Was Oliver Stone the right director for movie "Alexander"?

[dean_martin]

Geez boys, if it's a movie you can pretty much bet on inaccuracy...I never hold my breath anymore.
Even the good ones are told from a point of view...I just didn't think the movie had that large epic feeling to it. I enjoyed it, but it was more "rental quality" to me than blockbuster motion picture. I didn't pay attention to the fact that Stone did it though, and now in hindsight it is a bit peculiar.

Maybe that genre's just been exploited and done too many times. Maybe Smokey's bang on and Stone was out of his element...at least you've got to respect the man for trying.

Yeah, historical accuracy is not on the top of list of criteria for liking/disliking a film - unless it's supposed to be a documentary. But I was a little surprised at the strong reactions from a couple of my shade-tree historian buddies who hold Alexander in high esteem. Oh well, at least I can watch it without being burdened by all that knowledge.

[Kam]

I havent seen Alexander so I don't know what the differences are, but just curious about this historical accuracy issue. i realize these are movies, and innaccuracies occur in science and history to appease the storyline as the filmmakers want it in nearly every type of movie, especially summer blockbusters which just throw out the laws of science, nature, history, facts, etc. Sure in forest gump they can move things around a little to keep the story going, but in biographical movies titled after people who did exist, shouldn't there be historical accuracy? Am not saying we should have these movies in place for kids to watch in school and learn from, but still... shouldn't there be just a little respect for reality?
If, in Malcolm X, denzel was given a mohawk that'd be a little off wouldn't it? if they gave him a white wife for ratings sake, that'd be 'wrong', wouldn't it? If in Nixon, they put hopkins in a wheel chair to stir things up, that wouldnt be cool. so why is it acceptable to throw away historical data in alexander? now i dont know if the inaccuracies are as farfetched as putting nixon in a wheel chair, but the that's not the point. shouldn't an audience that is going to see a movie titled "Actual Living Person" expect to see the facts that they could look up in encyclopedia brittanica? sure if its "Fictional Person" they can warp the facts as much as they want, but if the filmmakers are trying to tell the story of an actual person, personally, i think there needs to be some respect for the actual history. if the actual history isn't 'juicy' enough for the movie, then dont tell that persons story, or... even better, there's this whole thing called fiction they can use and just tell a fictional story that takes elements of peoples lives who did exist. (see e.g. gladiator, silence of the lambs, etc).
i guess if i see a movie that is a "historical/ biographical movie" than i am expecting a pretty decent level of historical/ biographical accuracy. If i'm watching a complete work of fiction, then am expecting to be entertained. or am i the only one? just some more ramblings from the kamster.

peace
k2

[MomurdA]

oliver stone isnt the right director for ANY film.