Went to see this movie last night with a friend.

*Some tiny spoilers below, so tiny in fact, that they probably won't spoil anything.*

Hmmm... where to start. First off, I believe it was a very well written movie, and I enjoyed it a lot. Secondly, I'm sure a lot of you have heard about whoever sueing the movie makers for implying that Alaxander The Great was bisexual. Well, they don't imply it at all, they expose it, right to your face, no doubt about it. I'm not even homophobic but a few scenes they threw in there I thought were a little unnecesary. I'm not sure if it was that big a part of the story of his life, or if the director was a flamer and the movie was a cover to ease America into the idea of bi/homosexuality. Seriously though, I'm just thinking that the director might have gone a little to far on that subject.

Besides that minor complaint, I believe the movie very well portrayed what Alaxander was trying to accomplish and what he himself thought about and believed in.

I hope some other people have already seen it and can comment.

I haven't seen it yet, but I want to.

Not quite as good as I was expecting. I was hoping to see more of the battle aspect- what I did see was pretty hard to discern. Like the strategy in Persia- I wasn't exactly sure what it was and I could figure it out on my own. I thought it was mostly well done.
Lot of the homosexual overtones... I wasn't expecting there to be quite so much of that, though granted I went in knowing there'd be some. So, I guess, mixed feelings

i'll prob. go this sat. to see it at citywalk, colin farrell is hot, but Angelina Jolie is a goddess! I <3 her! lol

Laura:D

Rotten tomatoes is slamming it hard.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alexander/?beg=0&int=101&creamcrop_limit=32&page=all

i want hair like Colin Farrell in dat film.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Bah, who cares about his sexuality.

The real question is, do we get to see Macedonian Phalanxes put to use and Indian War elephants?

the part I find interesting is that Stone omits most of alexander's other campaigns and focuses on his conquest of the middle east, according to the reviews that I've read.

seems like a subtle jab at Bush to me. I don't intend to turn this into yet another political stalemate thread, but I had to bring this up.

Most of the homosexual content ended up on the cutting room floor.

Colin Farrell.

I went in expecting a battle movie, and ended up seeing a drama about Alexander's character. I don't regret seeing it, but I'll probably not watch it again.

If you were expecting a battle movie, then obviously you have never seen any other movie that Oliver Stone has ever made....

No, I can't say I have.

I thought it was terrible, and it squandered a decent cast. The cinematography was awful - especially in the battles, like when the camera focused on an emotionless Darius in the dead center of the screen, or the slow-motion horse-elephant fight in India. The dialogue was pretty bad as well. It was as if Oliver Stone tried to condense a history lesson into casual conversation for our benefit.. Alexander all but said "I shall grow up to be king of Macedon and conquer 9/10ths of all the known world, including the far-flung Persian Empire led by Darius! They will call me Alexander the Great!" The part at the end where Stone has Ptolemy completely revise history to claim that Alexander's generals assassinated him and covered it up was icing on the cake.

Meh. The fact that the audience I saw it with was made up entirely of college students, who giggled like idiots whenever they made a reference to Alexander's bisexuality, didn't help. But all around it could have been a lot better.

Only thing I can really say about the movie:
Too long. If I bothered to look how long it was before going, I would not have seen it. Three hour movies can wait till I watch it on DVD.

/hates long movies in the theatre.

haha yeah... i havent seen it, but i heard there was a full frontal shot of him, and they cut it cause it was 'distracting'. "what is he like clubbing someone over the head with it!?"- graham norton

I like how they made all of Alexander's forces have Irish accents to match Farrell's.

in one of the scenes with Farrel naked I think you can actually see a little too much (though shadowed) from behind him (aka his unmentionables). It's when the camera is behind him and he gets into bed.

I heard there was some sexual stuff going on behind-camera too during hte shoot.

This movie was ruined by too much sexual stuff, it's just not necessary. It's like Oliver Stone wanted to make an epic with as much questionable stuff as possible. I get a little bit of it...but seriously, he needed to tone down.


The Persian battle was frickin sweet IMO. Sure the camera jumped, but I just thought it was an awesome action part. I loved the crow or hawk or whatever flying above for every "bird's eye" scene, that was sweet. I also loved the persian king, the one that died later. He kicked serious arse. He just started into the camera, then turned around, showed a "2" fingers with each hand, made his hands into fists, then turned back around and stared into the camera. Persian Bad A$$, imo. (I'm awaiting POP: Warrior within, anxiously)

That was "A Home at the End of the World."

Only thing I cared about this movie:

The soundtrack was nice. Go Vangelis!