Alexander: anyone else yet to be impressed?
 

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?

Prognosis: <b>NEGATIVE</b>!!

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.

I've only seen the teaser, and while it didn't leave me impressed, it didn't leave a bad impression, either.

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.

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.

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.

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.

was extremely underwhlemed by the TV spot, kept think about a poor man's Gladiator, Braveheart, or Troy

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.

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.

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.

The new trailer kicked ass i thought.

links..?

He died at 32 (almost 33). July 356 BCE - June 323 BCE.

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 :))

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).

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Not impressed here either.

And i liked Troy :)

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: