just watched 'Alexander'
11-26-04, 03:30 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
just watched 'Alexander'
Well, I just saw the film. If I had to grade it I'd put it in the B- /C+ viscinity. By comparison, Troy rates a C- or D with me. This line from Ebert says it all: "Here is an ambitious and sincere film that fails to find a focus for its elusive subject.". This perfectly encapsulates my frustration with the film, because this movie is sincere and it is ambitious, and the fact it contains legitimately good aspects and moments that reach for greatness make it's ultimate failure in the end all the more disappointing.
The Good:
- Music. Vangelis' score is terrific even when sorely underused for whole sections, especially in the middle of the film. At first I wouldn't expect his overdramatic bombast and synthesizers to mesh well with a historical epic set in these times, but I'm now seriously considering picking up the soundtrack to hear all the stuff that was left out. At times it's like many of the movie's less than compelling scenes aren't good enough to have this music accompany them.
- Cinematography. Maybe seeing this on a DLP digitally projected screen had something to do with it, but I think the movie looks fantastic. It's lush and detailed and far more picturesque in parts than I was expecting. CGI is used in this film much more effectively than in similar scenes in movies like Gladiator and Troy. Compare the scenes when Alexander first enters the city of Babylon with the tan-tinged scenes of Rome and overhead shots of the Colosseum in Gladiator. The difference is clear as night and day.
- Acting. Decent, solid work from the cast all-around. People are saying Colin Farrell looks ridiculous. He doesn't have the presence of a commander. Lacks charisma. To this I say....um, yeah...and? One of the main themes of the film is how difficult it is for him to inspire the very men he needs to help him attain his goals. How hard it is for his own followers to follow him especially when beset by conspiracies and attempts on his leadership. Farrell does a competent if unspectacular job here. If I have any misgivings with his performance it has more to do with how he is written and what he's given to work with. Some of his lines are ridiculously cheesy and I did not care for the fact that Alexander seems to burst into tears every ten minutes for the entire film. At certain points you just wish he'd stop acting so weak and indecisive and be a leader.
The Bad:
- Not enough of the conquering hero. Alexander had won many battles before he had even reached Gaugemala, the first and only full-scale confrontation in the film. I do appreciate that Stone decides to forego endless battle scenes to exploring his complexities and relationships, but in a movie about this most famous of Generals there should have been a middle ground. The first hour of exposition is quite good, but around the middle of hour two the unfocused sloppiness of the narrative is too evident to dismiss and there's still more than an hour left to go. This story should have been told with simple broad strokes covering his ten-year campaign that ultimately conquered the Persian Empire and much of the known world that would make up modern-day Egypt, India, Afghanistan, etc. Instead we get bogged down with endlessly talky scenes of typical Oliver Stone psycho-analysis and whole passages of repetitive dialogues. Scenes like Anthony Hopkins' talking to the audience about Alexander's place in history simply drag the film out far longer than it needed to be and this, unfortunately, is the movie's undoing.
- Alexander and Hephaestion's Relationship. Undercooked and pretty much forgotten in the latter parts of the film. Jared Leto doesn't do anything but pose, stand around and look pretty and show off his locks. I will say this, although this aspect of the story is under-realized, I commend Stone for pushing the overrall bisexual subtext of the film. Some are saying he chickens out, personally I was not expecting a scene where Alex declares his love for his childhood friend and neither were many in my packed showing. During this line several people got up and left.
- Some Incoherent Camera Work. The long shots of the armies at Gaugemala are impressive but once the actual battle begins it's damn near impossible to make anything out or understand any of the tactics being implemented. The 'Elephant Battle' is awesome, at least until the point where the scene switches to a washed-out white and bright-red so reminiscint of the 'Falling Leaves' fight in Hero it's as if Stone decided to do a deliberate homage to that Zhang Yimou movie. The difference is in that film the effect was painterly and exquisite and here it looks preposterous, Stone indulging in another one of his LSD-style gimmicks.
Overrall: In the end I think this film is destined to flop and be seen as yet another blotch on the latter part of Oliver Stone's once illustrious career. It is too long, too talky, and the film structure is too sloppy and rambling to connect with audiences. That said, unlike this year's earlier epic Troy, I do not regret seeing it. The movie is ultimately a failure but an often fascinating one with interesting ideas and moments that, while they don't add up to a cohesive whole, still entertain nonetheless. And once again, I applaud Stone for having the balls to portray the relationship between men in the Greek society of this era as bluntly as he does, if for no other reason then to take pleasure in hearing the squirms of the gutless bigots in the theatre.
Grade: ** (out of ****)
The Good:
- Music. Vangelis' score is terrific even when sorely underused for whole sections, especially in the middle of the film. At first I wouldn't expect his overdramatic bombast and synthesizers to mesh well with a historical epic set in these times, but I'm now seriously considering picking up the soundtrack to hear all the stuff that was left out. At times it's like many of the movie's less than compelling scenes aren't good enough to have this music accompany them.
- Cinematography. Maybe seeing this on a DLP digitally projected screen had something to do with it, but I think the movie looks fantastic. It's lush and detailed and far more picturesque in parts than I was expecting. CGI is used in this film much more effectively than in similar scenes in movies like Gladiator and Troy. Compare the scenes when Alexander first enters the city of Babylon with the tan-tinged scenes of Rome and overhead shots of the Colosseum in Gladiator. The difference is clear as night and day.
- Acting. Decent, solid work from the cast all-around. People are saying Colin Farrell looks ridiculous. He doesn't have the presence of a commander. Lacks charisma. To this I say....um, yeah...and? One of the main themes of the film is how difficult it is for him to inspire the very men he needs to help him attain his goals. How hard it is for his own followers to follow him especially when beset by conspiracies and attempts on his leadership. Farrell does a competent if unspectacular job here. If I have any misgivings with his performance it has more to do with how he is written and what he's given to work with. Some of his lines are ridiculously cheesy and I did not care for the fact that Alexander seems to burst into tears every ten minutes for the entire film. At certain points you just wish he'd stop acting so weak and indecisive and be a leader.
The Bad:
- Not enough of the conquering hero. Alexander had won many battles before he had even reached Gaugemala, the first and only full-scale confrontation in the film. I do appreciate that Stone decides to forego endless battle scenes to exploring his complexities and relationships, but in a movie about this most famous of Generals there should have been a middle ground. The first hour of exposition is quite good, but around the middle of hour two the unfocused sloppiness of the narrative is too evident to dismiss and there's still more than an hour left to go. This story should have been told with simple broad strokes covering his ten-year campaign that ultimately conquered the Persian Empire and much of the known world that would make up modern-day Egypt, India, Afghanistan, etc. Instead we get bogged down with endlessly talky scenes of typical Oliver Stone psycho-analysis and whole passages of repetitive dialogues. Scenes like Anthony Hopkins' talking to the audience about Alexander's place in history simply drag the film out far longer than it needed to be and this, unfortunately, is the movie's undoing.
- Alexander and Hephaestion's Relationship. Undercooked and pretty much forgotten in the latter parts of the film. Jared Leto doesn't do anything but pose, stand around and look pretty and show off his locks. I will say this, although this aspect of the story is under-realized, I commend Stone for pushing the overrall bisexual subtext of the film. Some are saying he chickens out, personally I was not expecting a scene where Alex declares his love for his childhood friend and neither were many in my packed showing. During this line several people got up and left.
- Some Incoherent Camera Work. The long shots of the armies at Gaugemala are impressive but once the actual battle begins it's damn near impossible to make anything out or understand any of the tactics being implemented. The 'Elephant Battle' is awesome, at least until the point where the scene switches to a washed-out white and bright-red so reminiscint of the 'Falling Leaves' fight in Hero it's as if Stone decided to do a deliberate homage to that Zhang Yimou movie. The difference is in that film the effect was painterly and exquisite and here it looks preposterous, Stone indulging in another one of his LSD-style gimmicks.
Overrall: In the end I think this film is destined to flop and be seen as yet another blotch on the latter part of Oliver Stone's once illustrious career. It is too long, too talky, and the film structure is too sloppy and rambling to connect with audiences. That said, unlike this year's earlier epic Troy, I do not regret seeing it. The movie is ultimately a failure but an often fascinating one with interesting ideas and moments that, while they don't add up to a cohesive whole, still entertain nonetheless. And once again, I applaud Stone for having the balls to portray the relationship between men in the Greek society of this era as bluntly as he does, if for no other reason then to take pleasure in hearing the squirms of the gutless bigots in the theatre.
Grade: ** (out of ****)
Last edited by Rivero; 11-26-04 at 06:29 AM.
11-26-04, 12:51 PM
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rogue588
Yeah, that's all fine and good, but how did Rosario look nekkid?
Yeah, that's all fine and good, but how did Rosario look nekkid?
Rosario looked great though, and I didn't know she was that stacked.
11-26-04, 04:45 PM
#5
DVD Talk Limited Edition
This movie was a mess....and one of Stones worst outings.
It did have one redeemable quality...the score was very well done.
From the first few minutes of the movie I realized this was not very well done.
The special effects were bad....the opening sequence looked fake. There were also some indoor sets where I was looking for a mic hanging down...they were that transparent and obvious.
As stated..the pacing was very poor. The flashbacks and flash forwards were terrible...timing wise. The one piece I wanted to see at the beginning....was actually done as a flashback at the end!!!
The last hour or so was better....but still not good.
I almost walked out....but I decided to see how Stone ended it. Like I said...the last hour was better...seemingly better dialog and cinematography.
Overall a 1 of 4. It was an epic...and the score was good...but this is worth a rental at most in my book.
Just my opinion folks.....just my opinion.
It did have one redeemable quality...the score was very well done.
From the first few minutes of the movie I realized this was not very well done.
The special effects were bad....the opening sequence looked fake. There were also some indoor sets where I was looking for a mic hanging down...they were that transparent and obvious.
As stated..the pacing was very poor. The flashbacks and flash forwards were terrible...timing wise. The one piece I wanted to see at the beginning....was actually done as a flashback at the end!!!
Spoiler:
The last hour or so was better....but still not good.
I almost walked out....but I decided to see how Stone ended it. Like I said...the last hour was better...seemingly better dialog and cinematography.
Overall a 1 of 4. It was an epic...and the score was good...but this is worth a rental at most in my book.
Just my opinion folks.....just my opinion.
Last edited by FiveO; 11-26-04 at 04:47 PM.
11-26-04, 09:39 PM
#7
DVD Talk Hero
I suggest the alternate title to "Alexander" be "Welcome to Master Over-acting Thespian Theatre".
OMG, I thought I was forewarned as to the suckitude that is this movie, but I was wrong. Yes, I stayed for all 3 hours, probably the minimal optimist in me playing a dastardly trick on me.
The film does do such a poor job in setting up the crew of supporting characters that nothing that happens towards the last hour resonates at all because they are just there to make Alexander's life miserable, but the viewer has no idea why they should care about the supporting characters, or their motivation besides the superficial one.
The accents are all over the place, Colin Farrell tries to flatten out his Irish accent, but it just comes off sounding Irish, but stilted. Angelina Jolie does more of a strange slavic/Russian type of accent that's so out of place, it's like she's from a different movie and stumbled onto the "Alexander" set by accident. I have no idea what Rosario Dawsom was going for with that accent she attempted to sound exotic and eastern.
The early battle scenes are pretty chaotic and nutty against a dusty backdrop, and the even nuttier battle scenes in the last hour in the woods is just bizarre and even more baffling in some respects.
The acting is so over-the-top and gag-inducing, the movie is overwrought, and overly long. The story is presented with little in terms of flow, and there is a flashback is so oddly placed, the structure of the narrative gets undermined. Since the supporting characters aren't developed all that well, the drive of such grand ambition by Alexander never gives the endeavor of conquering eastward the world any real true worth, it gets reduced to a "well, because he can" affirmation of his worth as a king.
Unless you need the sleep, stay away from this movie.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
OMG, I thought I was forewarned as to the suckitude that is this movie, but I was wrong. Yes, I stayed for all 3 hours, probably the minimal optimist in me playing a dastardly trick on me.
The film does do such a poor job in setting up the crew of supporting characters that nothing that happens towards the last hour resonates at all because they are just there to make Alexander's life miserable, but the viewer has no idea why they should care about the supporting characters, or their motivation besides the superficial one.
The accents are all over the place, Colin Farrell tries to flatten out his Irish accent, but it just comes off sounding Irish, but stilted. Angelina Jolie does more of a strange slavic/Russian type of accent that's so out of place, it's like she's from a different movie and stumbled onto the "Alexander" set by accident. I have no idea what Rosario Dawsom was going for with that accent she attempted to sound exotic and eastern.
The early battle scenes are pretty chaotic and nutty against a dusty backdrop, and the even nuttier battle scenes in the last hour in the woods is just bizarre and even more baffling in some respects.
The acting is so over-the-top and gag-inducing, the movie is overwrought, and overly long. The story is presented with little in terms of flow, and there is a flashback is so oddly placed, the structure of the narrative gets undermined. Since the supporting characters aren't developed all that well, the drive of such grand ambition by Alexander never gives the endeavor of conquering eastward the world any real true worth, it gets reduced to a "well, because he can" affirmation of his worth as a king.
Unless you need the sleep, stay away from this movie.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
11-26-04, 10:18 PM
#8
Cool New Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pluto
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happend to Oliver Stone? I never thought he would dissapoint the way he did with Alexander. Even his weak films like U-Turn and Any Given Sunday were not this bad. Angelina Jolie sound like Bela Lugosi and Colin Farrell sounds like the Irish man he is. I must say, however, that I really liked the messy and chaotic battles. Even that part that turned into an acid trip was good. The reason they are good is not because they are brilliant, but because next to the rest of the movie they manage to look brilliant. I guess this means Oliver Stone is no longer the maverick director he once was.
ps: The one good thing Troy has on it's side is the lack of crappy accents. Other than that, I really cant see how one is better than the other. Lets hope that Scorsese does better with The Aviator.
ps: The one good thing Troy has on it's side is the lack of crappy accents. Other than that, I really cant see how one is better than the other. Lets hope that Scorsese does better with The Aviator.
11-26-04, 11:59 PM
#9
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
How was it compared to Troy?
How was it compared to Troy?
I liked Troy for the most part....and will most likely rent it when it comes out. Depending on how I like it again after seeing it I may buy it...if it can be had for $15 or less at Target/WM.
I will NOT be buying Alexander. I won't even be renting it.
In comparison I'd give Troy a 2 of 4 stars.
11-27-04, 08:49 AM
#10
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the music was a terrible miscalculation. I just wanted to turn that patronising, manipulative synth-bullshit off for most of the film.
11-27-04, 01:09 PM
#11
DVD Talk Legend
I enjoyed the film. Visually I thought it looked beautiful - TROY looked flat and bland in comparison. Sure the acting is overblown in spots, but in a film like this it didn't feel too out of place. Whether the battles were intentionally confusing or not, well... who knows - not the best, but they do the job.
I liked the music and will definitely get the soundtrack. It wasn't too overpowering, but came up at just the right moments I thought. The movie definitely loses steam in it's second half, but the battle in India makes up for some of that.
*** (out of four)
I liked the music and will definitely get the soundtrack. It wasn't too overpowering, but came up at just the right moments I thought. The movie definitely loses steam in it's second half, but the battle in India makes up for some of that.
*** (out of four)
11-27-04, 04:24 PM
#12
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for everyone's comments. I wasn't sure on whether to go see this movie but now with the critics and everyone's input, I'm staying away from this film. Probably will go watch Finding Neverland instead. Thanks.
11-27-04, 07:36 PM
#13
DVD Talk Hero
What a mess
The jumping back and forth really throws off the pacing of the movie and I don't understand why it was done.
Most of the scenes went on much to long and usually ended up with someone in tears.
I could see opening and closing the movie with Ptolemy and having Hopkins narrate over parts, but cutting to him during the movie souldn't have been done.
The jumping back and forth really throws off the pacing of the movie and I don't understand why it was done.
Most of the scenes went on much to long and usually ended up with someone in tears.
I could see opening and closing the movie with Ptolemy and having Hopkins narrate over parts, but cutting to him during the movie souldn't have been done.
11-27-04, 09:48 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awful, awful movie. Worst ensemble acting of the year, by far. What in the hell was Oliver Stone thinking of when he let Angelina Jolie loose with such a horrid performance? The movie was just one big jumbled, chaotic mess. Should fare quite well, however, in the Golden Raspberry Awards at year's end.
11-27-04, 09:50 PM
#15
Originally posted by QuikSilver
Thanks for everyone's comments. I wasn't sure on whether to go see this movie but now with the critics and everyone's input, I'm staying away from this film. Probably will go watch Finding Neverland instead. Thanks.
Thanks for everyone's comments. I wasn't sure on whether to go see this movie but now with the critics and everyone's input, I'm staying away from this film. Probably will go watch Finding Neverland instead. Thanks.
11-28-04, 03:40 PM
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Saw it.
Good music by Vangelis and cinematography with some obvious attention to detail in the sets and costumes, but overall, this movie sucked.
Colin Farrell was laughable to say the least, and while Angelina Jolie was smoking hot, she really overracts to the nth degree. Oliver Stone needs to get someone to tutor him on the art of trimming down what is essential to a movie, and he should have taken some advice from Robert McKee and not used so much voice-over narration to explain the conquests of Alexander. I would have liked to see some of these great conqests on screen, rather than a measly two of them while Hopkins told us of the outcome.
Stone said he thinks this movie will be a domestic flop, and it seems as though it already is one. In all honesty, I think it deserves to flop in order to teach directors like Stone and studios that a crapload of money does not guarantee a box-office success or a quality movie.
I give it a C, and it's a good thing the Vangelis score was so good or I would most likely be giving it a D-. I made a thread about how I was yet to be impressed by its previews. After seeing the whole thing, I can say I waited in vain.
Good music by Vangelis and cinematography with some obvious attention to detail in the sets and costumes, but overall, this movie sucked.
Colin Farrell was laughable to say the least, and while Angelina Jolie was smoking hot, she really overracts to the nth degree. Oliver Stone needs to get someone to tutor him on the art of trimming down what is essential to a movie, and he should have taken some advice from Robert McKee and not used so much voice-over narration to explain the conquests of Alexander. I would have liked to see some of these great conqests on screen, rather than a measly two of them while Hopkins told us of the outcome.
Stone said he thinks this movie will be a domestic flop, and it seems as though it already is one. In all honesty, I think it deserves to flop in order to teach directors like Stone and studios that a crapload of money does not guarantee a box-office success or a quality movie.
I give it a C, and it's a good thing the Vangelis score was so good or I would most likely be giving it a D-. I made a thread about how I was yet to be impressed by its previews. After seeing the whole thing, I can say I waited in vain.
11-28-04, 03:51 PM
#18
DVD Talk Legend
On a side note, do you think there is a chance that WB will offer this movie in a two-pack with Troy sometime in the future? The many references to Achilles, the siege of Troy, and that time period in general made me think that one could put the two together as a muddled history lesson. Better yet, a lesson on how not to make epics.
11-28-04, 04:40 PM
#19
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
On a side note, do you think there is a chance that WB will offer this movie in a two-pack with Troy sometime in the future? The many references to Achilles, the siege of Troy, and that time period in general made me think that one could put the two together as a muddled history lesson. Better yet, a lesson on how not to make epics.
On a side note, do you think there is a chance that WB will offer this movie in a two-pack with Troy sometime in the future? The many references to Achilles, the siege of Troy, and that time period in general made me think that one could put the two together as a muddled history lesson. Better yet, a lesson on how not to make epics.
I'm glad to hear the soundtrack was good htough. I love Vangelis, might skip the moive and just buy the soundtrack.
11-28-04, 06:08 PM
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Who knows. Thing is Troy looks to be a MUCH bigger seller than Alexander will ever be. The bright side for WB is, one Troy made shitloads of money, and two they didn't pay for Alexander. They might end up in a pack, but not anytime soon as Troy will probably be a big hit on its own.
I'm glad to hear the soundtrack was good htough. I love Vangelis, might skip the moive and just buy the soundtrack.
Who knows. Thing is Troy looks to be a MUCH bigger seller than Alexander will ever be. The bright side for WB is, one Troy made shitloads of money, and two they didn't pay for Alexander. They might end up in a pack, but not anytime soon as Troy will probably be a big hit on its own.
I'm glad to hear the soundtrack was good htough. I love Vangelis, might skip the moive and just buy the soundtrack.
Just getting the ST is a good idea, but the movie is a trainwreck that one has to witness to believe.
Also, I wouldn't call what Troy made worldwide as "shitloads" of money. I think it was about $360 million, but Spider-Man 2 made that much domestically.
11-28-04, 06:22 PM
#21
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Hey man, you're the one who said I shouldn't pre-judge the movie before I saw it(or was that Terrell?), so I did. Now you, who seemed to defend it, won't even go see it? Oh well, money is tight nowadays, as is time.
Just getting the ST is a good idea, but the movie is a trainwreck that one has to witness to believe.
Also, I wouldn't call what Troy made worldwide as "shitloads" of money. I think it was about $360 million, but Spider-Man 2 made that much domestically.
Hey man, you're the one who said I shouldn't pre-judge the movie before I saw it(or was that Terrell?), so I did. Now you, who seemed to defend it, won't even go see it? Oh well, money is tight nowadays, as is time.
Just getting the ST is a good idea, but the movie is a trainwreck that one has to witness to believe.
Also, I wouldn't call what Troy made worldwide as "shitloads" of money. I think it was about $360 million, but Spider-Man 2 made that much domestically.
Oh and I'm not going to skip it myself, just with the horrid reviews I'll at least wait a couple weeks when I don't have to pay for it (got some coupons) and when I have more time. I'm just not going to rush out and watch it right now, my excitement for the movie has definately waned with the reviews out there. Of course that's my definition of skipping a movie, basically not watching it right away. I watch everything in the end.
But there's nothing wrong with saying "that preview looks terrible." I don't think I ever said don't prejudge the movie, trailers and reviews exist so we can make informed opinions whether we want to watch a movie. Granted, if we never see a flick we can't properly judge its real quality as a movie, but we can use those other things to decide ahead of time whether it's worth the effort to find out. I did disagree that the movie looked sucky based on the previews.
11-28-04, 06:30 PM
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Also, I wouldn't call what Troy made worldwide as "shitloads" of money. I think it was about $360 million, but Spider-Man 2 made that much domestically.
And then when the DVDs hit, even more money.
11-28-04, 07:15 PM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
Yeah, Troy was rated R, and Spider-Man 2 wasn't. Basically it's going to be a while before there is an R rated film that makes over $300 million domestically. Even Warner Brothers knew that the film might not break even in the States, thus they were counting on international grosses more than domestic (Pitt is huge overseas and the rest of the cast was mostly not from America). And as one could tell, the film made almost $500 million worldwide total. Either way, still a shitload of money.
And then when the DVDs hit, even more money.
Yeah, Troy was rated R, and Spider-Man 2 wasn't. Basically it's going to be a while before there is an R rated film that makes over $300 million domestically. Even Warner Brothers knew that the film might not break even in the States, thus they were counting on international grosses more than domestic (Pitt is huge overseas and the rest of the cast was mostly not from America). And as one could tell, the film made almost $500 million worldwide total. Either way, still a shitload of money.
And then when the DVDs hit, even more money.
11-28-04, 07:42 PM
#24
DVD Talk Legend
Will Alexander be able to do well overseas? I don't think Colin Farrell has the drawing power of Brad Pitt yet.
Troy = Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom.
Alexander = ?
11-28-04, 08:50 PM
#25
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
While Troy and Alexander both have some pretty terrible reviews to their name, Alexander DOES NOT have ANY sort of the drawing power that Troy had overseas.
Troy = Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom.
Alexander = ?
While Troy and Alexander both have some pretty terrible reviews to their name, Alexander DOES NOT have ANY sort of the drawing power that Troy had overseas.
Troy = Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom.
Alexander = ?