had great expectations for this movie, but unless you have seen Natural Born Killers, it won't make much sense as to why it is that Oliver Stone chooses to make Alexander look like Rodney Dangerfield in one scene. It is too obvious to me what is happening, as I can identify with both characters in NBK and Alexander. So that is only one of many objections to this movie.But clearly this movie and Alexander get no respect from anyone who has printed reviews of it in newspapers, magazines, etc. The movie simply put is just dreadful, but you will have to see it for yourself to understand why those of us who truly want a great movie feel betrayed by this one.I think of "my" Alexander as Ian Worthington puts it, and incidentally, he agrees with me that the movie is no good, as a great personality with a magnetic personality and character. I can think of many ways to create an Alexander that audiences would have praised.That movie will come. I have it on good authority that there are still those who want to make a really rewarding film, not a disappointing film.Yes, there are things in it that I like a lot. I once considered speaking of only the positive qualities in it, but that won't makeup for the disappointment in realizing that Stone is a big expensive failure. I especially like Angelina Jolie, I love the two boys playing the children, as Paolo is beautifully cast in the role of an adolescent. The scene with Bucephalus is great, and most of the early childhood is rewarding. But the movie ends up being more about Olympias and Phillip as if it were some takeoff on William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. They reappear more often than Caesar's ghost. Alexander is diminished, undermined, and definitely a pathetic creature instead of a great conqueror and leader.Very bad script, very bad direction, ending up being a very bad movie. Oliver Stone needed real help.