ALEXANDER

[Temujin]

This movie sucked !

I went to the movie theater with the intention and expectation of finding out how they visualize the greatness of Alexander in the battlefields that is, and in strategy, war, combat and politics.

But what I got was only two short chaotic war scenes, which aren't even his greatest achievements and why he became great ...

.. and the remaining of the movie was filled with how great he was as a gay man (albeit being bisexual)... the gayness of Alexander .

I have no problem with gays, but Alexander is not GREAT because of his gayness.

[douggilmour]

This movie sucked !

I went to the movie theater with the intention and expectation of finding out how they visualize the greatness of Alexander in the battlefields that is, and in strategy, war, combat and politics.

But what I got was only two short chaotic war scenes, which aren't even his greatest achievements and why he became great ...

.. and the remaining of the movie was filled with how great he was as a gay man (albeit being bisexual)... the gayness of Alexander .

I have no problem with gays, but Alexander is not GREAT because of his gayness.

Guy, the Battle outside Babylon, the great battle of Gaugamela was Alexander's greatest victory, and is one of the most remembered in history. What are u talking about not showing his greatest achievements.......Also, I found that battle scene pretty accurate to how it actually went (except some details, like Alexander routing back and crossing the river to head straight for Darius).

Second, Keep in mind this is an Oliver Stone film, not one of those monotonous Hollywood films; don't expect scene after scene of battles.

Third, Alexander was great because of who he was, and he was bisexual. Hephaestion, if you look at his history, was THE most important person in Alexander's life (besides his horse, Bucephalus, there seems to be a wierd relationship there too, if history is right)

I enjoyed the movie myself, but some parts could be shortened a little, especially Ptolemy's long speech at the end.

[Temujin]

Look here, we might have a different opinion, everyone does, but almost everyone I talk to, especially History Buffs felt highly disappointed at this failure by Oliver Stone.

I had great expectation and I anticipated a brilliant epic movie, what I got instead is a confused movie which focused on his homosexual personal life of one of the greatest conquerors of the world.

Alexander is GREAT because during his time, he almost conquered the world, the Ancient world he knew.

And talking about flaws, after flaws after flaws .. here are some examples :

1) Most of the characters speak with an Irish accent, some with Australian accent... hmmm... where is the Greek accent ????

2) I don't have problems with Homosexuality, but the sexual encounters between Alexander and Hephaestion were very cheesy, I bet even real gays won't get turn on. Oliver Stone should have showed it to us already... instead of lame occasional glances and shoulder rubs. Ohh... sorry ... I forgot.. they do hug a lot

3) Colin Farrell is not convincing enough to be Alexander the Great. He looks more like Alexander the Adorable, who likes to whine and fight with his Mom. His Alexander lacks the sparks and passion of a Great, Charismatic Leader. Here... Farrell cries and cries...

4) Again instead of showing Alexander's true life story, they focus more on his gayness and his arguments with his Mom ........his inauguration as the king, then the taking over Egypt, being declared the Pharaoh AND a God was only given about 30 seconds of narration. Yet his love for his boyfriend took about more than half of the film.. maybe closer to 2/3.

5) The entire history is presented incorrectly.

To begin, Alexander won the battle of Gaugemela before it even began. It was the SECOND time the Alexander and Darius went into a battle. and while Alexander's troops was outnumbered 100,000 to 40,000. The Persian soldiers were green untrained troops who where facing what was quite possibly the best trained army in the world, NOT a bunch of military trained sheep herders as they are depicted in the movie. They charged down a hill onto the plain of Gaugemela and Persion army ran before even fighting.

The battle of Issus, quite possible one of the most pivotal engagements in History was totally cut out.

Alexander the Great NEVER crossed the Indus river but consented to his soldiers demand to go back. The movie depicted was inaccurate. He did face the Indian army with their elephants and his extraordinary planned tactics won the battle.
It was a VERY decisive victory for Alexander, and he survived it without scratch.

6) Alexander is NOT a pure Greek, he was a half Macedonian and half Greek. He was a Macedonian leader... NOT Greek

7) We never see why Alexander is Great. Anthony Hopkins builds him up, so I think we'll see either a great character study or a great war epic, but where are the proves ? This movie only proves that he was bisexual leader.

8) What's up with the breast scene and the groaning and moaning, and the slow motion.... is this a soft core ?

9) We hear of Alexander's other conquests, but none were depicted. The two battles aren't really that spectacular. They're so disorganized and confusing that the movie relies on Ptolemy to tell us what happened after one battle.

10) The movie jumped back and forth in time to a point where I just didn't care anymore..

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the movie, IMHO, was the the movie as its entirety. We are constantly told about how great Alexander was. But the movie never shows us WHY Alexander is considered GREAT. We're only shown two battles, one of which he loses. The film glosses over much of his campaigns, and the viewer never really gets a true sense of Alexander's true achievements during his conquest in history.

Oliver Stone chooses to spend vast amounts of time on monologues telling us about how great Alexander, at the expense of never SHOWING us his greatness. As a result, the film fails to prove that which it claims.

[douggilmour]

First, that was my point regarding O. Stone, his movies, such as Natural Born Killers or wallstreet, are mostly character based on psychological drama. If you wanted battles and explosions, maybe get J. Bruckhiemer a try.

1) Most of the characters speak with an Irish accent, some with Australian accent... hmmm... where is the Greek accent ????

Second, the film did show Alexander being half Macedonian (his dad), and his mom (Greek). Although the accent may not be accurate, but I saw an interview where Stone pointed out that was what he wanted. He wanted to show Alexander's army was not one culture, but a collection of ppls from the Adriatic coast, the Balkan tribes, greek sity-states, and mecenary/Slave/recruits from Asia minor.

5) The entire history is presented incorrectly.

To begin, Alexander won the battle of Gaugemela before it even began. It was the SECOND time the Alexander and Darius went into a battle. and while Alexander's troops was outnumbered 100,000 to 40,000. The Persian soldiers were green untrained troops who where facing what was quite possibly the best trained army in the world, NOT a bunch of military trained sheep herders as they are depicted in the movie. They charged down a hill onto the plain of Gaugemela and Persion army ran before even fighting.

The battle of Issus, quite possible one of the most pivotal engagements in History was totally cut out.

Alexander the Great NEVER crossed the Indus river but consented to his soldiers demand to go back. The movie depicted was inaccurate. He did face the Indian army with their elephants and his extraordinary planned tactics won the battle.
It was a VERY decisive victory for Alexander, and he survived it without scratch.

Third, at Issus, Darius understimated the greeks so he did not bring his whole empire down on Alexander (the bulk of his force were predominately greek mercenary). At Gaugamela, Darius emptied his whole empire: he had 50 elephants from India (not shown in film), greek mecenaries, syrians, scythians, his best calvary, all totaling more than 200,000 men (although a greek historian described a million, which is a little exaggerated). Alexader only had 40-50,000, although they were the best trained, equiped in the world (thanks to Phillip).

And errrrrrr....I don't know which Historian you talked to (maybe drunk and high? ) but Alexander DID crossed the Indus river and that battle scene was of Hydaspes, fought w/ Porus. This battle was where Bucephelus (poor, poor Bucephelus) dies, as shown.

Fourth, they didn't show Egypt and his proclamation as Pharaoh b/c Egypt (also under Persian control) was declining hugely at this time, and could muster little resistance. Wait, NO resistance.

10) The movie jumped back and forth in time to a point where I just didn't care anymore..

Hmmm... i c your point, especially the last flash back showing Phillip's death.

3) Colin Farrell is not convincing enough to be Alexander the Great. He looks more like Alexander the Adorable, who likes to whine and fight with his Mom. His Alexander lacks the sparks and passion of a Great, Charismatic Leader. Here... Farrell cries and cries...

the Adorable? hey hey, I don't want to hear about your lust for Colin Farrel ...

[GuangRong]

if you're asking for Greek Accented English,might as well they speak in Greek , with English subtitles...

most pple wouldn't even know they are speakng Irish-accent greek , except the greeks.

[Yon]

Agelina Jolie's accent wasn't Greek, Her accent of Transyvanian accent, where Vampire is from. LOL.. I thought I was watching remake of "Van Helsing" LOL

[douggilmour]

Agelina Jolie's accent wasn't Greek, Her accent of Transyvanian accent, where Vampire is from. LOL.. I thought I was watching remake of "Van Helsing" LOL

Just b/c u re nitpicking, so I will nitpick too:
1) "vampire" as you call him, Dracula ("Vlad") is NOT from Transylvania, but the ruler of the Romanian province of Wallachia.

2) Romanian dialect, Balkan dialect, which is EXACTLY where Olympias (A. Jolie) is from. Her character IS BORN in modern Albania, a Balkan state. SO the movie is correct in portraying her Romanian accent.

Sad really, ppl should do some research before they IGNORANTLY criticize someone elses work.

[Yon]

AHAHAHAA! You cranking me up dude! I rather watch Discovery Channel special if I want to be accurate about Alexander. So, what are you saying? Irish accent is from Greek now?

I would suggest you to stop being ignorantly accusing people critisizing purely based on how they disliked the movie. So I don't like the movie of various reason, that doesn't give you to critisize what others feel. Geez, you are truely being like a granny! Did you learn from me?

By the way, just suck it up dude. Some people don't like the movie, and some liked the movie! So what? Why you being so arnery and cranky about people disagree with what you think about movie?

[douggilmour]

AHAHAHAA! You cranking me up dude! I rather watch Discovery Channel special if I want to be accurate about Alexander. So, what are you saying? Irish accent is from Greek now?

I would suggest you to stop being ignorantly accusing people critisizing purely based on how they disliked the movie. So I don't like the movie of various reason, that doesn't give you to critisize what others feel. Geez, you are truely being like a granny! Did you learn from me?

By the way, just suck it up dude. Some people don't like the movie, and some liked the movie! So what? Why you being so arnery and cranky about people disagree with what you think about movie?

Clearly you should get some award, you're backtracking and spin tops anything those political hacks put out.

First, You accused Oliver Stone ( whom I respect greatly) of not portraying Angelina Jolie's accent correctly by ur comment, which had nothing to do w/ whether you like the movie or not. So if you are going to criticize someone, have the DECENCY to get the facts right. This is a general statement in life.

See, IF you said, "gee, why does alexander have an irish accent?", I would have no problem w/ that at all.

I don't care if you like the movie or not, but your comment was not whether you like the movie or not, it was critizing the movie's accuracy.

Agelina Jolie's accent wasn't Greek, Her accent of Transyvanian accent, where Vampire is from. LOL.. I thought I was watching remake of "Van Helsing" LOL

Hey, I'll give you another life lesson, it's best to admit when one is wrong. LOL

[Grifis]

Hmm... at first I didn't plan to go see Alexander but after hearing about his gayness I think I might go see it.

Grifis

[misao ohgami]

Wasn't the movie 2-3 hours long right?

[Yon]

Clearly you should get some award, you're backtracking and spin tops anything those political hacks put out.

First, You accused Oliver Stone ( whom I respect greatly) of not portraying Angelina Jolie's accent correctly by ur comment, which had nothing to do w/ whether you like the movie or not. So if you are going to criticize someone, have the DECENCY to get the facts right. This is a general statement in life.

See, IF you said, "gee, why does alexander have an irish accent?", I would have no problem w/ that at all.

I don't care if you like the movie or not, but your comment was not whether you like the movie or not, it was critizing the movie's accuracy.

Agelina Jolie's accent wasn't Greek, Her accent of Transyvanian accent, where Vampire is from. LOL.. I thought I was watching remake of "Van Helsing" LOL

Hey, I'll give you another life lesson, it's best to admit when one is wrong. LOL

Dude, Just suck it up. Some people dislike it, some people like it. What is wrong with you? Too much time on your hand to bickering people senselessly? I challenged the accuracy of the movie? For crying out loud! It is upto me that I disliked the accent or not, how I think about the accuracy of accent or not. Just admit that you have too much time to bickering at others. Congrates to you. I wish I have that much time. *sigh* Please have some DECENCY to respect what others think. I was there to enjoy the movie, and as a movie, I think Alexander sucked big time. It should named as one of the worst movie of all time. Probably Oliver Stone's overblown. The story didn't make sense, and the scenary was unesccesary long at times.


It is frigging 3 hour long, Misao. I fell a sleep because the movie was so boring, and people left in the middle of movie.


So, who has time to challenge what I feel about movie? Opinions are opinion. If this member wants to teach what is life, I better ask this member to get a life first!

[Yon]

"Alexander," Oliver Stone's three-hour screen biography of Alexander the Great, is epic in scale but not epic in spirit, a wallow in carnage that fails to demonstrate what was so great about this conqueror, after all. It intersperses scenes of slaughter with scenes of Alexander, either exhorting his troops to kill yet more people or sulking because he's misunderstood. It becomes monotonous.
When it's 2,300 years ago, one battle looks pretty much the same as the next. Only one thing could have held "Alexander" together, and that's a strong personality at its center. Certainly, the historical Alexander offered the possibility of a protagonist as ruthless, charming and megalomaniacal as George S. Patton, but the movie apparently chose another direction, a fairly ho-hum one: As played by Colin Farrell, Alexander is just a brave and particularly gifted young man with a noble vision. In other words, Stone tries to make us like Alexander because he's good, when he should have made us want to watch Alexander because he's amazing.

The script is full of lukewarm choices. For example, Alexander has a difficult relationship with his drunken father, King Philip of Macedonia (Val Kilmer). So how does Alexander feel about him? Is he fanatically loyal to him and blind to his failings? Or does he absolutely hate the old man's guts? Neither. He's just sort of ambivalent. Dad has a drinking problem. It's hard.

The irony is that by making Alexander the equivalent of a sensitive modern man, the movie has the effect of making him less sympathetic because it invites us to judge him according to a modern standard. It might have been fascinating to watch some dynamo from ancient times laying waste to the known world, if we got to see the frenzied zeal and the blood in his eyes. But to have to accept such a person as a basically nice guy makes us pull back. By modern standards, Alexander is just a mass murderer, the first of a long line of tyrants, including Napoleon, who killed people allegedly for their own good.

The opening is strong enough to make audiences optimistic. Anthony Hopkins leads things off as Ptolemy, remembering Alexander for a history he's writing many years after Alexander's death. He describes his former general as a colossus, thus setting a high standard for the film. Scenes from Alexander's childhood present a background that could either make or break him. His sexy, slithery mother, Olympias -- played by Angelina Jolie with a Russian accent -- is a master of court intrigue, pinning all her hopes on her son, while his father is a capricious lout who could easily disown him. There's a strong scene in which the young Alexander (Connor Paolo) finally gains his father's respect by riding a horse everyone believed couldn't be tamed.

But once Colin Farrell assumes the role, wearing a fluffy blond wig, things take a wrong turn. He looks confused, fuzzy around the eyes. This is not the incisive Alexander who untied the Gordian knot by cutting it with his sword. This is a fellow who'd look more at home on the cover of Tiger Beat magazine. Most of what follows are battle scenes or preludes to battle scenes. Stone is skillful. He shows the hand-to-hand combat, but he also pulls back to give us the overall picture and make us understand the strategy at work. But with no compelling Alexander either to pull for or be amazed by, the audience really has no horse -- or llama or elephant -- in this race.

Much has already been made of the fact that, in Alexander, modern cinema gets its first gay action hero. In fact, Alexander's relationship with his friend and lover, Hephaistion, is treated with some ambiguity -- lots of hugs, no kisses. It's also interesting that, while the historical Hephaistion was actually bigger and older than Alexander, here he's played by Jared Leto, who's younger and smaller, with long auburn hair parted in the middle. Presumably, the idea is, if Alexander must have a boyfriend, at least give him one as pretty as Diane Lane. In between hugging Hephaistion, Alexander finds time to marry an Indian woman, Roxane, played by Rosario Dawson. This leads to a hilarious wedding-night sequence, which begins with Roxane walking in on Hephaistion and Alexander and asking her new husband, "You luff heem?!"

The more people Alexander kills, the longer and fluffier Farrell's wigs get. At times, Farrell is so unconvincing as a hero that one wonders if "Alexander" is some veiled hatchet job by Stone, who, after all, has made some notable anti-war movies. But no. Every time Alexander talks about "freeing the people of the world" -- freeing them from being alive? -- the soundtrack pitches in with inspiring music. "Alexander" is not hatchet job. It just doesn't make its case.

Here is something to read.. HAHAHA!

[Yon]

Above is from Sanfrancisco News Paper.

Below is USA Today

'Alexander' the Great: Barely even mediocre
By Mike Clark, USA TODAY
Short life, long movie. After Alexander (* 1/2 out of four), don't look for Oliver Stone to be on anybody's A-list to direct and co-write a screen treatise on the life and times of Methuselah.

Behind every world conqueror: Angelina Jolie is Queen Olympias, the ambitious mother of the young Alexander (Colin Farrell).
Warner Bros.

Stone's emotionally arid three-hour epic arrives on the heels of Troy, which fell short of becoming the event picture its budget necessitated, despite intermittent entertainment value. So what are audiences going to make of a movie that has neither dramatic focus nor a single memorable performance, aside from one or two that are memorable for the wrong reasons? (Related video: See a preview of Alexander)

The drudgery begins with an instantly fatiguing framing device: Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy, blathering on 40 years after Alex's death about how this uncommonly generous visionary largely eschewed plundering after capturing most of the world by the time he died at age 32 in 323 B.C.

With this out of the way, we flash back to the most dysfunctional family in Macedonia: one-eyed King Philip (Val Kilmer), young son Alexander (who'll become Colin Farrell's conquering Clairol blonde) and serpent-fancying Queen Olympias (Angelina Jolie).

Jolie would seem to be a natural for a role requiring the use of poisonous pet snakes as necklaces in her bedroom. But her character puts into play a problem Alexander never quite licks. Its most entertaining scenes — in fact, about the only ones that come to life — border on camp, which can hardly have been Stone's intention. Camp rules in every scene with snarling Jolie, who looks to be about 25 when her offspring is 30, give or take.

We see camp take hold again during Alex's wedding night to a Persian, a scene in which bride Rosario Dawson is all claws, catlike sounds and unencumbered breasts.

The heavy homoeroticism between Alex and longtime friend Hephaistion (Jared Leto) is far less specific than the wedding night, yet comes off as a side issue, given that both the story line and lead actor fail to take hold. Intentional clutter and confusion in battle scenes don't help, though the stuntmen who worked with the elephants earned their money.

The movie does achieve a level of scope and majesty missing from new-on-DVD Alexander the Great (1956), but that version has actors with built-in emotional clout: Richard Burton, Fredric March, Claire Bloom. It's tempting to wonder whether the subject is too elusive for screen treatment.

One thing is certain: This is Stone's weakest movie of the past 20 years, and it's unlikely to make any kind of blip. (Opens Wednesday nationwide; rated R for violence and some sexuality/nudity)

[Yon]

New York Times

FILM REVIEW; With No More Parents to Conquer, He Wept
By MANOHLA DARGIS
Published: November 24, 2004, Wednesday


ARTICLE TOOLS

Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles




There comes the moment in the career of many directors when they are compelled to tell the story of a great man in whose life they seem to see a glimmer of their own image. Francis Ford Coppola had Preston Tucker, the automotive innovator who tried and failed to challenge Detroit in much the same way as the filmmaker took on Hollywood, while Martin Scorsese and Mel Gibson each had Jesus. Now Oliver Stone has Alexander the Great, the Macedonian tyrant who cut a bloody swath through the ancient world to no obvious end other than, if Mr. Stone's big, blowsy movie is to believed, get away from his kvetch of a mother.
And, what a kvetch she was! Mad of eye and teased of hair, Olympias, played with nose-flaring gusto by Angelina Jolie, was the mother of all monstrous mothers, a literal snake charmer whose love for her only son had the stench of incestuous passion and the tedium of the perpetual nag. For Alexander -- Colin Farrell, upstaged by an epically bad dye job -- the Oedipal plot would only thicken because he also loved Olympias's most loathed enemy, her husband and his father, Philip, the King of Macedon (Val Kilmer). The struggle between Olympias and Philip, these primordial warring female and male forces, would be reproduced in both Alexander's bisexual desires and his rapacious conquest of the feminized East. In other words, Alexander became his dad to waylay his mom.


The Greek historian Strabo wrote that ''all the followers of Alexander preferred to accept the marvelous rather than the true.'' So it is with Mr. Stone, whose Alexander is a psychologically addled but fundamentally decent despot. In this take, his conquest Jones isn't meant to be an end in itself, a grab for power or untrammeled bloodlust, but a civilizing form of colonization.

Whether or not Alexander's desire to bring Hellenic culture to the so-called barbarians sprang from the heart or head is, of course, beside the point considering the trans-continental carnage; the Europeans who ravaged Mesoamerica were equally sincere. Whatever drove Alexander, it's disappointing that Mr. Stone, who in his previous films brilliantly captures the frenzied high of violence, is so intent on wiping the blood off his hero's face to show us the tears.

The inanity of Mr. Stone's script, written with Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis, works a similarly palliative effect, since it lays the gory bill for Alexander's plundering at Olympias's feet. From age 20, after he succeeds his father, Alexander spends his life running away from his mother.

As the young marauder kills and enslaves peoples from Egypt to India, Mr. Stone repeatedly returns us to Olympias, snakes coiling around her body and chastising her absent son in a bewildering accent, part Yiddishe Mama, part Natasha of ''Rocky and Bullwinkle'' fame: ''You don't write, you don't call, why don't you settle down with a nice Macedonian girl?'' or words to that effect. Rarely since Joan Crawford rampaged through the B-movie sunset of her career has a female performer achieved such camp distinction.

Mr. Stone has always made stories about men for whom ordinary life is impossible by accident or by choice. As a storyteller he has long made a habit out of extreme personalities, a preoccupation that during the 1990's was matched by one of the most playfully expressive visual styles in American mainstream movies.

The director's detractors have tended to concentrate on the controversial content of his films (American presidents and serial killers, among other subjects), dissecting and occasionally discounting his work because of the ways in which it deviated from its historical inspiration. But the truth of Mr. Stone's films has never been located in the White House or the Warren Commission's Report; it's in the richness of his imagery, the energy of his direction, the soulful intensity of his actors.

There are moments in ''Alexander'' that show Mr. Stone in fine form, including a battle scene shot from the view of a soaring bird and the aching tenderness between the ruler and his longtime lover, Hephaistion (Jared Leto, delivering the only credible performance in the film), but these grace notes are few and far between. This is the costliest, most logistically complex feature of the filmmaker's career, and it appears that the effort to wrangle so many beasts, from elephants to movie stars and money men, along with the headaches that come with sweeping period films, got the better of him. Certainly it's brought out the worst in terms of the puerile writing, confused plotting, shockingly off-note performances and storytelling that lacks either of the two necessary ingredients for films of this type, pop or gravitas.

Given that our historical moment is equally weighted between prurience and Puritanism it's no surprise that media interest in ''Alexander'' has focused more on the character's sexual exploits than his military campaigns. The ancient Greeks didn't share our 19th-century-derived conception of the homosexual, but they certainly engaged in homosexual sex, especially between men and boys. What made Alexander somewhat unusual wasn't his same-sex desire, but that he slept with men his own age.

To Mr. Stone's credit he doesn't shy away from the character's omnisexual appetites even if he doesn't allow Mr. Leto to cut loose like Rosario Dawson, who plays Alexander's wildcat wife, Roxane. Then again, in light of Alexander and Roxane's comical boudoir brawling and growling there's something to be said for directorial restraint.

Like Mary Renault's purple-prosy biographical portrait ''The Nature of Alexander,'' Mr. Stone begins this story with the tyrant's death at 32. But because this is no ordinary death and no ordinary director, Mr. Stone opens his version with a self-conscious nod to ''Citizen Kane.'' To compare Orson Welles's masterpiece seriously with ''Alexander'' would be unkind to Mr. Stone, who has made great films before and will, I hope, make them again. Yet it's worth noting that while ''Citizen Kane'' is an unflinching portrait of a monstrous man's will to power, ''Alexander'' soft-pedals a far more terrible monster. Welles took a merciless view toward his tyrant and was subjected to systematic retaliation by William Randolph Hearst, the real-life model for Kane. Creditors aside, the only one that Mr. Stone finally must answer to is himself.


''Alexander'' is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). The film features a lot of graphic warfare with impaled flesh, severed limbs and disturbing images of animal cruelty. Ms. Dawson also takes her top off, which may disturb some viewers in a rather different fashion.

'Alexander'
Opens nationwide today.

Directed by Oliver Stone; written by Mr. Stone, Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis; director of photography, Rodrigo Prieto; edited by Tom Nordberg (chief) and Yann Herve; music by Vangelis; production designer, Jan Roelfs; produced by Thomas Schühly, Jon Kilik, Iain Smith and Moritz Borman; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 173 minutes. This film is rated R.

WITH: Colin Farrell (Alexander), Angelina Jolie (Olympias), Val Kilmer (Philip), Anthony Hopkins (Ptolemy), Rosario Dawson (Roxane), Jared Leto (Hephaistion) and Christopher Plummer (Aristotle).

[Yon]

Just want to help you folks out there who wants to watch this. I would say, save you money by not watching it. This movie was soo bad. I think Van Helsing was a bit better.

[misao ohgami]

god damn it was THAT bad?!?! Sucks that it had an all-stars cast.

[douggilmour]

Dude, Just suck it up. Some people dislike it, some people like it. What is wrong with you? Too much time on your hand to bickering people senselessly? I challenged the accuracy of the movie? For crying out loud! It is upto me that I disliked the accent or not, how I think about the accuracy of accent or not. Just admit that you have too much time to bickering at others. Congrates to you. I wish I have that much time. *sigh* Please have some DECENCY to respect what others think. I was there to enjoy the movie, and as a movie, I think Alexander sucked big time. It should named as one of the worst movie of all time. Probably Oliver Stone's overblown. The story didn't make sense, and the scenary was unesccesary long at times.


It is frigging 3 hour long, Misao. I fell a sleep because the movie was so boring, and people left in the middle of movie.


So, who has time to challenge what I feel about movie? Opinions are opinion. If this member wants to teach what is life, I better ask this member to get a life first!

In one ear and out the other, another endearing quality I see.

This ur words:
Agelina Jolie's accent wasn't Greek, Her accent of Transyvanian accent, where Vampire is from. LOL.. I thought I was watching remake of "Van Helsing" LOL

This is a complaint on her accent not being greek, which I pointed out it was not suppose to be Greek!! Also, you got the whole vampire mythology wrong. I don't really care whether you like the movie or not, Just as when you are criticizing Bush, at least make your criticization contain some form of FACTS.

Yes, yes, I have nothing to do but pick fights (although suppose to cram for Exams..), whats your point?

If this member wants to teach what is life, I better ask this member to get a life first!

HAHAHA , I know you are taking a shot at me, but "this member" refers to YOU, it should be "the member".

Finally, Right, right, OBVIOUSLY for you, as a follower, must listen to all the critics before picking which movie to see. I see someone doesn't have a mind of his own.
HAHAHA...hehehe

[Yon]

Edited by poster Read the following~

[Yon]

Here ya go. If you think your Vampire Mythology is far better knowledgable than mine go ahead.

Vampire myths go back thousands of years and occur in almost every culture around the world. Their variety is almost endless; from red eyed monsters with green or pink hair in China to the Greek Lamia which has the upper body of a woman and the lower body of a winged serpent; from vampire foxes in Japan to a head with trailing entrails known as the Penanggalang in Malaysia.
However, the vampires we are familiar with today, although mutated by fiction and film, are largely based on Eastern European myths. The vampire myths of Europe originated in the far East, and were transported from places like China, Tibet and India with the trade caravans along the silk route to the Mediterranean. Here they spread out along the Black Sea coast to Greece, the Balkans and of course the Carpathian mountains, including Hungary and Transylvania.

Our modern concept of the vampire still retains threads, such as blood drinking, return from death, preying on humans at night, etc in common with the Eastern European myths. However many things we are familiar with; the wearing of evening clothes, capes with tall collars, turning into bats, etc are much more recent inventions.

On the other hand, many features of the old myths such as the placing of millet or poppy seeds at the gravesite in order to keep the vampire occupied all night counting seeds rather than preying on relatives, have all but disappeared from modern fiction and film.

Even among the Eastern European countries there is a large variety of vampires.

So, what is your point? I still think Angelina Jolie's accent reminded me of Vampire from Van Helsing. Soooo funny!

HA. Get your mythology lesson correctly!
In your mind Vampires are Dracula, but vampires are vampires. When did I say Dracula other than yourself?? HAHAHAHA...
And you can't stop me from feeling Angelina Jolie's accent reminding me of Vampires!