DVD Talk
Alexander: anyone else yet to be impressed? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Alexander: anyone else yet to be impressed?


Dr. DVD
09-16-04, 07:48 PM
Okay, me being the fan I am of historically based movies, I know I will see this when it opens. Also, I try to see every Oliver Stone movie just so I can take the ride he usually gives, whether it's good or bad.

While I know this movie cost in excess of $150 million, I really am not that impressed with what I am seeing from the teasers and TV spots. I have about had it with CGI armies charging at each other, and the armour Colin Farrell is wearing, especially the helmet, make him look like the great Gazoo.
While I think Oliver Stone's directing style is great for what he makes most of the time, I don't really see it having a place in a historical epic. I hope he doesn't try any of his pseudo acid trip stuff, but some of the shots I have seen make me cautious. FWIW, the scene with Alexander colliding with the elephant leaves me thinking: WTF?

Robert
09-16-04, 08:13 PM
Prognosis: <b>NEGATIVE</b>!!

FinkPish
09-16-04, 08:22 PM
I don't think I've seen enough in the trailers to judge this movie yet. Stone is able to make straight forward films: Platoon, Heaven & Earth, even JFK was fairly straight-forward.

Corvin
09-16-04, 08:22 PM
I've only seen the teaser, and while it didn't leave me impressed, it didn't leave a bad impression, either.

Sessa17
09-16-04, 08:25 PM
I remember literally obnoxiously laughing out loud when I first saw the trailer for this at the theater, especially when they show little Colin Farrel face to face with that elephant.

When on earth is hollywood going to tone it down with these epic movies, & these large scale battle sequences. LOTR topped it, nobody can match the scale & life like effects they achieved & all these movies constantly coming out with these battles are just so reduntant. Colin Farrel looks awful in this role, like high school kid with bleach died hair.

That said, like most movies I think look unbelievably stupid, I'm sure it will make millions, & be a huge hit.

FinkPish
09-16-04, 08:34 PM
Yeah, but who said that they are trying to top LOTR or anything? Alexander did actually lead epic battles, so to leave them out would seem a bit silly in a biopic. I'll agree with Colin Farrel looking a bit silly, but I've yet to see him actually act in this, so I'll reserve judgement until I see a bit more. Looks aren't always everything.

al_bundy
09-16-04, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Sessa17
I remember literally obnoxiously laughing out loud when I first saw the trailer for this at the theater, especially when they show little Colin Farrel face to face with that elephant.

When on earth is hollywood going to tone it down with these epic movies, & these large scale battle sequences. LOTR topped it, nobody can match the scale & life like effects they achieved & all these movies constantly coming out with these battles are just so reduntant. Colin Farrel looks awful in this role, like high school kid with bleach died hair.

That said, like most movies I think look unbelievably stupid, I'm sure it will make millions, & be a huge hit.


alexander is supposed to be a kid. He died at or before age 30. Only thing is that he probably had black hair in reality.

PopcornTreeCt
09-16-04, 09:09 PM
He's supposed to look silly, he's gay! (Ok, that might of been below the belt. He is Hollywood's version of gay)

And I say keep bringing on the epic movies! I just watched Glory the other night and though it doesn't match the battle sequences of today's epic movies it still delivers powerful raw emotion that has been absent from every epic movie since it, including Return of the King.

gmal2003
09-16-04, 09:18 PM
was extremely underwhlemed by the TV spot, kept think about a poor man's Gladiator, Braveheart, or Troy

Dr. DVD
09-16-04, 09:38 PM
I just fail to see how WB thinks they can possibly make their money back on this, especially with the amount they sank into it. I am certain this will get an R rating, and Troy didn't exactly tear it up in America. I guess they are counting on overseas revenue to make their money nowadays.

Domestically, I think this movie will be damn lucky to make $100 million.

PopcornTreeCt
09-16-04, 09:44 PM
I doubt this will have a hard time making its money back.

1. Coming out during "Oscar" season.

2. Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Rosario Dawson, and Jared Leto

3. It's not Troy

4. Oliver Stone

Dr. DVD
09-16-04, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
I doubt this will have a hard time making its money back.

1. Coming out during "Oscar" season.

2. Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Rosario Dawson, and Jared Leto

3. It's not Troy

4. Oliver Stone

#1 and #3 could be a positive, but #2 and #4 could easily cancel out those quickly depending on who you ask.

jaeufraser
09-16-04, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
I just fail to see how WB thinks they can possibly make their money back on this, especially with the amount they sank into it. I am certain this will get an R rating, and Troy didn't exactly tear it up in America. I guess they are counting on overseas revenue to make their money nowadays.

Domestically, I think this movie will be damn lucky to make $100 million.

Well, Warner's didn't really pay for this movie. Intermedia and a hodgepodge of foreign (lots of Germans I think) put this budget together, I think many of the same people that got the 170 million budget for T3. And overseas grosses...well, how could they not take those into consideration (barring the fact many of the investors are europeans anyway). Troy, while only grossing 132 mil in the US, has made well over a half a billion worldwide, so it really matters little that it disapointted in the US, it still was a massive hit. I can't imagine any studio would consider that movie a failure.

Nonetheless, I think this film has good potential. I have no problem with epic films, just mediocre or bad epic films (ah hem, Troy and King Arthur). The battle sequences seem to be a lot more extras than CG in this film too, and with Oliver Stone at the helm I expect something far more interesting than from people like Wolfgang and Antoine.

But at heart will be the story. if it's just battle here, battle there, sure it'll be an empty movie. But Stone isn't one to rely on action and spectacle alone, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The trailer looks decent, perhaps Colin looks a little silly but for some reason I don't doubt that if we saw the real Alexander, we might hold the same opinion. He was a young, bisexual world conqueror...odd person nonetheless. Nonetheless, I rest my faith in Stone who I have faith will turn in soemthing a cut above the normal. And, not to mention, there's quite an incredible story they're trying to tell here. Alexander was an amazing historical figure, someone who if we didn't know he existed, would seem like a made up character. That alone, and the pedigree behind the camera, give me anticipation for this film. And the trailer looks nice visually, though I doubt it really gives much from the film.

harosa
09-16-04, 10:24 PM
The new trailer kicked ass i thought.

Rogue588
09-16-04, 10:38 PM
links..?

movielib
09-17-04, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by al_bundy
alexander is supposed to be a kid. He died at or before age 30...
He died at 32 (almost 33). July 356 BCE - June 323 BCE.

FinkPish
09-17-04, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Rogue588
links..?

I don't think the latest trailer has been put on the net yet, but there are a bunch of goodies on the official site, http://www.alexandersoundtrack.com/.

I also noticed that Vangelis is doing the soundtrack for this. Spiffy! They have a sample of the theme here http://www.alexandersoundtrack.com. Sounds good, more like Yared's original score for Troy (of which I have the full score :))

Dr. DVD
09-17-04, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by movielib
He died at 32 (almost 33). July 356 BCE - June 323 BCE.


My history abbreviations are a little shabby. What's BCE stand for?

wlmowery
09-17-04, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
My history abbreviations are a little shabby. What's BCE stand for?

BCE=Before the Common Era.
CE- Common Era

They are the equivalents to BC and AD, used by many modern academics in an attempt to remove the taint of eurocentric religious basis for historical monikers. Of course, since the split is still roughly based on the life of christ, I think it a doomed act from the start (sort of like calling a squash a cucumber... close but no cigar).

movielib
09-17-04, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by wlmowery
BCE=Before the Common Era.
CE- Common Era

They are the equivalents to BC and AD, used by many modern academics in an attempt to remove the taint of eurocentric religious basis for historical monikers. Of course, since the split is still roughly based on the life of christ, I think it a doomed act from the start (sort of like calling a squash a cucumber... close but no cigar).
Sure, it concedes that most of the world counts in this way and that is not going to change. It throws us nonChristians a bone. :)

I first learned it in the '50s due to my Jewish heritage.

Sessa17
09-17-04, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by FinkPish
Yeah, but who said that they are trying to top LOTR or anything? Alexander did actually lead epic battles, so to leave them out would seem a bit silly in a biopic. I'll agree with Colin Farrel looking a bit silly, but I've yet to see him actually act in this, so I'll reserve judgement until I see a bit more. Looks aren't always everything.

Nobody said they are trying to top LOTR, I just said I'm sick of all these movies that have epic battles b/c they are all poorly shot & made when one looks at the LOTR movies. These large scale battles have all come so redundant, & where they were once the highlight of films, now they are boring since LOTR set the standard IMO.

Being that I find Farrell to be a horrible actor & annoying & that he looks like a gay teenager dressing up for Halloween, I think this movie looks laughably horrible. But like I said, I'm sure most here will ove it & it will be a huge hit.

Rogue588
09-17-04, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Sessa17
Nobody said they are trying to top LOTR, I just said I'm sick of all these movies that have epic battles b/c they are all poorly shot & made when one looks at the LOTR movies. These large scale battles have all come so redundant, & where they were once the highlight of films, now they are boring since LOTR set the standard IMO.Amen! It seems almost gratuitous now.

Michael Corvin
09-17-04, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Sessa17
Nobody said they are trying to top LOTR, I just said I'm sick of all these movies that have epic battles b/c they are all poorly shot & made when one looks at the LOTR movies. These large scale battles have all come so redundant, & where they were once the highlight of films, now they are boring since LOTR set the standard IMO.


I beg to differ. Braveheart set the standard. 100,000 CGI troops will never compare to a few thousand men in costume on a battlefield.

That being said, does Angelina get naked? I could be sold. That would cancel out disdain for Colin.

fumanstan
09-17-04, 11:25 AM
Not impressed here either.

And i liked Troy :)

Kal-El
09-17-04, 11:29 AM
Not I. I wouldn't follow Colin to lead a conga line in a bar. Much less to war. I like him as an actor but he just doesn't have that "presence" or aura as a leader. Also one of the worst-delivered lines ever in the trailer: "Conquer your fear and you will conquer death" :down:

FinkPish
09-17-04, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Sessa17
Nobody said they are trying to top LOTR, I just said I'm sick of all these movies that have epic battles b/c they are all poorly shot & made when one looks at the LOTR movies. These large scale battles have all come so redundant, & where they were once the highlight of films, now they are boring since LOTR set the standard IMO.

You seem to really have it in for this movie. We've all seen the same amount of footage from the trailers, and nothing I've seen leads me to believe that this one is "poorly shot & made," or that it is somehow redundant. Again I have to point out, Alexander led massive battles, so to me they must exist in this movie about his short life. It is obvious that you are sick of these big battle sequences, but how many can you name since LOTR came out that have made the whole matter boring? I can only name one. "Troy," but again that battle was in the original story, in fact it was the original story. I'm not trying to change your opinion, and I'm not necessarily standing up for the movie, because I'm not convinced yet either, but I'm not getting your point of view.

jaeufraser
10-02-04, 12:53 AM
http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/alexander/trailer/trailer_hi/trailer_MSTR.mov

New trailer for this one. I'm thinking this has potential to be pretty good stuff. No doubt there's more to this than just big battles (which also look good) and lots of Stoneish political intrigue. Angelina growling on all fours is nice.

Oh, and probably what excites me even more is that Vangelis is doing the music. This guy does film scores seemingly once ever decade, and the three I can think of are perhaps some of the best film scores ever, Blade Runner Chariots of Fire and 1492. 1492 was the Columbus epic, and wow, that's a truly powerful score. I can't wait to hear what he has in store for this movie.

Hokeyboy
10-02-04, 12:15 PM
I don't know what exactly the naysayers are complaining about. From the trailer, this looks great.

Oh, and LOTR's battles weren't that great, sheesh.

Rival11
10-02-04, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
and the armour Colin Farrell is wearing, especially the helmet, make him look like the great Gazoo.

:lol:

I actually plan on watching this when it hits DVD and I have no idea why. Doesn't look too impressive but it's good to see Oliver getting out of making movies like "Any given Sunday" - I still can't believe that flick was ever made.

DRG
10-02-04, 02:17 PM
I think Colin does a decent job as sort of a sleezebag like in Phone Booth or Daredevil (although I hated the forehead thing... would've been better as a tattoo). As the hero type he's passable but bland.

Tarantino
10-02-04, 02:30 PM
I think this movie looks jokingly bad. Colin Farrell just plain sucks.

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 10:33 PM
My problem with the movie, atleast from the trailer is the acting, it seems as though all the actors are over acting, especially Angelina Jolie and her accent, its almost funny, but I hope im wrong and the movie turns out to be a very well made epic.

Verbal Gorilla
10-04-04, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Blonde510
My problem with the movie, atleast from the trailer is the acting, it seems as though all the actors are over acting, especially Angelina Jolie and her accent, its almost funny, but I hope im wrong and the movie turns out to be a very well made epic.

I agree. All of Jolie's lines made me cringe. And Colin Ferrel certainly has had an uphill battle from day one convincing everyone he can pull it off. From the trailer, I am certainly not convinced. Hope I am wrong.

Dr. DVD
10-04-04, 08:35 AM
Is there a new theatrical trailer out there? All the ones I have seen end with that crazy shot of Farrell taking on the elephant.


Let me say that even though I seem to have it out for this movie, I don't. I will most likely see it opening day or night because I like this kind of material and I am curious to see how Oliver Stone will handle it. Heck, Stone directing a movie is enough to peak my curiousity as I am almost guaranteed a trip, what kind is always another matter. It just doesn't impress me at this point.

jaeufraser
10-04-04, 11:48 AM
Dr. DVD, there is a new trailer. Look at the link from my post at the top of the second page of this thread.

Otherwise, wow, I guess I just disagree with most ya guys. Yeah, there's a lot of very broad acting going on here, but well that doesn't bother me. Not every film has to have a low key asthetic, but I can understand why some might be bothered. of course, taken out of context it's really hard to say whether it is over acting or just an emotional peak.

Nonetheless I'm excited...Stone will bring a much keener eye to the politics and historical aspect of this story, and of course bring a different style as opposed to the workmanlike blandness of Peterson's Troy, which was good looking but overall not that great. So yeah I think this looks pretty damn cool, if for no other reason than...well....Alexander is a pretty damn good story! Colin looks a little odd, but it wouldn't suprise me that people back then would look odd to us.

Rammsteinfan
10-04-04, 12:07 PM
Personally, after seeing the new preview... I dunno. It still doesnt interest me all that much. Prob skip it or see it for $1.50 at the super saver.

Philzilla
10-04-04, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
alexander is supposed to be a kid. He died at or before age 30. Only thing is that he probably had black hair in reality.

actually he probably had blonde hair like most indo-europeans
all hail dayus pater

Dr. DVD
10-04-04, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/alexander/trailer/trailer_hi/trailer_MSTR.mov

New trailer for this one. I'm thinking this has potential to be pretty good stuff. No doubt there's more to this than just big battles (which also look good) and lots of Stoneish political intrigue. Angelina growling on all fours is nice.

Oh, and probably what excites me even more is that Vangelis is doing the music. This guy does film scores seemingly once ever decade, and the three I can think of are perhaps some of the best film scores ever, Blade Runner Chariots of Fire and 1492. 1492 was the Columbus epic, and wow, that's a truly powerful score. I can't wait to hear what he has in store for this movie.

It was a powerful score. Can't say the same about the movie.

dcprules
10-04-04, 10:45 PM
Since I'm an Oliver Stone fan (it's been way too long since he's done anything) and a Hopkins fan, I'm looking forward to this quite a bit. I did not even mind the early teasers, which pretty much consisted of Hopkin's narration and words on the screen.

This new trailer, though, has really gotten me pumped. I think it looks really good, and I have confidence that Oliver Stone has a very good movie on his hands (even with the release date shift).

Verbal Gorilla
10-05-04, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Philzilla
actually he probably had blonde hair like most indo-europeans
all hail dayus pater

You guys can predict hair color from places where many hair colors are common?! Can ya tell me what hair color some guy in California will have? Or how about Greece?

Giles
10-05-04, 02:25 PM
when Colin, er I mean Alexander yells "Do you want to live forever" or something to that effect it evokes the similiar line from Starship Troopers

jaeufraser
10-05-04, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Verbal Gorilla
You guys can predict hair color from places where many hair colors are common?! Can ya tell me what hair color some guy in California will have? Or how about Greece?

Well, in California it would be tough, but considering how singularly ethnic many areas were back in the day, I can imagine people could predict hair color fairly accurately. Could they be wrong? Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good guess.

Supermallet
10-05-04, 05:17 PM
Personally, I'm looking forward to it. Jolie's accent is kind of strange, but hopefully it won't be too distracting.

Did it look like Christopher Plummer was in one of those scenes?

Also, has anyone seen Reign: The Conqueror? It's an anime from the guy who did Aeon Flux, and it's a strange view of the life of Alexander. It's a stunning piece of work and well worth checking out for anyone who likes unconventional anime or Alexander The Great.

duff beer
10-05-04, 06:28 PM
I'll take the original over this one any day.

Dr. DVD
10-05-04, 09:52 PM
New trailer does look better. Jolie's accent doesn't annoy me as much as I thought it would, I just hope we don't get an Oedipus type relationship between her and Farrel. ;)

I did like the line about being a successful military leader is to not ask your men to do anything you won't do yourself. The same can be said for any leadership position.

decemberlove
10-06-04, 02:22 PM
1. troy was terrible. let's try not to mention that piece of shit ever again, ok?

2. LOTR's special effects are way overrated. anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epic movies obviously doesn't know much about films. i agree with Michael Corvin when he says that braveheart set the standards. LOTR ruined what braveheart achieved by their use of shitty CGI. Hero did a much better job than LOTR in that department.

3. i was really looking forward to alexander, i adore oliver stone and rodrigo prieto is one of the best cinematographers out there today. the first tv spot wasn't so hot, but the newest trailer looks much better.

jaeufraser
10-06-04, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by decemberlove
1. troy was terrible. let's try not to mention that piece of shit ever again, ok?

2. LOTR's special effects are way overrated. anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epic movies obviously doesn't know much about films. i agree with Michael Corvin when he says that braveheart set the standards. LOTR ruined what braveheart achieved by their use of shitty CGI. Hero did a much better job than LOTR in that department.

3. i was really looking forward to alexander, i adore oliver stone and rodrigo prieto is one of the best cinematographers out there today. the first tv spot wasn't so hot, but the newest trailer looks much better.

Next time you might want to qualify your opinion, rather than demanding people concede to it. Your bit on Troy some might agree with, your bit on LoTR many less will agree with, but they stand as little more than a threadcrap. We get it you don't like LoTR, but to claim anyway who doesn't think they're bad effects doesn't know film indicates that...well your'e arrogant and YOU don't know film. Lay off with the threadcrap statements.

Nonetheless, yes, Alexander does look good imo.

duff beer
10-06-04, 05:07 PM
I agree with decemberlove, CGI in LOTR, and in cinema for that matter is shit, utter utter shit. Whenever i see a gaping scene of 'glorious' CGI i think of a Pixar movie.

I'll take Braveheart battles over that shit anyday.

exm
10-07-04, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by decemberlove
2. LOTR's special effects are way overrated. anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epic movies obviously doesn't know much about films. i agree with Michael Corvin when he says that braveheart set the standards. LOTR ruined what braveheart achieved by their use of shitty CGI. Hero did a much better job than LOTR in that department.


-ohbfrank-

Did you see the same LOTR that everyone else saw; the one that one a bunch of Academy awards?

Next time it helps if you see the movie in a theatre instead of a Japanese bootleg on a 15" PC screen.

Dr. DVD
10-07-04, 03:01 PM
Good lord! Two big craps on LOTR and then what could be construed as a cutdown on another user.

Please, let's not let this thread turn into a flame war!

exm
10-07-04, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Good lord! Two big craps on LOTR and then what could be construed as a cutdown on another user.

Please, let's not let this thread turn into a flame war!

Agreed!

Michael Corvin
10-07-04, 03:22 PM
I will probably wait for video on this one but let me say I in no way was speaking down on LOTR. It was brilliantly done, and the CGI looks great. There is just no comparing it to something like Braveheart.

All that being said, Troy was decent(well Eric Bana was great). But in the wrong hands CGI is bad. Troy is a good example of this. Not one memorable battle. The only ones that were memorable were the duels. But I agree, just to claim something is shit is without any reason is nonsense.

duff beer
10-07-04, 03:50 PM
Even great CGI i think to my self " Why can't computers be kept out of cinema?"

Artman
10-07-04, 04:20 PM
From Dark Horizons:

There's something about a bleached-blond uncut Irishman playing Greek and heavily macking on a Englishman playing a Persian whose balls have been cut off that's just, at least on a curiosity level, fascinating. Still, whether the love scenes be as hot and heavy as the two "Bound" chicks or the most awkward smooching on-screen since Richard Gere and Jodie Foster in "Sommersby", the scenes apparently will be left in after all.

Late last week MSNBC reported that one of the reasons for the delay of Oliver Stone's "Alexander" would be to cut out the gay love scenes between history's most famous bisexual - Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell) and his male lover, the Persian eunuch Bagoas (Francisco Bosch).

Now, Warner Bros. Pictures President of Production Jeff Robinov said in a statement e-mailed to The Scoop - "That is completely untrue, Warner Bros. Pictures is proud of "Alexander" and thinks it is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. We've moved the release date, as we said earlier, to position it better for Academy consideration. We also want to allow ourselves more time to complete some of its ambitious visual effects. Any speculation that the Studio is trying to cut scenes from "Alexander" based on their depiction of the sexual relationships of the lead character is false and does not accurately represent the content of the film, which portrays Alexander the Great as heroic, and a man of his time and culture".

FinkPish
10-07-04, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by duff beer
Even great CGI i think to my self " Why can't computers be kept out of cinema?"

But why this hatred towards everything CG? Computers are like any other tool in filmmaking. If something is glaringly obvious as CG, then I could understand, because it would take you out of the movie. But if it is well done, then it can be almost seamless.

Dr. DVD
10-07-04, 04:37 PM
Why doesn't the studio just come out and tell the truth? They wanted to avoid direct competition with The Incredibles!

decemberlove
10-07-04, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Next time you might want to qualify your opinion, rather than demanding people concede to it. Your bit on Troy some might agree with, your bit on LoTR many less will agree with, but they stand as little more than a threadcrap. We get it you don't like LoTR, but to claim anyway who doesn't think they're bad effects doesn't know film indicates that...well your'e arrogant and YOU don't know film. Lay off with the threadcrap statements.

Nonetheless, yes, Alexander does look good imo.

actually, i said anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epics doesnt know film. i didnt say that about bad effects. and i certainly didnt say anything about arrogance. perhaps i implied ignorance about film, but certainly not arrogance. reading comprehension... it helps :)

look, i can understand how regular users think i'm here to start some type of flame war, or whatever, cos i'm new and no one here knows me. while i may be opinionated, im certainly not a troll. you'll see.

remember, this is an alexander thread and someone came in here attacking alexander by saying it cant live up to LOTR. you remember this, right? ok, thanks. it's not as if this was a LOTR lovers thread and i came in here with the purpose to tear those down.

anyway, i apologize if i came off too strong, but that's just me.

decemberlove
10-07-04, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by exm
-ohbfrank-

Did you see the same LOTR that everyone else saw; the one that one a bunch of Academy awards?

Next time it helps if you see the movie in a theatre instead of a Japanese bootleg on a 15" PC screen.

thanks for assuming that i saw them on a 15" monitor [who still has a 15" monitor, anyway?] but i actually saw all three at the theatre.

and just cos it won a bunch of oscars, i should praise it? sorry, im not a sheep.

the awards are a joke... they pissed on kubrick several times. that speaks volumes about their ability to recognize talent & creativity.

decemberlove
10-07-04, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Why doesn't the studio just come out and tell the truth? They wanted to avoid direct competition with The Incredibles!

ha. when do studios ever tell the truth? that would make too much sense. that's bad publicity, too.

FinkPish
10-07-04, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by decemberlove
actually, i said anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epics doesnt know film. i didnt say that about bad effects. and i certainly didnt say anything about arrogance. perhaps i implied ignorance about film, but certainly not arrogance. reading comprehension... it helps :)

look, i can understand how regular users think i'm here to start some type of flame war, or whatever, cos i'm new and no one here knows me. while i may be opinionated, im certainly not a troll. you'll see.

remember, this is an alexander thread and someone came in here attacking alexander by saying it cant live up to LOTR. you remember this, right? ok, thanks. it's not as if this was a LOTR lovers thread and i came in here with the purpose to tear those down.

anyway, i apologize if i came off too strong, but that's just me.

Just a suggestion, a brand new member coming in with an automatic condescending attitude isn't going to fly here. Tone it down a bit, lurk more, and you'll see. Not trying to suppress any personality here, but you sound like an ass.

exm
10-07-04, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by decemberlove
thanks for assuming that i saw them on a 15" monitor [who still has a 15" monitor, anyway?] but i actually saw all three at the theatre.

and just cos it won a bunch of oscars, i should praise it? sorry, im not a sheep.

the awards are a joke... they pissed on kubrick several times. that speaks volumes about their ability to recognize talent & creativity.

Even although I disagree about your LOTR statement I do AGREE about the Awards... Not sure why I mentioned them to begin with but it's one big Hollywood show with 0 cinematic meaning (well, to me at least). But that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

You know what it is: I'm glad everyone has their own opinion and like/dislike certain movies. That's great. But make sure you come with valid arguments; to me the argument that LOTR doesn't have good effect doesn't work. About it setting a standard for Epics is debatable. However I do believe it is one of the real epics out there. I grew up with the old Star Wars Epic and the LOTR series is the only one to achieve that same level. Guess it helps that I love Tolkien’s works.

Anyway, to each his own. As long as people respect each other.

wmansir
11-07-04, 03:07 AM
Am I the only one who's interest has been piqued by playing Rome:Total War?

Dr. DVD
11-07-04, 01:44 PM
If Alexander has a three hour running time, well ,more power to it.

However, I would just once like to get a sweeping epic movie from a big name director that can tell its story in about two and a half hours. Why does there seem to be a rule that if you want to make an epic worthy of Oscar contention it has to be three hours?

bhk
11-08-04, 04:22 PM
I'm not too worried about the battle scenes. It's the part in between the battles that I'm worried about. (Well unless it's filled with Angelina wearing little to no clothing).

jaeufraser
11-08-04, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
If Alexander has a three hour running time, well ,more power to it.

However, I would just once like to get a sweeping epic movie from a big name director that can tell its story in about two and a half hours. Why does there seem to be a rule that if you want to make an epic worthy of Oscar contention it has to be three hours?

Well, usually these epic stories are like...longer stories. Epic usually means large in scope, which usually translates to a story that spans a lot more than just your average movie.

Of course, 3 hour movies in general are a rarity, so I wouldn't complain. Gladiator was only 2 and a half hours, Troy only 2 hours 40 minutes.

Actually, come to think of it...3 hour epics are pretty rare. Let me think...Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, LoTR, Gods and Generals, Alexander now. Err...Help me out here there has to be more.

Nonetheless, these are pretty sweeping and large stories encompassing many characters and events. Epic doesn't just mean big battles and widescreen shots, they also refer to the size of the story, which usually translates to a longer run time. I'd have a hard time calling a 90 minute movie epic.

Fincher Fan
11-09-04, 01:59 PM
Like the thread title says, I'm still waiting to be impressed by anything I've seen from this movie. I'm hoping it will be good but I'll be going in with low expectations. At least this way I won't be disappointed (unless it really sucks)!

Dr. DVD
11-09-04, 05:51 PM
Anywhere they will be doing some advance showings of this? Also, when does the Vangelis ST arrive in stores?

Travis66
11-12-04, 05:47 PM
My friend works at a Regal theater and he told me that their schedule has Alexander running at 3hr 5 min. Also, have any of you seen the early reviews they have on aintitcool.com, because so far they are very, very bad reviews. I dont care, Im still going to see it and judge for my self.

Dr. DVD
11-12-04, 09:13 PM
Bad review don't surprise me. While Oliver Stone can make some good movies, he also tends to overindulge himself with what he can do with his budget.

All due respect to Ian Malcom, he is always so overcome with what he could that he never stops to think if he should.

Terrell
11-12-04, 09:22 PM
But why this hatred towards everything CG?

Well, it's the internet. Fanboys on internet message boards such as this love to whine about CG, because they think it makes them cool. I bet they weren't whining 10 years ago when new films like Jurassic Park were made possible only because of CG. Whining about CG has become so cliche it's pathetic. Hell, it's all fake any. Puppets, miniatures, CG, even sets, are all fake. It's all just an illusion. So who should give a shit about how it's done. I don't like LOTR either, but it's not because of CG or effects.

Somehow you just knew that one of the big franchises would make it's way into this thread, whether it was Star Wars or LOTR.

As for Alexander, not impressed at all. I have no desire to see it.

Verbal Gorilla
11-12-04, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Your kind is never impressed by stuff outside of your cubicle existence.

Tell me about it. And don't get me started on the Jews and the blacks.

Terrell
11-13-04, 02:39 AM
Only one of your kind could not be impressed by LOTR, Star Wars, or the attempts in Alexander.

-rolleyes- Get a clue. I'm quite impressed by the technical aspects of LOTR and Star Wars. But pardon me, weren't you the one whining about how you weren't impressed by this film or CG armies charging at one another?

As for LOTR, it was the story and characters that bored me to tears. If you can't handle that, then that's your problem. But I'm impressed by Jackson's efforts and the technical aspects of the films. Doesn't mean I like the film.

As for Star Wars, anyone that's been on here knows how big of a Star Wars fan I am. I'm a bigger Star Wars fan than you are.

I've seen Alexander's trailer, and it didn't impress enough to want to see the film.

I have no idea what pissed you off, but did I put that in simple enough terms for you to understand.

As for my existence, I've never even met you. You aren't even fit to question my existence.

what could be construed as a cutdown on another user.

Please, let's not let this thread turn into a flame war!

Pot, meet kettle.

Rivero
11-13-04, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Terrell

As for LOTR, it was the story and characters that bored me to tears.

and yet you loved The Two Towers. Weird.

Josh-da-man
11-13-04, 05:40 AM
The movie must really suck... all I've been hearing about it for the past few days has been Rosario Dawson's nude scene.

(Which, depending on just how nude she gets, would make this a must-own on DVD.)

Minor Threat
11-13-04, 09:11 AM
Rental.....

Dr. DVD
11-13-04, 02:58 PM
Terrell: I apologize for my judgmental comments. It was wrong of me, and I couldn't tell if you were a Star Wars/LOTR fan or not and I apparently misconstrued your message.

I will say that my bash on CGI armies charging at each other is not bashing the technology, but rather the overuse of it in movies. The CGI in LOTR was good, but I thought it was rather lackluster in both Troy and AOTC. Alexander may still be shoddy, but I will say it doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary.

Basically, what I am tiring of is someone making a scene of CGI armies charging and thinking that shot alone should make their film an epic. It looks as if someone decided what kind of battle scenes they wanted and wrote a movie around it.

Rivero
11-13-04, 05:20 PM
well from what I've been hearing the movie is short on battle scenes and long on dialogues, though word is the writing is not that great.

Dr. DVD
11-13-04, 06:03 PM
Does anyone in Hollywood invest in scripts anymore?

One would think with all they have invested in this movie Stone would try to churn out some decent dialogue.

jaeufraser
11-13-04, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Does anyone in Hollywood invest in scripts anymore?

One would think with all they have invested in this movie Stone would try to churn out some decent dialogue.

Well, Stone has spent nearly 10 years developing this project and script. Of course, time and money don't necessarily equal greatness. Of course, the only reviews I've read come off AiCN so we shall see.

BizRodian
11-13-04, 11:06 PM
I think this might be a good movie, but the trailers and tv spots I've seen don't make it look at all interesting.

DeltaSigChi4
11-14-04, 03:52 AM
I refuse to watch any trailers or t.v. spots just because of this. I can care less about 'em - most of the impressive trailers turn out to be really pathetic movies.

Terrell
11-14-04, 02:02 PM
I couldn't tell if you were a Star Wars/LOTR fan or not and I apparently misconstrued your message.

No worries Dr. DVD. We all sometimes overreact and get bent out of shape. Yes, I'm a huge Star Wars fans. Big as they come. I'm not a LOTR fan, but I was impressed by the technical aspects of those films. The story and characters just don't do it for me.

As for the CG, I think the CG work in the Star Wars, Matrix, and LOTR films is not only visually stunning, but technically brilliant. But rarely does it ever look real in any of these films. Close, but not real. The battle of the Pellenor Fields, attack on Zion, and the clone attack in Episode II are all technically and visually brilliant. But they don't look completely real. For one, they contain a lot of CG, and two, the technology just doesn't exist yet to create completely photoreal CG. Give it another 10 years.

Basically, what I am tiring of is someone making a scene of CGI armies charging and thinking that shot alone should make their film an epic. It looks as if someone decided what kind of battle scenes they wanted and wrote a movie around it.

No arguments. But in today's film world, it's a reality we have to deal with. Yes, Gladiator and Braveheart used real extras. But those battles had 3000 extras, at best. The battles in LOTR and Star Wars have tens of thousands of characters in them, and there is just no way to do that except with a lot of CG. You can't hire 10,000 extras, pay them, feed them, create costumes for them, and transport them back and forth to the shooting location. It would cost a fortune and would take more time and more man hours than any production could ever deal with.

Dr. DVD
11-14-04, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Terrell

No arguments. But in today's film world, it's a reality we have to deal with. Yes, Gladiator and Braveheart used real extras. But those battles had 3000 extras, at best. The battles in LOTR and Star Wars have tens of thousands of characters in them, and there is just no way to do that except with a lot of CG. You can't hire 10,000 extras, pay them, feed them, create costumes for them, and transport them back and forth to the shooting location. It would cost a fortune and would take more time and more man hours than any production could ever deal with.


I see your point. However, I cannot help but wonder how so many films made back in the 50s and 60s (the David Lean and Cecil B. Demille) managed to get so many real people yet that is not manageable today. In all honesty, the average moviegoer probably couldn't detect an overabundance of CGI and armies and wouldn't know to gripe. That's actually a luxury we movie geeks miss out on I fear. :( Of course you have to admit that some movies truly O.D. on on it.

Terrell
11-14-04, 08:21 PM
However, I cannot help but wonder how so many films made back in the 50s and 60s (the David Lean and Cecil B. Demille) managed to get so many real people yet that is not manageable today.

I could just venture a guess, but I would say money first and foremost. It was a lot less expensive to do a film like that back then. Couple that with the fact that far more people went to the movies back then. Today with the advent of DVD, home theater, and the like, a fraction of the people go to theaters nowadays, and the risk of a flop is just too great.

I would also guess that far fewer films were made back then than there are today. So maybe a studio would be much more willing to make a small number of big budget films. Today, studios make tons of big budget films.

I'm sure it could be done nowadays, but I doubt any studio would put up the money. Probably only for a sure fire hit. For instance, Lucas could have done it with Episode I. I'm sure he could made TPM with perhaps as many as 7,000 extras. He could have shared the budget with Fox and they could have given the film a 300-400 million dollar budget. Though I don't think for a second either would want to spend that kind of money. Not to mention Lucas has become far too rich and comfortable as a filmmaker, sometimes to his own detriment. He doesn't have to work as hard, so he doesn't, though I'm not suggesting making a Star Wars film is easy.

I certainly agree that Jackson, the Wachowskis, and especially Lucas could have found ways to cut down on CG. Lucas uses CG for things he didn't really need to. I would probably have a bigger problem with it if the CG in Star Wars was just awful. But since it's cutting edge work, it doesn't bother me. I do think Lucas needs to reign himself in at times. It's become too easy for him to create anything he can think of with ILM, and he puts it in the film, even though at times he shouldn't. Lucas is one of these, a million saved is a million earned people. I also tend to think that Lucas is trying to push ILM to it's limits, to see what they can do and how good they can do it. A pushing CG technology to it's breaking point in order to make it better.

I did read Lucas say that even though he always wanted to tell Vader's backstory, that the main reason he went through with making the prequels is so he could make enough money to do the projects he really wants to make, ie films more in line with THX-1138 and American Graffiti. Though I have no idea why he would need to make the money, since he already has a reported net worth of 3-4 billion dollars.

al_bundy
11-14-04, 08:38 PM
back in the old days even with inflation actors didn't make today's equivelant of $25 million a movie. With the salaries of some of today's big stars and their luxuries on the set, there isn't a lot left for SFX.

jaeufraser
11-14-04, 10:35 PM
Now, today we're not seeing films on the size of Cleopatra and ten Commandments or Ben Hur, but did those films really look so much more real? Sure some wide shots looked great, but then we cut to lots of shots of horrible blue screen and mediocre special effects. It's a trade off, and I'd say the CG today far outweighs any problems we have compared to movies of the older days.

Again, if someone makes a good movie with massive CG battles, then I'm all for it. How they do it doesn't matter to me. Too much CG in Star Wars? Where, I'm still curious which shots look so awful simply because they're CG, and also could've been done another way. Again, what ever happened to suspension of disbelief? There isn't a single shot in Star Wars that looks worse than the bad blue screen, faked night tint of many older classics, yet those things seem to get a pass. Quite frankly, many of the complaints we have basically say things look fake, but in truth we're talking about images that really could not be made save for exhorbitant cost or really couldn't be made at all.

And to think it's stars salaries that prevent movies from having massive sets is silly...that just depends on the movie. Did you guys not see the sets for Troy? They were freaking enormous, they built a damn city. or what about Titanic, they built a 90% scale boat! or Waterworld, they built a freaking floating city.

Terrell
11-14-04, 11:41 PM
It's a trade off, and I'd say the CG today far outweighs any problems we have compared to movies of the older days.

I would agree. There have always been problems with all the different visual effects techniques. Nothing has changed. There were problems with those older films.

Too much CG in Star Wars? Where, I'm still curious which shots look so awful simply because they're CG, and also could've been done another way.

Well, I don't think any shot in Star Wars looks even close to awful. In fact, it's as good as it gets from a technical standpoint and the shots are visually stunning. Considering the stress and huge workload ILM is always under with these films, I'm still amazed at the work they did for these films. But I think some people would like them to look like the original films and use less CG. I respect that thought, but it just doesn't bother me.

Quite frankly, many of the complaints we have basically say things look fake

Fake would be too harsh a word. So many of the things in these films are so far out of this world that it would be hard to define real or fake. I would say CG-ish. Some people would say hollow. It's different for every person. But it's not the fault of ILM, or Weta, or any other FX company. The same can be said of the Matrix and LOTR films, if we're going to be honest about it. Again, I would say technically brilliant and visually stunning work.

I have my problems with TPM and AOTC, even though I think they're pretty good films with so many positive aspects. But the effects isn't one of them. Different strokes for different folks.

jaeufraser
11-15-04, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Terrell


I have my problems with TPM and AOTC, even though I think they're pretty good films with so many positive aspects. But the effects isn't one of them. Different strokes for different folks.

This I completely agree with. The prequels are hardly perfect films, but the techinical credits on these films is beyond reproach. I can think of a few shots where Lucas' compositions seem a little cluttered (which I would imagine might be what people mean by too much CG) but, I agree with his sentiment I'd rather see strange looking worlds done in CG than another scene in some northern california forest.

In general though, I rally against the CG complaints because I really do enjoy the work these people put forth, and I find many of the complaints are just people who have issues with design or in general, with the movie themselves and lay the blame on special effects. I can tell you this, Troy wasn't lacking because of CG armies. It's what the director did that was lacking (imo), but quite frankly the technical work is great and I give the film credit where credit is due, since at least on that level I enjoyed the film. Of course, that same thing goes for Alexander. CG armies mean nothing, it's whether Stone uses those CG armies in an effective way to tell his story.

Dr. DVD
11-15-04, 08:00 AM
In all honesty, I don't mind good CG effects, and FWIW, Peter Jackson did a very good job of restraining from using CGI. A lot of the sets in LOTR were actually built and/or models, which surprised me.
I am just a proponent of CG being used to enhance what is already there and be a part of the film, not them BEING the film. Troy had a lot of good shots in it, but Terrell is right. Wolfgang Peterson is not a director of actors, and the script stunk to high heaven. I really hope that with Stone at the helm, we can get another epic movie with a decent script and acting, and given Stone's track record, he is more of a character study person than anything else.
This is why I think Alexander will flop in the U.S., it won't have an enough action. Sad how today's movie audiences seem to require their action in a non-stop manner for the most part (LOTR being the exception) and not wanting much character development.

jaeufraser
11-15-04, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
In all honesty, I don't mind good CG effects, and FWIW, Peter Jackson did a very good job of restraining from using CGI. A lot of the sets in LOTR were actually built and/or models, which surprised me.
I am just a proponent of CG being used to enhance what is already there and be a part of the film, not them BEING the film. Troy had a lot of good shots in it, but Terrell is right. Wolfgang Peterson is not a director of actors, and the script stunk to high heaven. I really hope that with Stone at the helm, we can get another epic movie with a decent script and acting, and given Stone's track record, he is more of a character study person than anything else.
This is why I think Alexander will flop in the U.S., it won't have an enough action. Sad how today's movie audiences seem to require their action in a non-stop manner for the most part (LOTR being the exception) and not wanting much character development.

I honestly don't care how CG is used, as long as those elements are used well. If someone wants to create the entire background with CG along with a fully CG character, fine by me, as long as the movie is good.

Anyway, I agree Alexander is probably goign to struggle. It's 3 hours, it's probably a lot racier than any of the other big epics (and I don't mean violence, which in general audiences dont' seem to mind, but sexually speaking there are things which might turn off a lot of audiences), and probably quite talky. But who knows...audiences are strange and might make this one a hit for all we know. They need it though...this ain't a cheap movie.

Dr. DVD
11-15-04, 03:07 PM
Even though I am sure the movie will wind up being another one of Stone's crazy a$$ works when all is said and done, I have to give him credit as a filmmaker. It seems like no matter the price tag or amount invested, Stone always seems to get his way as an artist. The down part is, the box-office of his movies (which more often than not ain't cheap) almost always wind up being a tank (not a flop, just a disappointment in relation to cost). Probably why it has taken him five years to get another movie to theaters.

Dr. DVD
11-15-04, 04:30 PM
Well, the below review seems to pretty much confirms my suspicions. This is from IMDB.

I saw Alexander tonight, at what was the first large public screening of the movie, and is it a stinker. It's virtually incoherent, Alex speaks with an Irish brogue, his mother (Angelina Jolie) speaks with a vague Russian accent, it's violent as all hell..but amazingly not exciting. The battle scenes are impossible to figure out, and the film goes on wayyyy too long. Several people walked out of the screening. The tone and amazingly stiff clichéd dialog go back to the Joe Levine sword and sandal epics of the 1950's and 60's, the ones that were dubbed from Italian. I can't believe Stone wrote and directed this dreck. I normally enjoy his movies; they're certainly never boring. But this one is a snooze-a-thon. I see huge losses and empty theaters once the word gets out on this bomb. Oliver, go back to what you know, provocative modern day stories.

Rivero
11-16-04, 03:59 AM
ah he's just pissed that Stone left in the homoerotic tension.

Dr. DVD
11-16-04, 08:04 AM
The sad thing is, Stone's use of old "sword and sandal" type dialogue might be intentional and "true to his vision!"



Okay, this is a departure for me to say something like this, but I don't care who you are as a filmmaker, when you are given something of this size, you should feel obligated to make something that is at least viewable and coherent. I mean come on! He was given over $150 million from various investors, and I am sure they expect some sort of return, even if they are pretty much foreign.
While I like directors being given control of their movies, I do not like it when they seem to treat the movie and sets like their own private little student film or plaything. Artistry has its merit, but it's always nice to make some money for both yourself and the people you're working for.
I will make a prediction that after this, Stone is going to have a hell of a time getting any movie with a decent sized budget greenlit.

Dr. DVD
11-16-04, 08:08 AM
And one other thing, if there is a shot of Alexander having an acid dream and taboo relations with his mommie while some guy dressed as a Native American dances around in the background, I will leave the theater! ;)

jaeufraser
11-16-04, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
The sad thing is, Stone's use of old "sword and sandal" type dialogue might be intentional and "true to his vision!"



Okay, this is a departure for me to say something like this, but I don't care who you are as a filmmaker, when you are given something of this size, you should feel obligated to make something that is at least viewable and coherent. I mean come on! He was given over $150 million from various investors, and I am sure they expect some sort of return, even if they are pretty much foreign.
While I like directors being given control of their movies, I do not like it when they seem to treat the movie and sets like their own private little student film or plaything. Artistry has its merit, but it's always nice to make some money for both yourself and the people you're working for.
I will make a prediction that after this, Stone is going to have a hell of a time getting any movie with a decent sized budget greenlit.

Come on, that's just one review. I've read reviews on this one that were positive too, so this is hardly the only opinion out there. And quite frankly I have no problem with directors treating sets like their own private film...they are the auteur, and for the top talents, who wants execs butting in and giving bad ideas? Do you really think Kubrick was a collaborator?

Anyway, it's too early to judge off one review. I've seen them go both way, and knowing Stone's type of filmmaking I'm not surprised some people would be turned off. You're talking like this movie has been released and bombed already, it's too early to say whether their investment paid off (and quite frankly, that's the least of my concerns.)

Dr. DVD
11-16-04, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Come on, that's just one review. I've read reviews on this one that were positive too, so this is hardly the only opinion out there. And quite frankly I have no problem with directors treating sets like their own private film...they are the auteur, and for the top talents, who wants execs butting in and giving bad ideas? Do you really think Kubrick was a collaborator?

Anyway, it's too early to judge off one review. I've seen them go both way, and knowing Stone's type of filmmaking I'm not surprised some people would be turned off. You're talking like this movie has been released and bombed already, it's too early to say whether their investment paid off (and quite frankly, that's the least of my concerns.)

I really want this movie to do well enough to merit more like it, but Stone's filmmaking always leaves me feeling, well, dizzy. With the exception of JFK and his first two films, it seems like everything he does is influenced by heavy drugs or have sequences that look as though they were made under the influence. Maybe it's just me.

jaeufraser
11-16-04, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
I really want this movie to do well enough to merit more like it, but Stone's filmmaking always leaves me feeling, well, dizzy. With the exception of JFK and his first two films, it seems like everything he does is influenced by heavy drugs or have sequences that look as though they were made under the influence. Maybe it's just me.

I wouldn't worry too much about the genre. The historical epic has proven itself to be quite profitable. Just look at Troy (yes, it's based on a myth but I don't think Hollywood sees it very differently). It wasn't even that good and it still made craploads of money, pretty much ensuring that we'll continue to see these types of mvoies.

Now, with regard to Stone, I agree his fimmaking style is as of recent years very, well, drug induced it seems (word has it he was on acid a lot during the filming of NBK). But, on the other hand, this is the film he's wanted to make since film school, so I don't imagine it'll be quite the same as his other films.

Not to mention we've got a few more of these lined up, whether it be Ridley Scott's upcoming Kingdom of Heaven or Vin Diesel's Hannibal, the genre seems to be alive and well. I agree, I'd love to see more and Alexander hitting big will all but keep that train rolling. But I wouldn't be too concerned with it, unless this bombs big time, along with the upcoming ones too.

buckee1
11-16-04, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by fumanstan
Not impressed here either.

And i liked Troy :)

Same here but, I disliked Troy as well so...go figure.

Dr. DVD
11-17-04, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I wouldn't worry too much about the genre. The historical epic has proven itself to be quite profitable. Just look at Troy (yes, it's based on a myth but I don't think Hollywood sees it very differently). It wasn't even that good and it still made craploads of money, pretty much ensuring that we'll continue to see these types of mvoies.




Uh..Troy didn't even make back its budget, unless you're counting worldwide grosses.

jaeufraser
11-17-04, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Uh..Troy didn't even make back its budget, unless you're counting worldwide grosses.

Well why wouldn't you count the worldwide grosses? You think studios determine these things solely on US box office? I mean Troy might have disapointted here, but it made like 400 million overseas. Same thing with Last Samurai, moderate grosses here, HUGE grosses overseas.

Troy:
US: 133 million
Overseas: 364 million

Last Samurai
US: 111 million
Overseas: 345 million

Overall, Troy even made more money than Gladiator did, and WAY more than Braveheart did (Braveheart didn't even make 100 million in the US). These studios aren't stupid, of course they consider worldwide grosses and DVD. Troy would have never been given a 200 million dollar budget if it weren't for the international market (where Cruise and especially PItt are even more popular than here).

They might've not reached expectations, but they still made a shitload of money off of these. And no, most films do not make that type of money overseas, so I think that ensures this type of movie continually being made. Another bright side is, Warner Brothers isn't footing the bill on Alexander, instead its financed the same way Terminator 3 was.

Dr. DVD
11-18-04, 08:21 AM
You're right, both Troy and Last Samurai did well overseas. However, they both had huge stars in Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise respectively, just like T3 had Arnold.
Colin Farrell, on the other hand, does not seem to have the same kind of international following, though I am sure international audiences will be wowed by the spectacle.

On a side not, does anybody have the Vangelis soundtrack to this movie yet? I am thinking of getting it and always like music done by him.

Giles
11-18-04, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD

On a side not, does anybody have the Vangelis soundtrack to this movie yet? I am thinking of getting it and always like music done by him.

oh I didn't know this.. (runs over to amazon.com)... :)

jaeufraser
11-18-04, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
You're right, both Troy and Last Samurai did well overseas. However, they both had huge stars in Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise respectively, just like T3 had Arnold.
Colin Farrell, on the other hand, does not seem to have the same kind of international following, though I am sure international audiences will be wowed by the spectacle.

On a side not, does anybody have the Vangelis soundtrack to this movie yet? I am thinking of getting it and always like music done by him.

Here's a good review of the album.

http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/alexander.html

I'm a big fan of Vangelis, so i was extremely excited to see him scoring a new film. His last movie score, 1492, is one of the best damn movie scores I've ever heard. I've listened to that thing so many times. I'm excited to hear what he does with this one.

Giles
11-19-04, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Here's a good review of the album.

http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/alexander.html

I'm a big fan of Vangelis, so i was extremely excited to see him scoring a new film. His last movie score, 1492, is one of the best damn movie scores I've ever heard. I've listened to that thing so many times. I'm excited to hear what he does with this one.

if your a fan of Vangelis, also check out the artist Kitaro and his magnificent score for Oliver Stone's "Heaven & Earth"

Dr. DVD
11-20-04, 07:45 PM
A little bump for those who might catch any advance showings this weekend.

Dr. DVD
11-24-04, 09:35 AM
Well, judging from the reviews, I'm not the only one yet to be impressed. I will still catch this movie more or less out of morbid curiousity.

fryinpan1
11-24-04, 09:42 AM
I loved Troy, The Last Samurai, and Gladiator, but I will just wait for the Alexander DVD release.

slop101
11-24-04, 10:52 AM
With an abysmal 17% on RT, here are some entertaining review excerpts for Alexander:

"Farrell often looks constipated, like he needs to get off that horse and hit the commode as opposed to hold onto his troops or his audience."

"Even at the end of three hours, the accents still never stopped being an annoyance. "

"A horrendously bad movie, a genuine 40-car pile-up of literally epic proportions, a three-way head-on collision of bad writing, bad acting, and bad direction."

"So awful that it's almost good."

"I respect Stone as a filmmaker, but this movie is punishment rather than entertainment."

"So misconceived, so shrill, so fetishy is Oliver Stone's epic, so unintentionally hilarious a stew of paganism and Freudianism, that it makes Conan the Barbarian look like Gladiator."

"It is such a majestic disaster, that I have a bizarre sort of affection for it, like for a weirdly deformed child, maybe."

"With its rampant homoeroticism, elaborate costumes and jumbled fight choreography, one would assume this is a Joel Schumacher flick not an Oliver Stone production."

"An enormous cinematic mess. Alexander is not so much mind-numbingly boring as it is intriguingly nonsensical."

"It's a perplexing muddle: Every moment of spectacular battlefield action is offset by unintentionally hilarious scenes from Alexander's private life."

"Oliver Stone doesn't just create trainwrecks. He knocks the train off the rails, sets it on fire, then kills every person onboard. (And takes three hours to do it.)"

"You could literally chop Alexander up into six 30-minute blocks, reassemble it at random, and the movie would make the exact same amount of sense (i.e. none). "

"Puerile writing, confused plotting and shockingly off-note performances make Oliver Stone's epic film a disappointment."

scott shelton
11-24-04, 11:17 AM
Ebert

review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041123/REVIEWS/41105003)

"When the mighty fall, it is from a greater height. So it was with Alexander the Great, and so it is with Oliver Stone's 'Alexander.' Here is an ambitious and sincere film that fails to find a focus for its elusive subject."

Film Jerk

review (http://www.filmjerk.com/new/article-1114--0-0.html)

"A once deliberate, respectful, and nuanced filmmaker, Oliver Stone has fully abandoned his sense of magic and precision. 'Alexander' is an ambitious stab from the filmmaker at a traditional epic and historical bio-pic, but it cracks under the weight of Stone’s limited imagination and aborted execution."

fryinpan1
11-24-04, 11:36 AM
I knew I would skip the theatrical release, but with these poor reviews, I may skip the DVD too.

USA Today
* 1/2 out of four
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-11-23-alexander_x.htm

Geofferson
11-24-04, 01:41 PM
Wow - not sure whether I'll still see this one over the holiday weekend now.

Kal-El
11-24-04, 01:44 PM
The local paper gave it one star with the heading "not so great". I'll still probably catch a matinee or something though.

Joe Molotov
11-24-04, 01:54 PM
Wow, the critics are really taking a broadsword to this movie. I was hoping for a historical epic that would at least be better than Troy, but it look like I'll have to keep hoping.

scott shelton
11-24-04, 07:04 PM
Not that I condone his bullshit, but Ms. Knowles liked it:

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=18886

Of course, he was smug about it, and ripped on film critics for not liking it - typical ass behavior.

Now we have to deal with months of Harry up on his cross about this film... :(

Rivero
11-25-04, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by slop101
"So misconceived, so shrill, so fetishy is Oliver Stone's epic, so unintentionally hilarious a stew of paganism and Freudianism, that it makes Conan the Barbarian look like Gladiator."
[/B]

Conan the Barbarian is better than Gladiator. Just setting the record straight.

Dr. DVD
11-25-04, 09:42 AM
"Oliver Stone doesn't just create trainwrecks. He knocks the train off the rails, sets it on fire, then kills every person onboard. (And takes three hours to do it.)"


Dude, I gotta see this movie now! Like I said, morbid curiousity more than anything else. You would think someone would have tried to release some decent movies over this weekend, but both this and Christmas With the Kranks seem to be true, well, turkeys!!!
What's sad is that while Alexander has slightly better reviews than Kranks ( about 7% to 18%, nothing major to say the least), Kranks can probably still make some money off of families while Alexander will become an infamous flop. Stone will be hard pressed to get funding for future projects.

Maybe with time, this movie will gain a cult following like that of Showgirls and we can get a nice mock SE DVD.

Mulder
11-25-04, 10:03 AM
Maybe I'm in minority here, but I liked it. Indeed, it will be a flop, like Oliver Stone himself said in an interview recently- it's long, lots of discussions, far less action than thought (they skip some cool events in his life) and again, it's a historical movie, on a subject (not considering Alex's bisexuality) and in a field most people have no interest on. I saw it in DLP yesterday with about 60 other people and the thoughts on the way out were mostly positive. If I have no interest in a movie, I will not go see it. Funny note, there is one particular scene where Mr STone did his trademark hallucinogenic trip (no joke) and it almost reminded me of some fusion between his acid episodes and a Kubrick period piece (does this make sense?). Give this a chance guys, it's not the greatest movie, but I've seen worse, we all have.

Duder
11-25-04, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Mulder
Give this a chance guys, it's not the greatest movie, but I've seen worse, we all have.

"I've seen worse" is hardly the ringing endorsement that gets me off my rear and to the theater ASAP. :p

Patrick G
11-25-04, 02:36 PM
How are the Rosario Dawson nude scenes?

Mulder
11-25-04, 04:08 PM
She is gorgeous...though the scenes are not nearly as revealing as I've been led on to believe.

Rivero
11-25-04, 06:40 PM
seeing this tonight. Not expecting the best but it can't be as boring as Troy.

Dr. DVD
11-25-04, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
seeing this tonight. Not expecting the best but it can't be as boring as Troy.


Famous last words ;)

Terrell
11-25-04, 07:18 PM
Conan the Barbarian is better than Gladiator.

I know Conan the Barbarian has become sort of a cult favorite, but it really is an awful film. It's not even in the same universe as Gladiator.

movielib
11-25-04, 08:31 PM
I just saw Alexander. Not all that good but certainly not horrible. I just finished reading The Virtues of War, an historical novel about Alexander by Steven Pressfield (author of the superb Gates of Fire about the 300 Spartans at Themopylae). Of course, Stone's movie is not based on The Virtues of War which was just published last month. It was interesting to see the contrasting parts of Alexander's life which Pressfield and Stone chose to emphasize, and also the different ways they told the story. Both are works of fiction but I have no doubt that Pressfield's Alexander is closer to the "real" Alexander than Stone's. Also, the book is simply quite a bit better than the film.

Given the movie's near three hour length I wish Stone had chosen to include more that Pressfield included and less of stuff that's not very compelling and is quite dubious historically. Also, I'm not sure Colin Farrell and some of the other roles were all that well cast. Also, some of Stone's cinematic gimmickry which played quite well in films like Natural Born Killers or JFK seemed very out of place here.

**/ ****.

jaeufraser
11-25-04, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Terrell
I know Conan the Barbarian has become sort of a cult favorite, but it really is an awful film. It's not even in the same universe as Gladiator.

I've got to disagree. Conan is far from an awful film, Destroyer on the other hand. Granted, Conan isn't a historical epic the way Gladiator is, but I'd agree it's a more enjoyable film myself.

Of interesting note, Oliver Stone wrote the first couple of drafts of Conan the Barbarian.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0