i laughed out loud while watching this movie. i haven't enjoyed all of Oliver Stone's films so i'll give him this one. this movie left me wondering several things: 1) was Alexander's mother born before, or at the same time as her son?(and why did she go to a transylvanian voice coach?) 2) how much hydrogen peroxide was in the bleach Colin used? 3) did Val use plasticine on his face in the hopes of being unrecognizable? 4) did anyone go to the library to help with the pacing of this film? you know, those buildings with books in them? 5) was Bucephalous black, or white? did anyone care? (he was the best actor anyways) 6) if i had 9 figures to spend making a movie, would it have been this bad? (more proof that throwing money at a film doesn't do the trick) 7) did the people making this film know it was about Alexander the GREAT? did they know he was an extraordinary leader? or did someone tell them he was an angst-filled whiner? (see question #4) this film has my vote at the razzies this year for worst film. as i said i found myself laughing out loud. other leads turned the film down. if Alexander had been played by David Spade or Paulie Shore, i may have been more charitable of this mess of a film. please please, no more director's cuts or added footage...and by the way, i am a fan of most of the actors in this movie. what happened? but i stand by my statement about bucephalous. this animal didn't over-act, had a legitimate accent, and stood his ground with that poor elephant, who also gets a nod of approval from me. as far as i can tell, these are two characters who had no choice about being in this movie.
*arguabley "not bad" aspects of Alexander: 1)the desert/battle scenes, aka THE MUMMY 2)the blood looked real 3)employed a LOT of costumers for those thousands of outfits 4)the men looked better than the women (except Eva green) 5)mass carcass scenes post-battle, aka GONE WITH THE WIND, but not nearly as good. 6)not bad historical narrative by sir Anthony. otherwise, "huh"? 7)by all accounts, Alexander was a progressive and compassionate ruler, compared to his brutal times. much like Alfred the Great was ahead of his time in this aspect. 8)many "boys will be boys" scenes, aka BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but not nearly in the same league..nor universe, come to think of it... 9)some great busts, murals, statues and other art scattered around in the back ground 10)a zebra!! 11)one can forgive the globally conscious and compassionate Jolie for just about anything...
you may want to give it a watch, if you can get past the first few minutes. i only gave it a one based on the economy-busting amount of money that Mr Stone had to work with...perhaps i should upgrade my rating to, 1.01.
*arguabley "not bad" aspects of Alexander: 1)the desert/battle scenes, aka THE MUMMY 2)the blood looked real 3)employed a LOT of costumers for those thousands of outfits 4)the men looked better than the women (except Eva green) 5)mass carcass scenes post-battle, aka GONE WITH THE WIND, but not nearly as good. 6)not bad historical narrative by sir Anthony. otherwise, "huh"? 7)by all accounts, Alexander was a progressive and compassionate ruler, compared to his brutal times. much like Alfred the Great was ahead of his time in this aspect. 8)many "boys will be boys" scenes, aka BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but not nearly in the same league..nor universe, come to think of it... 9)some great busts, murals, statues and other art scattered around in the back ground 10)a zebra!! 11)one can forgive the globally conscious and compassionate Jolie for just about anything...
you may want to give it a watch, if you can get past the first few minutes. i only gave it a one based on the economy-busting amount of money that Mr Stone had to work with...perhaps i should upgrade my rating to, 1.01.