On the one hand, congratulations for not derailing the thread by bringing up Michael Moore. On the other hand, is it possible for you to disagree with somebody without insulting them? Or bringing up politics?

Oh, I guess not.

PS: Maybe it's just because I went to one of those flaming Blue State universeries, but I'm pretty sure that somebody saying something is true based on a belief that they hold is *not* ironic.

I'm actually kinda surprised you don't like 'Any Given Sunday'. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but it's got a lot of good stuff in it. But from what I know of your taste, I think it'd be up your alley, if you haven't seen it. [The basic idea of the movie is that football players are the modern day gladiators.]

I think it's interesting when people go after JFK on the facts (but especially to say it's not realistic because you found out after watching, and enjoying, it that certain facts were false ... if you believed it while watching it, doesn't that mean it is realistic?). Granting that many, if not all, of the theories in it are absurd, I think 'JFK' does a fantastic job of capturing the mood and feeling of a pretty scary time period -- the aftermath of the first presidential assassination in sixty years, and the only one in the modern era. And it's difficult to say that a movie which states that Jim Garrison believed all these crazy things is inaccurate or untrue.

It's just too bad that Stone is completely nuts on the commentary track. I grant you that.

I'm curious what you'll think of it, but, honestly, this is a terrible movie to blind buy.

That's silly; you yourself proudly state that most of the country is intolerant of homosexuality and that any sort of expression of homosexuality on film is "cramming it down people's throats" which they're likely (not to mention "right", or at least "within their rights") to reject. I know you two don't share politics, so it can't just be a political belief that leads to that idea.

He blamed the failure of his movie on the American demographic because he's too thin-skinned to acknowledge that he made a bad movie. Reading 'Killer Instinct', I tend to think he's surrounded by yes-men.

I think it's unfortunate when you flaming Blue Staters cram your politics down the throats of people who want to read and talk about movies.

You feel offended because Cook County and Chicago and its huge Democratic political machine has a state-wide effect that doesn't necessarily represent the rest of the state? During the '04 election, the only blue areas were around the urban areas and a few college towns (where much of the student body is from Chicago). So my statement stands. If it weren't for the millions of Democrats in Chicago, Illinois would be at least a swing state as it was in the past. And after the mess Blagojevich has made of it, it just may be in '08.

I didn't bring up Michael Moore. I'm talking about Oliver Stone.

If directors and actors would leave their politics out of their work, so would I when discussing their work.

I did too and I considered myself liberal when I went there, but I couldn't wait to get out of there because it was too liberal for me.

I have seen 'Any Given Sunday' and I really didn't care for it, not because of the subject matter, but because it was a bore of a movie. Much like 'Alexander' might be.

Well, to be honest, I did believe the theories set out in the movie, but once I learned otherwise, I changed my mind on the matter, as anybody should when confronted with the real facts.

Well, it just may be, but I'm a sucker for historical epics. I'll give it a watch to see what I think about. I'm usually pretty leenient on movies on whether or not they suck, so I'll give it a chance.

I'm just going on the fact that everytime a pro-homosexual referendum or legislation comes up in elections or in Congress, it's struck down. 11 states had gay marriage on the ballot last year and all 11 struck it down, including the very liberal state of Oregon, so again, the American people aren't ready to openly accept the lifestyle.

That I agree with. Stone's ego has gotten the best of him and he obviously refuses to accept that he can make a bad movie. Quite frankly, when I first learned that Alexander was a Oliver Stone film, I thought, "Great, this should be good." But when it as creamed by the critics and at the box office, and he came out and made the gay "excuse", then that's when I lost all respect for him.

I'm not a flaming Blue Stater. I'm a Red Voter in a Blue State.

NO!!! I feel offended because you made a very broad generalization, as you usually do, and attacked anyone that might be living there with a derogatory remark regardless of political orientation. I happen to live in the same county.

Furthermore your deliberate attempts to deliver a political punch, anytime and anywhere you can (including your mandatory offensive signatures) was what ThatGuamGuy partially addressed...if I could assume on his behalf...yet again you act like you have no clue what he is talking about. And who cares what your political orientation is. Just act like a mature person (??) and even when you wish to deliver an out of context remark...act with a tact.


Regards,
Pro-B

This entire thing started with the second post and a reference to 'red staters'.

I also take issue with many of the 'liberal' mandatory offensive signatures.

Maybe we should keep politics out of the signatures.

Edit to add: Forgot why I clicked this thread. I'll get the DC.

I'm looking to get one of these versions tomorrow, so tell me exactly what is the diffrence between the two versions? Is it only the gay content or is it more than that? Can someone explain, then i'll make my decision on which copy to get.

Better?

What does the film Alexander have to do with politics and voting?

I blind bought the Theatrical from CH. I'll probably watch it sometime late this month. I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I love these types of movies and even though I'm sure there'll be parts I don't like, I know I'll probably like it overall. Everyone said Troy sucked too, but I liked it.



Stew

Nothing. So tell Stone that, and discussions like this about his movies would never happen.

Like I said, when directors and actors start leaving politics out of their work, I'll leave it out of discussions concerning their work. Until then...

You'll need a 4-discer. The theatrical cut is split over two discs, but the dc is not.

I couldn't care less what color state I'm in. If I was so insecure of myself that I thought a movie would make me gay, I'd just rent something else.

Why do some people have to carry on about every little thing when there are so many really important issues and problems out there to solve?

BTW, the movie is a bore, the only real reason to avoid it.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=16903

what are the odds of both versions coming out later in a two discer seamless branching?

Slim to none. Warner is very slow to reissue their titles.

Guys, drop the "red state"/"blue state" crap or I'll have to close this thread.

Since I have enough cash, I shall buy both versions, find a DVD case like the Back to the Future set, wait until someone makes a custom 3-disc cover, print it, transfer the inserts (if there are any), and then have my Alexander: Three-Disc Special Edition.

Well, they are all the same features, so the DC bonus disc is somewhat worthless.

Which cut has more of Angelina?

If I were to get one I would get the Theatrical Cut.

I'll wait for the third version with plenty of full frontal Colin and male/male lovin'

Theatrical.

woohoo!

TC for me as well.