Oliver Stone’s Alexander is a Masterpiece

cinematography

cinematography

The critics were so full of sh*t with this one. I finally saw Alexander today and I think it was an absolutely excellent film. Yeah some scenes lacked continuity and realism. So what! Continuity and realism is for average films that can be easily accessed by average people. Oliver Stone is an artist, and artists don’t confine themselves to rules. They break them. Critics used to be fair, critical, patient, and open minded about films. I guess times are changing now.

I strongly recommend this film. If it’s still playing in your area, or when it comes to DVD, you should certainly give it a chance – especially if you’re a fan of artistic filmmaking and ancient history.
 
Interesting. I'll definitely have to go see this.

I recently saw "King Arthur" directed by Antoine Fuqua. It didn't get good reviews and from the previews I wasn't excited about it. I finally decided to rent it and it wasn't half bad! Could have been better of course, more historically accurate etc but if for nothing else see this movie for the cinematography! Anyway, I digress.

It's definitely on my list to see now. Was the movie pretty grainy? I just remember the previews being quite obviously so (could have just been me).
 
I disliked both movies. I liked King Arthur better, but not by much.

I felt Alexander was nearly plotless and none of the characters were particularly interesting or even sympathetic. Perhaps I was tainted by having read a lot about Alexander the Great and found the movie focused on none of his good or even interesting points. It seemed like a Greek version of teh Doors complete with an appearance by Val Kilmer as a drunk.
 
What didn't you like about King Arthur Sonnyboo? I know some historical things bothered me quite a bit (such as saxons from the north with crossbows?) and the story needed help but the cinematography was very cool IMO. Definitely worth watching for that aspect. They used a semi-high shutter speed throughout the movie which gave it a very cool 3D look with all the falling snow etc.
 
sonnyboo said:
I disliked both movies. I liked King Arthur better, but not by much.

I felt Alexander was nearly plotless and none of the characters were particularly interesting or even sympathetic.
Click to expand...
Plot is so been there done that. Alexander was an experience, and experiences aren't always linear, clean cut, and clear.

Perhaps I was tainted by having read a lot about Alexander the Great and found the movie focused on none of his good or even interesting points.
Click to expand...
I think it may just be a matter of taste. I found almost everything they showed about him interesting, and I didn't find any of it boring. I was relaxed when I watched it. I didn't ask for or demand anything special from it. I just took what it gave me, and what it gave was a pretty good movie.
 
The first half hour of Alexander was thinking, omg this is going to be a long three hours. But then it picked up and got really enteretaining. The next 2 1/2 hours flew by. Definately an experience.

King Arthur was disappointing though. Just kinda boring. But Keira Knightly looked hot and Clive Owen is awesome.

Training Day's the only great movie that dir has done though.
 
Shaw said:
What didn't you like about King Arthur Sonnyboo?
Click to expand...

The Guinivere aspect was horrid. The overall story wasn't compelling, performances were weak, and I could almost see the actors on the cell phones trying to book their next job in between takes, which reflected the crappy interactions & very forced comraderie between the knights. To sum up - I didn't care about anyone or anything in the movie because there was nothing for me to latch onto.

Strangely, change the names and I had a similar review of Alexander. It wasn't the non-linear aspects, it was things like Anglina Jolie's inexplicable Transalvanian accent, and nothing remotely likable or respectable about any of the characters.
 
I'm so surprised at how many people are complaining about Alexander's lack of realism. Isn't that why we make films in the first place, to escape realism, or to do an artistic or abstract interpretation of something real?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top