• 02-07-2005, 09:51 PM
    Smokey
    Was Oliver Stone the right director for movie "Alexander"?
    As it is evident from Oliver Stones previous movies he directed (such as Salvador, Platoon), he seem to excel in materials that have an edge to them, or situations out of ordinary. But directing a big historical epic might not be his calling.

    May be directors such as James Cameron or Steve splidberg might have been more appropriate.

    Anybody seen this movie?

    <img src="http://www.upress.state.ms.us/img/books/fall2000/oliver_stone.jpg">
  • 02-08-2005, 06:17 AM
    kexodusc
    Coulda been worse...imagine Tarantino or Spike Lee getting their hands on this...or, Mel Gibson...

    I just watch movies and enjoy them, I'm not sure I'm qualified to critque the director's performance or effect on the end result. I didn't think this film was bad though. Could have been better, but could have been a lot worse, too...

    Interesting question!
  • 02-08-2005, 07:42 AM
    JSE
    I have not seen the movie and I doubt I will until it's on cable. From what I have heard, it was a terrible movie.

    In terms of Stone, I think he has really become a poor director. He seems to push the envelope just to push the envelope. He just can't make "a movie". He has to be cutting edge and push the limits of what we are comfortable with every time. I am not saying this is a bad thing by any means. I just think it's being done by a director who has gotten to self involved to be able to direct a good movie.

    JSE
  • 02-08-2005, 09:45 AM
    eqm
    I wonder if good old Fidel liked it, since he and Stone are such good friends...?
  • 02-09-2005, 10:14 PM
    Smokey
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Coulda been worse...imagine Tarantino or Spike Lee getting their hands on this...or, Mel Gibson.
    I don't know about Terantino, but Spike Lee or Mel Gibson might have done a better job (going by their previous works). I belive big part of reason this movie sunk is it inaccuracy of historical events. This movie could been a big hit in Europe if it had any historical values.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JSE
    In terms of Stone, I think he has really become a poor director.
    I wouldn't say he is bad director. He just seem to excels on lower budget movies (have you seen Elsalvador).But I hope you agree that he is great screen writer. He wrote the screen play for Scarface :)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eqm
    I wonder if good old Fidel liked it, since he and Stone are such good friends...?
    I am sure Fidel is not too crazy about the movie [Scarface] Stone scripted about Cuban born Tony Montana :D
  • 02-10-2005, 08:08 AM
    dean_martin
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smokey
    I belive big part of reason this movie sunk is it inaccuracy of historical events.
    That's what I've heard from the local history buffs who've seen it.
  • 02-10-2005, 08:36 AM
    kexodusc
    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.
  • 02-10-2005, 02:12 PM
    dean_martin
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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.
  • 02-11-2005, 04:31 PM
    Kam
    historical accuracy....
    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
  • 02-21-2005, 12:32 PM
    MomurdA
    oliver stone isnt the right director for ANY film.