Posted on 11/10/2004 12:53:24 PM PST by gopwinsin04
Just got home from watching 'Alexander' up at the Directors Guild of America proceeded by a Q & A session with Oliver Stone. Stone said that he just finished the film on Friday and in my opinion it looks like he just rushed out out the door.
In brief, I was stunned by how bad this movie was. Overacting, bizzaro camera work, lackluster battles..God, it was just a mess.
Compared to it, 'Troy' (from this year) is the academy award winning 'Gladiator,' and the 1970's TV series 'I Claudius' is looking better all the time.
Stone may be trying to make a parallel to George Bush's fiasco in Iraq but it's clumsy and heavy handed.
All in all, a shockingly bad film from people who should know better. Wasted talent, wasted money and wasted technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at aintitcoolnews.com ...
Pretty much, the gays just have to say someone was gay, and they were. And, you're a homophobe if you even ask how they know.
It's depressing, actually.
I'm with you. Not only won't Stone see my money, I won't even see his movies for free on cable. I despise him so much, I certainly wouldn't be able to enjoy the experience.
Actually, I kind of liked "Nixon."
nick
I loved it. I've yet to see RMN get better treatment from any other dramatization. I think Stone realized that when dealing with someone like Nixon the only way to be 'counter-culturual' was to be sympathetic to him.
I generally like these historical epics and the battle scenes. So, with a couple of marginal reviews, call me "undecided." Then, I have to check to the "Hollywood commie pinko factor." Did anyone associated with thise movie actively support Viet Cong John, did anyone loudly badmouth the President.
This is not a "must see" flick, at least for me. If there is a blocker, I'll not see it, not by myself, not with my wife and not with any of the adult kids (some may make their own decisions). This is how we must respond to the Hollywood cancer of neocommunism. Certainly, they have the same freedom of expression as an individual as I do. When the start using their celebrity to influence others, then, we have the absolute right to attack that celebrity.
It may be that the best way to set up this process is to set up a site and list each movie as it approaches release and then allow an open forumn, as we have here, to allow true Americans to point out the excesses of anyone associated with the flick. Elia Kazan? Fine! (I know, I know) Barbra Streisand? I'll pass!
Dunno how far I trust this reviewer, since "I, Claudius" was a terrific series! -- with great actors and a very smart script. So if he doesn't like that, I don't know what he *would* like.
The man-on-boy thing may creep a lot of people out -- but in actuality, it was extremely common in that era, and not looked down upon. (There's a famous Persian poem from a later era that starts, "There's a boy across the river with an arse like a peach/But alas, I cannot swim!") And Persian men did wear eyeliner then.
Dunno how authentic Angelina Jolie and her humongo-lips are to that period. But noone seems to be complaining about that! :)
Sorry I didn't pick up on that.
Stone wrote the screenplay for Scarface, which I watched this week. A decent but not great movie.
I was pretty disappointed. The story was skewered. I think the Hallmark channel could have done a better job and with a smaller budget to boot.
I haven't been to a movie in 17 years. Haven't made many worth the price. I wait till they're released on tape or dvd.
Both were very good in my opinion and I can't think of a good one he's had since.
The only think that saved Troy from being utterly absurd was Eric Bana. Brad Pitt was pitiful- and I love the guy!
I thought that "Nixon" was pretty good.
I don't love Brad Pitt. But I did like him in Troy. Not Oscar material, but much a much better Achilles than I expected.
its a more "modern" interpritation. (they just ignore Alexander's love letters to his wife and the fact he had a son. They also gloss over the fact the first thing his generals did after alexander's death was kill the queen and heir.)
homosexual advocates are very quick to claim alexander as a homo, but they never mention the fact that in that era homosexual behavior was deemed a choice not a "born" thing.
They also ignore the fact that it was common practice at the time to declare any conqued king a homosexual in order to call any heirs to the throne as frauds.
Then again this is hollyweird not history.
Agreed. And Woody Harrelson (remember Wag the Dog?) did a good job also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.