NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion it was a HORRIBLE movie. Alexander is protrayed as a extremely homosexual man who cries very often....In short he is a sissy in the movie, a man the greeks would hardly follow. Also the battles scenes are completely boring......damnit Stone give me my money back!

Anyways what are your opinions on the movie?

P.S: One more time for good ole Stone :upyours:

In my opinion it was a HORRIBLE movie. Alexander is protrayed as a extremely homosexual man who cries very often....In short he is a sissy in the movie, a man the greeks would hardly follow. Also the battles scenes are completely boring......damnit Stone give me my money back!

Anyways what are your opinions on the movie?

P.S: One more time for good ole Stone :upyours:

I think they portrayed him as a little more flamboyantly homosexual than he actually was (the juries ARE still out on this). It's a lot fairer than Stone's other movies, though.

But I was looking for a movie which was basically consisting of Alexander whomping Darius at Gaugamela, and didn't get it, so I'm disappointed for an entirely different reason.

*hasnt seen movie :(* i find it hard to believe that Alexander can have been displayed as flamboyountly homosexual and i not heard of it, i think you jsut have a warped view of the world.

I saw the movie and let's say only one guy could ruin the great premise of this "epic", Oliver Stone. Guess what? He did.

But I was looking for a movie which was basically consisting of Alexander whomping Darius at Gaugamela, and didn't get it, so I'm disappointed for an entirely different reason.


GRRR Next Time I go out and kill darius myself, (well, alexanders troops didnt technically kill darius, but you know what I mean), the movie sucks

I havent seen the movie, but the two people I know who have seen it say it was the worst most boring movie ever, it could have been chopped in half, the diologue was torture and there was no character development, the worst movie ever in their opinion.

For some reason, I'm not surprised that Ollie Stone has made an self-indulgent bloated film devoid of any real meaning and with insipid action scenes, along with a slightly controversial angle that's probably been thought of later in the hope of raising some controversy (and hence improving ticket sales).
Now why would I think that?
Oh yes. That's right. Cause all his movies are like that.

any and everything Oli Stone touches becomes an over-hyped crappy movie. Take JFK. Lotsa lies and a bunch of stupidity. And it sucked.

He wasn't greek he was macedonian.

any and everything Oli Stone touches becomes an over-hyped crappy movie. Take JFK. Lotsa lies and a bunch of stupidity. And it sucked.
Then there's 'Any given Sunday'(what is it? 3, 4 hours long? I've no idea. Has anyone managed to sit thru it?) , 'The Doors'(so overacted it's hilarious and where he felt the need to put his own kid and himself in), 'Platoon'(which should be doubly hated cause it totally overshadowed 'Full Metal Jacket' at the time, which is totally awesome), 'Born of the 4th of July'....etc etc etc
How does he keep getting the backing?

I think most people know what they are getting into when they go see an Oliver Stone film, therefore I wasnt really surprised with the high level of gayness in the film, as Stone tries to create controversy with his films, which he has succeeded in doing. However, he also succeeded in making a film that tops 3 hours, and could have easily been shaved by an hour without losing any story line. I would have also like to have seen a little more skin from Ms. Joleen, but that's just me. Overall not worth going to see, but not bad if on video.

He wasn't greek he was macedonian.

He was "Greek."

He was from macedonia which was distinct from greece.

What greece was culturally speaking was pretty insubstantial. Basically it was a bunch of people who didnt like persians.

He was educated in Greece, he grew up in Greece, all his friends were Greek, he spoke Greek, he was "Greek." Note the quotation marks.

And Macedonia of the ancient world was not nearly as distinct from Greece as Macedonia of today is.

The polls a little bias, don't you think Right-Wing America? Anyway, I haven't seen it but did Oliver Stone also make "Troy"?

I liked Natural Born Killers, but only because it was Tarantino's script and woody harrelson is a good maniac. The Doors was awesome, even if a bit overdone. Val Kilmer was a great Morrison, but I'm sure that he real Jim would have hated it.

As for Alexander: Fuck it. Who didn't expect it? What did you expect when asshole-casserole Hollywood got their hands on it? Let's face facts here and admit that as soon as Hollywood gets their disgusting hands on a good story like Alexander's, that they can't help but fuck it up. I mean, it's inevitable, isn't it? Alexander was a bisexual, and, let's face it, queer sells these days. I was kind of hoping for something special, but I never diluted myself in thinking that it would be anything to tell my friends about.

I'd actually hoped that Colin Farrel might pull it off well, as he's a decent actor (Phonebooth was good, even if a bit cheesy), and a coke-blowing X-rolling Irish bad-boy, but no. He too sucked.

Watch 'Taking Lives'. Ethan Hawke bangs that skank Jolee.

The polls a little bias, don't you think Right-Wing America? Anyway, I haven't seen it but did Oliver Stone also make "Troy"?

No, Troy was directed by Wolfgang Petersen.

The polls a little bias, don't you think Right-Wing America? Anyway, I haven't seen it but did Oliver Stone also make "Troy"?
no

He was educated in Greece, he grew up in Greece, all his friends were Greek, he spoke Greek, he was "Greek." Note the quotation marks.

And Macedonia of the ancient world was not nearly as distinct from Greece as Macedonia of today is.

Which is weird... because the Greeks considered themselves vassals to an oppressor under the Macedonian throne, and have spent most of the last 2000-ish years telling everyone that would listen that Alexander wasn't Greek.

Probably the only reason they are mentioning it now, is because people are saying that Alexander is portrayed as effeminate... which makes the subjugation of Greeks somewhat embarrassing to the more machismo-challenged.

Ummm...it was indeed sucktacular.
The gayness didnt really bother me, other than my normal slight aversion to watching guys kiss.
Basicaly it was long, boring, AND historicaly innacurate.
I particularly liked the battle at Gaugamela where the Persians RAN the entire way to the Greek army, which promptly lost all cohesion and should have been cut to pieces, considering that pikes dont fuction well as individual weapons.
Though it did have funny points, like the part with the monkies.

So, guys are not allowed to show emotion especially in a life as passionate and emotional as Alexander's? Interesting.

They can as long as it doesnt comprise 2/3 of the movie in which I paid to see people killing each other :p

the greeks didnt find crying to be unmanly.

if you recall, at the beginning of the iliad achilles cries to his mother because agamemnon is being mean to him.

no one ever accused achilles of not being manly eh?

wasnt aristotle the tutor of alexander? *googles it herself*
yes yes he was

Big dissapointment. The movie was more about Alexander conquering young boys than the known world. I didn't go to see men kiss, I went to see some fricken awesome battle scenes. Stone could have hinted at Alexander being biosexual instead of making it a focus of the movie. And don't get me started about him pontificating throughout the entire movie. *yawn* Too much talk about Alexander "freeing the world" when it's more likely that he was out to CONQUER the world. Don't waste your money on the film, its a huge waste of time. You could watch the previews and have more fun than actually seeing the movie.

He was educated in Greece, he grew up in Greece, all his friends were Greek, he spoke Greek, he was "Greek." Note the quotation marks.

And Macedonia of the ancient world was not nearly as distinct from Greece as Macedonia of today is.
Actually it was significantly more distinct. When Alexander conquered the Greek mainlands, he wasn't called a "Greek" by the native. He was called a barbarian..."foreigner". Alexander used the ploy of calling himself Greek to keep the Greeks pacified, not because he was Greek. There is almost no debate on this subject among historians. Philip (Alexander's father) did not ever claim to be Greek when he expanded his kingdom, and it was only when Alexander began to absorb Greece that he ever claimed that Macedon was a greek nation. Alexander was not Greek.

I haven't seen the film, but remember that in real life Alexander actually was gay.

Actually it was significantly more distinct. When Alexander conquered the Greek mainlands, he wasn't called a "Greek" by the native. He was called a barbarian..."foreigner". Alexander used the ploy of calling himself Greek to keep the Greeks pacified, not because he was Greek. There is almost no debate on this subject among historians. Philip (Alexander's father) did not ever claim to be Greek when he expanded his kingdom, and it was only when Alexander began to absorb Greece that he ever claimed that Macedon was a greek nation. Alexander was not Greek.

Philip sent Alexander to Greece to be educated in hopes that Alexander would have a more legitimate claim to rule over Greece once Philip handed over his empire to Alexander (which Philip hoped would contain Greece by the time of his death). Alexander was "Greek" in that he spoke their language and worshipped their gods and shared their culture, but, in the strictest sense, you are right, he was not Greek.

And for this:

There is almost no debate on this subject among historians.

That statement only goes towards showing your arrogance. There is always excessive debate on any subject in history, and to say that the experts all agree is just ignoring those who do not. That's the benefit of being a historian; there's always more time to look back and re-evaluate things.

Philip sent Alexander to Greece to be educated in hopes that Alexander would have a more legitimate claim to rule over Greece once Philip handed over his empire to Alexander (which Philip hoped would contain Greece by the time of his death). Alexander was "Greek" in that he spoke their language and worshipped their gods and shared their culture, but, in the strictest sense, you are right, he was not Greek.

Wrong. Philip sent Alexander to Athens to be educated in the ways of the most powerful politicians of the known world at the time. Only in Athens could a man like Alexander be directly educated in how to rule, the proper ways to lead, etc. This is why he was sent to Aristotle, a man whose expertise was in teaching aspiring Athenian aristocrats the proper ways to rule/live (see: Nichomachean Ethics).

Philip also hoped that in doing this Alexander would learn to understand the Greek people better than he, so that he would be able to better conquer and administer it during his rule.

Now, for a couple other tidbits: 1) Alexander's religious views. Alexander did not follow the Greek religion for much of his life. Influenced by his mother's views, Alexander would constantly add new gods and mythologies to his own worship, eventually even falling into a deep belief in Egyptian rites and Persian gods. Alexander never truly held a real "Greek" view on religion, he was far too mystical for that.
2) Macedonian culture was not truly Greek. The Greeks as a whole considered Macedonians "barbarians" or foreigners as we would translate it now. Macedon had different religious beliefs, traditions, political situation, and military organization than the "Greeks".
[QUOTE}
That statement only goes towards showing your arrogance. There is always excessive debate on any subject in history, and to say that the experts all agree is just ignoring those who do not. That's the benefit of being a historian; there's always more time to look back and re-evaluate things.[/QUOTE]

Not really. Few to none debate that Sargon of Akkad was the first ruler in the Western world to create a true empire, that is, conquer areas and then install one's own officials instead of merely forcing oaths of fealty upon the former rulers. Nextly, few to no historians contend anything other than that Bismarck's usage of the term "united Germany" was anything more than a ploy to make it easier for his Prussian empire (well really the Kaiser's) to expand in the area without heavy international resistance.

The fact is, experts usually do not agree on motives, but sometimes things are so clear cut that they do. Alexander's usage of the name "Greek" is alike to Bismarck's usage of "German" in this sense. Both realized that this common cultural name would make administration and subjugation significantly easier, and both thereby used it extremely effectively. In many cases motives will forever be debated. Why didn't Attila sack Rome? Why did Croesus really attack Persia (or rather, can The Histories be believed)? Why didn't Napoleon use everything at his disposal at Waterloo, very likely knowing he was going to lose without doing so?

This is not a question like those. We know why Alexander did what he did, and there are no really other significant thesis' in this area.

All the debate on homosexual themes in the movie aside, Alexander was an exceedingly poor movie. The Ptolemy frame story sputters and dies right from the beginning, and the whole thing just tries to be more dramatic and profound than the parade of stale, empty dialogues it really is. Only two battles, both poorly shot with too much dust, fog, and the trademark Oliver Stone shaky cam. This is ancient warfare. I want to see wide-angle shots alá Troy, lines of infantry colliding... in short, the good stuff. Instead I get a battle in India shot primarily through a red filter that just screams "film school." Three hours, most of it involving royal intrigues that I just didn't care about because the characters were too flat, uninteresting and unlikeable.

Summary: Like Ben Folds in Song for the Dumped, I want my money back.

No, Troy was directed by Wolfgang Petersen.

Now Wolfgang should have been the one to direct Alexander....

Now Wolfgang should have been the one to direct Alexander....

I agree, although I don't see Alexander as the tragedy everyone is making it out to be. It was medeocre(sp?) at least

the greeks didnt find crying to be unmanly.

if you recall, at the beginning of the iliad achilles cries to his mother because agamemnon is being mean to him.

no one ever accused achilles of not being manly eh?

wasnt aristotle the tutor of alexander? *googles it herself*
yes yes he was
I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that people who are complaining about this movie being 'too gay' and not bloody enough aren't spending a great deal of time with Greek tragedies. Just a guess.

EDIT:Of course I'm a dumbass and didn't read carefully when you said Iliad and not referencing Greek plays, but as you said, the Iliad-which contrary to my original assertion probably many people here have read....I'll just go now....

I haven't seen the movie, but I wouldn't doubt Alexander's bisexuality. Perhaps Stone just took it to a bit of an extreme, which is why the greeks' panties were in large knots over this film.

People do know about the spartans right?

In any event, the rumor is that greek homosexual practices were different to those of today.

Flame away.

People do know about the spartans right?

In any event, the rumor is that greek homosexual practices were different to those of today.

Flame away.


They sheathed their swords in different places?

They sheathed their swords in different places?


That's the rumor.

(As a side note, apparently if you allowed someone put their sword in your brown sheath in athens you would loose your right to vote, anything else however was considered ok. I don't think the greeks actually had the concept of homosexual however.)