Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i just got back from seeing a screener of Alexander (all 3 hours of it) and i thought it was very good... cloest thing to compare it too of course is Troy and it blows it out of the water. It is a huge story to tell even for a 3 hour movie and I thought they did a great job of covering most of everything. everything "technical" like acting writing directing i felt was done very well.. what i was worried about was how they would tell the story and how accurate it would be to history.. and i was suprised to see it was amazingly accurate and they used a very good approach to tell the story. However it may move too slow for some people at times, you have to be interested in a story and not just fighting.. But the fights are amazing and insanely gory, there is plenty of bloody killing and rosario dawson gets naked which is always fun, and yes collin farell does have a brief nude scene himself.

overall i thought it was a very good movie, and anyone who has any interest in history or just in seeing a good story should enjoy it.. however if blood or animal brutality bothers you a lot, or if you are very uncomfortable with homosexuality (it has some akward moments but it fits their culture and their time) this may not be for you

i am gonna see it

I just read that some people are sueing the makers of this movie because it is not how Alexander was in real life.First of all they said he was not gay and in the movie they said he kissed two man on the lips.
Did any of you guys hear about this?JM

Oh, great, so this is a gay movie now?? Who does Colin Farell get naked with, Elton John?

when's it out in the UK??

UK = 7th January apparently.

As for the sue news:

The makers of Colin Farrell's upcoming epic Alexander are facing the threat of lawsuit, for claiming warrior Alexander The Great was bisexual. A group of furious Greek lawyers insist the legendary conqueror was heterosexual, and they're now looking into suing film studio Warner Bros and director Oliver Stone for claims to the contrary. Yannis Varnakos, spokesman for the 25 lawyers, tells Reuters, "We are not saying that we are against gays, but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander." The group has sent an extrajudicial note insisting that the studio include a reference in the credits saying the movie is fictional. While Varnakos and his group of Greek attorneys haven't actually seen the epic, they say they have gathered enough evidence to know there are "inappropriate references" to Alexander's sexuality. Varnakos says that Stone has the right to freely express himself - but the audience has the right to know the director is tampering with history. He adds, "We cannot come out and say that (former US) President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay."

From IMDB.

I am looking forwards to it, even if they have Farell as Alexander

they dont ever say hes gay in the movie, he has sex with women, although there are parts that seem a bit homosexual, but that was also a big part of the greek lifestyle, and he was very close with his child hood friend who he never does anything sexual with. and the bottom line is its a movie not a history book so people know its not 100% fact

See, truth of the matter is that no one knows how Alexander was in real life. About the gay thing, well it was common custom for roman and greek men to have male relations, most men had male partners while being married. this is just what history suggests.

I mean, i am just anxious to see this lawsuit get thrown out. There is a thing called artistic freedom when writing and making movies. That law suit is one of the silliest things i have ever heard.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could think that Alexander is a great movie. This is the worst movie I've seen in AGES. EVERYTHING was wrong. Acting was poor, music was corny, camera placement was off, and the script was lame. I saw it at a free screening at UC Berkeley and everyone in the audience just wanted to leave because it was so long and boring. People kept laughing at the film when it wasn't meant to be funny because the script was just so lame, and Colin Farrel was obviously miscast. Believe me, if you watch this film, you're going to regret it.

I argee that it is sillly.But I would not pay to go see a movie with two guys kissing each other.It grosses me out.I will have to go see some research on this matter.
To see who is right and who is wrong.But the romans in those days were mosty gays so you maybe right about that too.JM

I agree. Movies are just that...Movies and should have Artistic freedom.

wow. first off, those lawyers just want to make a name for themselves.

second, history suggests, like many of you guys know and stated, that the bisexual lifestyle during those eras were common.

these people need to realize that it's only a movie. if you can sue people for historical inaccuracies from history to the movies, mel gibson would be broke.

you say everythinhg was wrong.. can you back that up because for a movie it was pretty damn accurate on a lot of stuff i can list them if u like

coming soon just reviewed it and think this will be helpfull..

Who should see the movie? This is Oliver Stone's interpretation of Alexander, if you enjoy his other work you should also enjoy this. Colin Farrell fans will get to see a lot of him here. He cuts a commanding figure as Alexander and that should make them happy. Action fans will love the battle scenes, but hey have to also accept the long stretches of background and a fairly high background level of homo-eroticism. If you are looking for a love story there is not really one here, other than the love for power that drives Alexander. The movie will make you think, mostly about whether you agree with some of the premises or not. The film has a R rating for multiple good reasons, there are often graphic battle scenes, a couple rapes (one man on man), and an over-extended sex scene (not between Alexander and Hephaistion).

Its too bad Oliver Stone got his hands on this one. Save your money. This is probably the worst movie I have seen all year---and guess what I'm a guy who liked Troy and King Arthur--so you know this has to be terrible. There were three groups of people that actually got up and left in the middle. I think it was all of the homosexual undertones laced throughout the entire movie. I found myself laughing at much of the dialogue. Oh and it was sooooooooo long, it would never end.

The only redeeming quality in this movie is Rosario Dawson's bare gigantic rack....thats it.

I thought this movie was a lot of talking

I think if you are a big history buff then it would be great

I loved Val Kilmer's character -thought he was the best in that film
I mean Collin Farrel was great as usual -

I just thought they tried to cram a lot of history and information into 3 hours

O yea = what was up with Jared Leto and Collin Farrell - was Alexander gay??????????????

I always thought Alexander was a lady's guy- and he had a lot of ladies that adored him - he was known as being very hansome

thought Jared Leto looked sort of girly at times during the film

o yea !! Collin Farrell had nice shaved legs - YUMMMMMMMMM

One more thing---what was the deal with the accents in the movie---some of them had scotish accents (not Collin Farrel), some had american/english accents, and angelina jolie had some sort of russian thing going on. Am I missing something here. Why didn't they get one homogenous (pun intended) accent for all of greece?

^^ yes I noticed that -- especially when there was this one scene with a guy speaking in a very heavy scottish accent - almost felt like a Braveheart moment

Collin Farrell always seems to do good with his accents-

yea what was up with Angelina Jolie - hardly aging

there was a point where Collin Farrel and Angelina Jolie looked practically the same age

imo, this movie was alright, for a movie based on a man who spent his life going through war they barely showed any of them, and just focused too much on his homosexuality, it was basically stretched for the 3 hour mark

imo troy was alot better, seeing as it explored Troy and not too much of Achilles sex life

angeline jolie's character wasnt macedonian, i forgot where she was originally from, around the end they definitely could've put more white in her hair, they did a pretty good job with the veins around the eyes though......unless that was just her lol

im sorry but if homosexual undertones make you that uncomfortable you have serious sexual issues that either your scared you are gay or you are just way too self concious

troy and king arthur had some cool action scene and were pop corn flick they both messed up thier respective stories A LOT.. if you arnt interested in a historical story alexander isnt for you i suppose.. and i do think they went a bit far with the hephastion and alexander relationship and could have shortened it by about 20 minutes and the general public would have liked it a lot more but thats not how oliver stone works and i respect that

I am not scared of it I am againt it.I am not saying however that this lawsuit is good however.I think it is plain sillly.Also I don't know anything about Alexander so I can't say if he was gay or not.JM

ummmmmmmm........hey forumcrew why don't you go back and re-read my post. I never said I was bothered by the homosexuality in the movie however the 3 groups of people that left during the movie probably were. I didn't like it because I thought that it was way too long and tiresome, the dialouge was laughable, collin farrel was terrible, bad script, oh yeah- and it was boring.

Also------- forumcrew I do appreciate the accusations, thanks

I thought Gladiator was better than Alexander - i know Gladiator wasnt a true story ( even though it could have been)

there just seemed to be something missing from Alexander to give it that extra push...

I just got back from the theater and i must say... SAVE YOUR MONEY...
its a movie to rent when there is nothing else. This film doesn't live up to the hype, and the homosexuality played a larger role than what i would've thought. There were 2 main battles, and in one of them, everything turns pink! that was just weird...

are you talking about me? i didnt say anything offensive

this movie is pearl harbors equal, it completely missed the point......alexanders life is in war, from 19 till his death he went from war to war, and there were only two war scenes in the movie, they completely skipped the middle wars that were so amazing!! man, that sucks i was looking forward to a war-filled movie, the little war scenes they had were amazing though, but it wasnt worth all the other stuff

I personally really enjoyed the movie
I liked the battles and the in between dialogue and story. And having done ancient Greece and Alexander recently in World History class, I found it to be quite accurate, maybe a little Hollywoodized, but none the less very nice.

And JM I know for a fact, Alexander was bi-sexual not just gay. And I personally could say I wouldn't mind if they had delved into that aspect of his life more. It was completely acceptable of the time, and it was a part of his life.

What bothers me most is I was browsing the user reviews for Alexander on www.imdb.com and it really bothers me that the lowest ratings it received were from an older crowd of about middle agers. I think in my opinion it has alot to do with their open mindness.

I personally applaud Oliver Stone, Collin Farrell, Jared Leto, and anyone else involved in showing Alexander's sexuality, at least they didn't completely exclude that because they were afraid of back lash.
I'd just like to say if such minor scenes make you that un-comfortable, you need to examine your sexuality more than anything

Also I liked the time frames they used, and the flashbacks and cinematography of the film.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and will not only see it again, but plan on buying the DVD.

And I found the acting to be excellent I think people should ignore the critics and nay-sayers and see the film for themselves and make their own decisions based on it.

If you're going to comment on accents at least get it right
All of greece did not have one universal accent to start with seeing as there were different parts of greece which all had a little different dialect.

Not to mention these people were Macedonian to start with.

thanks for being one of the few people to back me up silver tears i think people are either too closed minded about the movie or thought they were going to see a war movie and got a good historical story and were upset about it.. i think they did a fine job the movie just isnt for the general public who loves explosions and and movies that revolve around fx rather then story

Even though I personally think that the battles were excellent
However having a small knowledge of Alexander that I do, I appreciated the movie for the history as well, not the bloody battles, or the costumes
That is why I think Alexander is better than Troy.

So you're saying americans and scots lived in greece at that time. thats kind of hard to believe

Ok this is getting out of hand. Apparently, according to forumcrew and yourself (silvertears), if you didn't like the movie (which I didn't) then you obviously must have sexual issues. Thats pretty close minded in itself. Just because I definitely hated the movie and thought that it was a steaming pile of crap, it doesn't mean I'm gay---what it does mean is that I have a different opinon than you. No need for attacks.

good film. Troy was better. All n All i give this movie a 9/10.

No I'm saying there is no one universal accent throughout. So therefore, they would have sounded different. Not to mention for it to be completely accurate they would have to actually speak the foreign language and no english at all.

Also maybe if there were reasons as to why you disliked the movie other than simple minded sentences such as "It's a steaming pile of crap..." reasons to back it up would be nice. And my statement about sexuality was a general statement, not directed at you, you chose to take it that way

i didnt direct it at anyone either and all i said was if it made you uncomfortable you may have issues as i said many times this movie isnt for everyone you have to be somewhat into history and wanna see a story.. and like ST said it is annoying when people just say it sucks or its crap without reasoning dont bother posting in a review thread if you cant give people reasons because it isnt helpfull to anyone

I heard it was really retarded, Im not going to see it.

you guys are absolutely ridiculous.

once again please go back and read my posts------ I gave reasons why I didn't like this movie -- I don't know why you think I didn't give any reasons. Here I'll make it easy for you---



I'll go a little further for you also. There was little given info on the significance or the actual outcome of each battle. Both times, each side just kind of stopped, and that was it. Second, the symbolism of the snakes and the eagles was WAY over the top AND it didn't really lead to much of a logical conclusion to the casual viewer. Also, great epics need to have some sort of grand sweep, especially during their battles (see Return of the King). These battles were disjointed and relatively small in their overall scope.

And forumcrew, its hard to not think you were speaking to me when you used my exact words in your post

I wrote.........


Forumcrew wrote......


Am I right in thinking this way or am I not getting something? you tell me forumcrew and ST

you said you thought people left for that reason i was speaking about those people... and i can fully understand your reasons for not liking the movie. I def think some things could have been done differently and it could have been a little shorter to make it a more entertaining movie for the average viewer but i did enjoy the story as is, althought its not a great movie i enjoyed the story and id recomend it to people who are interested in that sort of story or history buffs

where are they getting the idea that ALexander was GAY??


not that there is anything wrong with it - but i'd always heard he was a hansom guy with lots of ladies at his side

historians actually believe he was likely homosexual

http://www.gayheroes.com/alex.htm

this was a VERY common thing then

He was bi-sexual, not homosexual
He did have three wives

Personally for me the hours flew by, I was very into it.
I was upset that I had to go to the bathroom and missed some parts

The only thing I would have done different, is I would have included the battle of Thebes, where Alexander first shows his military strength and ability to rule.

From the horrible reviews of this movie, and from following the news and interviews throughout it's production, I'll wait to see it on video.

But the romans in those days were mosty gays so you maybe right about that too.JM

Jackie, I'm always seeming to pick you out for less than intelligent or less than informed comments. Thanx for not letting me down in this thread. Roman's were not mostly gay. Infact the percentage of gay men in their time is probably the same as in our time. Among the lower classes it was no big deal. In the middle to high classes it was generally kept to one's self and their partner as it might harm a potential political career and if you were of a high enough class no one cared if you were gay because they were all too busy kissing your patrician ass. I am a big fan of both ancient greek and roman history, and your comment is misinformed, unrefined and ignorant.

I think if you are a big history buff then it would be great MornGlory

Actually morn, I think it's the history buffs who are really panning this movie BIG TIME.

historians actually believe he was likely homosexual - forumcrew

Getting your info from a gayheros.com is a little biased. More accurate to say that Some historians believe that he was homosexual, most actually believe that he was bisexual and many believe that his sexuality was not about sex but actually just seeking acceptance and love from wherever he could get it. In fact instead of focusing on his sexuality, it would have been a better story to focus on the fact that most of his motivation was fuelled by his desire to prove that he was as good or better as his father, and to live up to how he wished his father would have seen him if he had remained alive, oh yeah, and alexander went crazy, can't forget that.


If you want a great historical/fictional account of his life, ignore the movie and read the trilogy of his life written by Valerio Massimo Manfredi.

yes i meant to say bi-sexual but it was already clear he had wives i assumed people would know what i meant, and my info comes from my ancient greek history classes ive taken in college, that was just a quick link that talked specificaly about events from the movie so i thought it would be easy to clear up some stuff for people.. he had wives he liked women but he also did have relationships with men

agree

Actually alot of the movie focusses on just that, his determiniation to be better than his father, throughout the movie he challenges people who compare him to Phillip and all he did, but Alexander out does his father immensely. The movie does focus on his family life, not just the military life, his over bearing mother, and his father who never thought he was good enough as well.

The movie wasn't that good, whether it was accurate or not.

Angelina Jolie was very good in it. I was extremely surprised by that, considering I don't like her.

i think you have to read his history again, his first war (after his fathers death) was against thebes, second was against persia on the banks of the grancius river, one year later another war against 60,000 persians on the plain of issus, next he went into phoenicia and fought the city of tyre, tyre was an island with two walls completely surrounding its shores, the babylonians couldnt conquer this place before, alexanders army built a causeway to get to the walls, the first causeway was ruined due to tyres army having ships with archers, but alexander wanted a SECOND causeway, which was successful and then they marched straight into tyre and conquered it, palestine and philista then gave into his rule, but not gaza, which was then conquered by alexander. Here come the persians again with more than A MILLION MEN and once again, alexander beat that army on the plains of arbela, then he marched on to babylon, but they surrendered to him, THIS is when Darius (the persian leader in the movie) was killed by one of his own generals, in the movie they made it seem like it was not even a day later. By that time alexander was conquering small tribes near the caspian sea, Sogdiana was a city he conquered and where he killed clitus out of anger, AND THEN this lead to the war where he had the arrow lunged into his lungs and died of a mysterious cause, some people think he was murdered like they showed in the movie, but it could've very well been from the rusty arrow which would give him tetanus and that would explain why he couldnt say a name for someone to rule because tetanus causes horrible lockjaw

i always give credit where credit is due, the movie looked amazing, the battles were completely amazing, the acting couldnt have been done better, but it was definitely a movie about alexanders dramatic life and not accurate in timeline

I was extremely disapointed with this movie. The acting was mediocre, and at times Oliver Stone seemed too obsessed with speacial effects. Example, when the entire backround goes red during the battle in India. The battle scenes were well done though, and it was historically accurate enough. But oh well.

I was disappointed here. Sorry for the comparison but Troy was a far better movie.

I think so, too.

It really isnt silly if you think about it he was one of thier leaders and a great one and if someone is potraying him in a way they see untrue then they have a right to change that. Oliver stone should have checked and made sure the story of the film didnt offend anyone or country. Not that i am blaming him.

Still haven't seen the movie, and the more I hear I probably won't. O.K., maybe when it comes out on DVD, even then I'll wait till there is nothing else to do. A few quick questions to those who have seen it though:

Does the movie really play up the relationships that Alexander had with his dog and horse? I ask this because it was these two relationships that really help define his character. His love and respect for these animals (his dearest friends) was based on their undevoted loyalty and love for him. They were his only unquestionable relationships. By that I mean alexander knew that their friendship was simple, absolute and without complexity.

He absolutely loved Bucephalus his horse and was shattered when he died. His love for Peritas (thought to be a Mollossian dog) was no less. He named cities after both animals, and was always never far from one or the other.

Peritas was killed saving Alexander (who at the time was being careless in battle) and Alexander never forgave himself. Bucephalus' death also sent him into a deep depression. I sure hope important relationships like this weren't overlooked in this movie.




Actually, Alexander's father loved him very much (although his mother was quite a wingnut). In fact it was Plutarch, who after studying many original manuscripts and writings of Alexander's life 300 years before, who wrote, " and his father shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, 'O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.' "

Those are hardly the words of a father who thought little of his son.