DavidSloan Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 I'm curious to know if anyone has seen this latest swords-and-sandals movie. I don't plan on going to see it but I'm interested to know if it's as bad as the critics said it is...I mean this thing was bashed all the way down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Nathan Milford Posted November 28, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted November 28, 2004 I saw it last night. Essential Noir at the Film Forum was sold out so... I can't remember leaving a movie with such a bad taste in my mouth. I just can't put it into words. What were they thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidSloan Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 That's what I figured...Oliver Stone is a mess. Essential noir is sweet. You have to see Gun Crazy! I was at the Forum on Fri to see the new Godard. Have you seen the poster for the new anniversery Taxi Driver print? That's gonna be a treat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiguelDelValle Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I havent seen that movie but it is shot by Rodrigo Prieto and that would be a guarantee in my book. How was the photography work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fstop Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I was disappointed that Sal Totino didn't shoot Alexander based on his excellent work on Stone's Any Given Sunday. I'm not a fan of Prieto's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 My brother saw Alexander and liked it... ..and that's not a good thing, since he's pretty much the most extreme lover of action&cheese I've ever known. I think Oliver Stone has just lost his mind or something. I mean, last year he makes this glowing documentary of Fidel Castro, saying the worlds leaders need to emulate him (yeah, great. That's what we need more of, presidents who when you publicly criticize them, they have you taken out and shot in the head). Anyway, I think he's turned into a wacky dude. I haven't really cared for anything he's done since Platoon, but that's just me. Natural Born Killers was just a mess, I don't care how you intellectualize it, it was just a big sloppy mess. If it doesn't make sense without having to have it interpreted, then it has failed in execution, and that movie made no sense unless someone regurgitated one of his interviews about it. MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew McDermott Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Me: I saw Alexander last night. Friend: Didn't Oliver Stone direct that? Me: Yeah. Friend: I heard that's his worst film since his last one. Me: Yup. Prieto's work is about the only redeeming thing in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Hey, there's boobs in it too, so it MUST be worth paying $10 for, right? Hello? :rolleyes: ~Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 thats the only reason Im going to see it, for the boobs. and to see how the IR stuff came out, Im going just for the boobs and the imagery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted November 30, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted November 30, 2004 Whether you agree with his politics or not, everyone must admit he?s a brilliant filmmaker. What?s strange to me is how goofy ?Alexander? was. However, like all of us, he must have been sitting in a room by himself after reading the reviews and wondering ?have I lost it??. Too bad critics don't reveiw the amount of sweat put into a film. Unfortunately, you?re only as good as your latest flick, but I think Oliver?s got more in him. He?ll rebound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It's really ashame that movies that are supposed to harken back to the filimmakers of Ben Hur resort to the same sales tactics as movies of the late '20s and movies like American Pie. If I really want to see boobs, that's what porn should be for. Going to the theatre should be about seeing art, and frankly a lot of movies are so commercial that any art intended at their inception has since been lost. I have also heard that the movie is basically a plug for homosexuality. Not that standing up for gay rights is wrong, but why the hell is it that all movies have to try and plug in current day issues rather than sticking to their own times? This has always been one of my personal pet pieves. Filmmakers need to watch Ben Hur (1959 version), Spartacus, and The Robe to see what epic storytelling is really all about. Gladiator is a movie that has done just this and shines for it. It's about stories, not digital effects, tits, and how much blood and violence and foul language one can get away with. Regards. ~Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It's really ashame that movies that are supposed to harken back to the filimmakers of Ben Hur resort to the same sales tactics as movies of the late '20s and movies like American Pie. If I really want to see boobs, that's what porn should be for. Going to the theatre should be about seeing art, and frankly a lot of movies are so commercial that any art intended at their inception has since been lost. I have also heard that the movie is basically a plug for homosexuality. Not that standing up for gay rights is wrong, but why the hell is it that all movies have to try and plug in current day issues rather than sticking to their own times? This has always been one of my personal pet pieves. Filmmakers need to watch Ben Hur (1959 version), Spartacus, and The Robe to see what epic storytelling is really all about. Gladiator is a movie that has done just this and shines for it. It's about stories, not digital effects, tits, and how much blood and violence and foul language one can get away with. Regards. ~Karl Borowski <{POST_SNAPBACK}> AMEN!!!! Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted November 30, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted November 30, 2004 I have also heard that the movie is basically a plug for homosexuality. Not that standing up for gay rights is wrong, but why the hell is it that all movies have to try and plug in current day issues rather than sticking to their own times? Homosexuality was widely practiced in ancient Greece and Alexander was bisexual so I don't see how that isn't relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Appelt Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 (edited) It's about stories, not digital effects, tits, and how much blood and violence and foul language one can get away with. SPARTACUS is definitely my favourite epic film, and it features fantastic tits, just watch Ms. Simmons swimming in the lake or reciting poems to Kirk Douglas. :blink: But for those who watch epics for boobs only, may I recommend LOVES OF HERCULES aka HERCULES VS THE HYDRA - Jayne Mansfield's body and costumes have to be seen to be believed. :rolleyes: Edited November 30, 2004 by Christian Appelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Homosexuality was widely practiced in ancient Greece and Alexander was bisexual so I don't see how that isn't relevant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is true. But, it seems that there's more of a justification of homosexuality in the film than an accurate portrayal of the past. Or did I miss the scene with Alexander and his little boy friend? I am glad they didn't include that. Regards. ~Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 1, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 1, 2004 Your arguments or concerns only make sense if you are operating from a basic position that homosexuality is inherently wrong and unnatural. Because if you aren't, then what's the big deal about Stone suggesting Alexander was bisexual? There's no way of knowing for sure anyway. Is having a lead character be bisexual the same thing as "justifying homosexuality"? What does that phrase mean anyway? Why can't a character be bisexual in a story? Why can't it just be an element of his character? Did everyone but me miss the homoerotic subtext of "Lawrence of Arabia"? Or in "Ben-Hur"? "Rebel Without a Cause"? I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems that if Stone had read that Alexander could have been bisexual, the dramatist in him probably thought it was too good a detail to pass up, not necessarily because he wanted to be historically accurate (although that was one motivation for making the film) but because perhaps he thought it would add a little drama and conflict, elements of any good story. If anything, most of the reviews that I read, like in the LA Times, thought the bisexual subplot was lukewarm, awkwardly handled, and that Stone -- a hearty heterosexual -- was not particularly interested in dealing with that, preferring to dwell on Alexander's heterosexual romps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 One thing that irks me about Stone's films is IMO sometimes his casting is way off. I haven't seen Alexander yet but everybody looks rediculous in the trailers. Like they are only playing the role because no one else was available. Which is not true. Angelina Jolie as somebodies mother? When I see her I see 'hot chick' not mother. Why didn't he pick more of a mother type? Val Kilmer looks too young in his role and it looks like his beard is glued on, whether it is or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted December 1, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 1, 2004 Did everyone but me miss the homoerotic subtext of "Lawrence of Arabia"? Or in "Ben-Hur"? "Rebel Without a Cause"? Charlton Heston obvioulsy did! I once watched a great documentary on French/German channel 'Arte' about homosexuality in movies. One film in particular stuck out: 'The Maltese Falcon' where the 3 bad guys (Peter Lorre, his fat boss and their young aide) form a homosexual ménage à trois. Of course this is only hinted at, but if you look closely it becomes quite obvious. Quite risqué for 1941! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 "Angelina Jolie as somebodies mother? When I see her I see 'hot chick' not mother. Why didn't he pick more of a mother type?" I think he was going for the M.I.L.F look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I think the bisexual/homosexual element in mainstream films, is one of those things we're used to seeing played down for the sake of "taste" or not offending anyone who has a problem with it, to retain a films ability to have the broadest appeal possible. In the past, it's always had to be "hinted at", but in light of todays (somewhat) openmindedness, modern filmmakers should feel they can reach a bit more and be more realistic with the subject matter. I applaud that, but as with anything that has been treated one way in the past, then is dealt with in a more obvious manner, it's expected that some will see this as making a larger point about it than it really is. I think he's just taking advantage of the fact that it's not as big a deal as it used to be, for most of the population. I mean, imagine a lesbian kiss on TV, back in the 60's, when they made Barbara Eden cover up her navel in I Dream Of Jeannie? I haven't seen the film, but my view is, if Alexander was bi, then that's the way it was, and logically I can't really complain if there's even a full-blown sex scene between him & another male character (sorry, really bad pun). If his mom was bi, and the film had a sex scene between Angeline' Jolie's character and another woman, would you feel they were "pushing homosexuality" on you? Frankly, that would not only get few complaints, but would triple the box office. On Oliver Stone's casting choices, I'd have to agree. Angeline Jolie is one year older than Colin, (and looks it) and is playing his mother? Ridiculous. This is casting by box office draw, and nothing else, if you ask me, because it just doesn't make sense any other way. Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted December 3, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 3, 2004 The biggest homoerotic film ever has to be Top Gun. All those topless beach volleyball scenes, to Skerrit in a narrow, thin Magnum moustache to "you can be my wingman anytime" and all that. It's real funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I remember being in high school, being mighty suspicious of all the ass-slapping jock behavior, so you may have a point there! Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 One thing that irks me about Stone's films is IMO sometimes his casting is way off. I haven't seen Alexander yet but everybody looks rediculous in the trailers. Like they are only playing the role because no one else was available. Which is not true. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Haha! You're soo right! Farrell looks rediculous. More rediculous than Brad Pitt in Troy. Im really bored by all these epic stories. I haven't seen this one and never will. Yet another movie where 'Der Fuhrer' greets his men before battle on his white horse saying something like: it's what we do in this life that will echo in eternity..yadadadadadad..zzzzzzzz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Well, I haven't heard any females say Brad Pitt looks ridiculous in Troy! You would have thought that they would have seen the bad numbers for Troy and backpedaled out of Alexander though, but I'd guess they were too far into pre or production to kill the project, unless they thought it was going to do 200 million just because Farell, Jolie, and Stone are involved in the project. I think all these recent "epic" pictures really came about because of the success of Gladiator. I generally like these kinds of movies (if the story is good), but seriously, how many toga and sandal movies per decade is there really a market for? It would be like putting out 5 musicals a year. Those days are gone.... Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted December 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 8, 2004 You would have thought that they would have seen the bad numbers for Troy and backpedaled out of Alexander though, but I'd guess they were too far into pre or production to kill the project, unless they thought it was going to do 200 million just because Farell, Jolie, and Stone are involved in the project. Matt Pacini <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, Alexander was in the can before Troy came out I'm sure, so they didn't have much choice in releasing the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now