list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Alexander on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Alexander/228794/default.aspx Title: Alexander
Year: 2004
Director: Oliver Stone
Plot: The fourth film to chronicle the life of fourth-century B.C. ruler Alexander the Great, Oliver Stone's Alexander stars Colin Farrell as the titular Macedonian conqueror. The film follows the young king as he leads his forces on a bloody empirical conquest across the known world, taking large parts of Asia and the Middle East to amass a giant empire, all by the time he turned 25. Anthony Hopkins co-stars as Ptolemy I along with Rosario Dawson as Roxane, Angelina Jolie as Olympias, Jared Leto as Hephaistion, Val Kilmer as King Philip II, and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Cassander. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 34
Number of Lists: 32
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:53:53 GMTAlexander2004Oliver StoneThe fourth film to chronicle the life of fourth-century B.C. ruler Alexander the Great, <a href="/players/P___112907/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Oliver Stone</a>'s Alexander stars <a href="/players/P____22766/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Colin Farrell</a> as the titular Macedonian conqueror. The film follows the young king as he leads his forces on a bloody empirical conquest across the known world, taking large parts of Asia and the Middle East to amass a giant empire, all by the time he turned 25. <a href="/players/P____94812/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Hopkins</a> co-stars as Ptolemy I along with <a href="/players/P___199028/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rosario Dawson</a> as Roxane, <a href="/players/P____36009/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Angelina Jolie</a> as Olympias, <a href="/players/P___200349/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jared Leto</a> as Hephaistion, <a href="/players/P____38142/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Val Kilmer</a> as King Philip II, and <a href="/players/P___216059/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jonathan Rhys-Meyers</a> as Cassander. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide34Tag Target (>10)3242http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t61294x9cs5.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Alexander/228794/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/minjoe/archive/2008/3/5/25896.aspx Post By: minjoe
Post To: minjoe Blog
Post Date: 3/5/2008 2:43:28 PM
Body: Upon watching Alexander, I found myself with a lot of questions, and very few answers. In fact, it has been almost four years since I saw this film, and yet I remain haunted by the many inconsistincies and poor choices which were displayed in the film.I had the unfortunate privelage of seeing this movie in a sold out theatre where I was forced to take in the action from the front row. From that vantage point I watched one of the most uninspired, miserable films I have ever seen. If the constant comments by the audience throughout the length of the film were any indication--I was not alone in my feelings toward this movie.Alexander, as you may recall, was a heavily anticipated movie and rightfully so with its ridiculously large budget and star studded cast. As the film opened, I have to admit, I was hoping for an epic of Gladiator like proportions. Unfortunately, Collin Farrell is no Russel Crowe, and the film did not take very long to unravel.Rather than discuss the plot, which apparently Director Oliver Stone felt was an optional part of making a movie, lets discuss where this film went so horribly wrong:Collin Farrell is not convincing as a conquering hero.Angelina Jolie is not convincing as his mother, and she makes the choice to talk with an accent that can only be described as "bad."The bi-sexual subplot revolving around Alexander and his right hand man was never developed and therefore came off as forced and awkward in every scene.The shots during the battle scenes looked as though a camera man was told to run around in circles with his camera on his shoulders and occassionally shake the device wildly for added effect.Actors were apparently told that "intense" dialouge meant you were supposed to "scream or "bellow." Thus, it was no surprise that, when Alexander died in the film, uproarious applause echoed through the theatre.The greatest failure of Alexander was squandering a $155,000,000 budget on a film that never came close to living up to the epic nature of its content. Once again, it is proven that money does not necessarily make great art.Alexander, as it turns out, was not so great...
]]>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:43:28 GMTminjoeminjoe Blog3/5/2008 2:43:28 PMUpon watching Alexander, I found myself with a lot of questions, and very few answers. In fact, it has been almost four years since I saw this film, and yet I remain haunted by the many inconsistincies and poor choices which were displayed in the film.I had the unfortunate privelage of seeing this movie in a sold out theatre where I was forced to take in the action from the front row. From that vantage point I watched one of the most uninspired, miserable films I have ever seen. If the constant comments by the audience throughout the length of the film were any indication--I was not alone in my feelings toward this movie.Alexander, as you may recall, was a heavily anticipated movie and rightfully so with its ridiculously large budget and star studded cast. As the film opened, I have to admit, I was hoping for an epic of Gladiator like proportions. Unfortunately, Collin Farrell is no Russel Crowe, and the film did not take very long to unravel.Rather than discuss the plot, which apparently Director Oliver Stone felt was an optional part of making a movie, lets discuss where this film went so horribly wrong:Collin Farrell is not convincing as a conquering hero.Angelina Jolie is not convincing as his mother, and she makes the choice to talk with an accent that can only be described as &quot;bad.&quot;The bi-sexual subplot revolving around Alexander and his right hand man was never developed and therefore came off as forced and awkward in every scene.The shots during the battle scenes looked as though a camera man was told to run around in circles with his camera on his shoulders and occassionally shake the device wildly for added effect.Actors were apparently told that &quot;intense&quot; dialouge meant you were supposed to &quot;scream or &quot;bellow.&quot; Thus, it was no surprise that, when Alexander died in the film, uproarious applause echoed through the theatre.The greatest failure of Alexander was squandering a $155,000,000 budget on a film that never came close to living up to the epic nature of its content. Once again, it is proven that money does not necessarily make great art.Alexander, as it turns out, was not so great... http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/14/22822.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/14/2007 1:00:37 PM
Body: Eventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:00:37 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/14/2007 1:00:37 PMEventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/7/1/12746.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 7/1/2007 1:44:00 AM
Body: It’s easy to understand Oliver Stone’s boyhood hero worship of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered 90% of the known world by the age of 25, and over two million square miles by his death at 33. By most accounts, he did so without the unbridled imperialism and savagery of so many other conquistadors. It’s hard not to admire the Herculean directorial task, orchestrating battle scenes, engaging experts of every stripe: dialogue consultants, historians, animal trainers, military and equestrian coaches. No one could accuse Oliver Stone of dealing in half measures, so why is Alexander so plagued by ambivalence? Sporadic and choppy, dazzling and preposterous. Perhaps Stone was so overcome with devotion that he struggled to make Alexander the man truly accessible. It’s not a whitewash. We see him when troops are resentful, when he makes errors in judgment or lets ego get the better of him. But there’s something flawed about the tone, so bent on grandeur that it's excessively reverent. Mannered and sanctimonious.I was surprised at how derivative Alexander felt, as if Stone was afraid his usual volatile, sardonic approach wasn’t respectful enough. There were stirring, magnificent moments: young Alexander taming the stallion he will name Bucephalus, his later, victorious reception in Egypt. Lush spectacle and elaborate vistas that would have knocked DeMille on his ass. With it’s impressive cast and Stone’s resolute, unequivocal sensibilities, it’s difficult to understand why Alexander seems to be groping for the right strategy. Why it flounders and stumbles. You hear the lofty dialogue and can’t believe the pontificating. The actors aren’t bad, but their delivery is off-point. The one exception, Angelina Jolie (as Alexander’s mother, Olympias) nails the material, and the scenes between she and Farrell are some of the film’s best. Jolie can go over the top without trying our credibility. Even with a thick dialect she communicates, without making a speech. If only Stone had been content to reveal Alexander’s humanity and left the adoration to us.There’s been some debate over the casting of Colin Farrell as Alexander but I think he was an inspired choice. There are times when his energy and attitude lapses, when his choices as an actor seem ill-advised, or worse, embarrassing. However, this responsibility is Stone’s, and with decisive guidance, I think Farrell would have done just fine. Stone is telling the story of a legend, whose mother worshipped Dionysus and father was possibly the god Zeus. Connotations of a messiah are hard to ignore and Stone alludes to other Greek scripture as well. But there’s something odd about the visual language of the film. It’s not just the golden hair that frequently looks ridiculous. It’s expressions on Farrell’s face that send the wrong message; imagery that looks arbitrary or misdiagnosed. Historians disagree as to whether Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, but historians often take liberties with information they don’t like. The fact that sex between male friends in ancient Greece was acceptable and unremarkable is hard to deduce from Alexander’s bizarre subliminal text: Farrell’s androgynous look in key scenes, the fey appearance of Jared Leto as Hephaistion, Alexander’s ubiquitous eunuch that looks like Julie Newmar in her Catwoman days. I have no problem with gender-blurring but resent the notion that copulating men must succumb to effeminacy or submission. When I heard that Stone was at the helm of Alexander, I believed that here, at last, was an iconoclast with the cojones to take on the “controversy” without caving to bullies who mask intolerance under the guise of Christianity. Past experience might have taught me better. It would be difficult to describe the depth of my disappointment with vague narrative references such as "...Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs." While I can appreciate the sly wit, there is clearly an unspoken intent to downplay Alexander's sexual predilections. The studios are glad to accept money and talent from the GLBT community, then sell us out in a heartbeat. We're told that no one cares if we're gay, as long as we don't make an issue out of it, by people who never try to imagine being queer in a culture where hetero-sex is constantly shoved down your throat. Radio, television, movies, periodicals, plays, advertisements, you can't escape it. An overwhelming majority of teen suicides are committed by gay kids because they are told over and over again that, at best, there is something horribly wrong with them. Imagine the healing power of knowing one of history's greatest heroes unashamedly loved and made love to his lifelong friend, Hephaistion. That one of the world's fiercest warriors mourned his friend’s death for days without hiding behind macho affectation. Think about the good this movie could have done. How different the world would be if we didn't pander to ignorance.
]]>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:44:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun7/1/2007 1:44:00 AMIt&rsquo;s easy to understand Oliver Stone&rsquo;s boyhood hero worship of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered 90% of the known world by the age of 25, and over two million square miles by his death at 33. By most accounts, he did so without the unbridled imperialism and savagery of so many other conquistadors. It&rsquo;s hard not to admire the Herculean directorial task, orchestrating battle scenes, engaging experts of every stripe: dialogue consultants, historians, animal trainers, military and equestrian coaches. No one could accuse Oliver Stone of dealing in half measures, so why is Alexander so plagued by ambivalence? Sporadic and choppy, dazzling and preposterous. Perhaps Stone was so overcome with devotion that he struggled to make Alexander the man truly accessible. It&rsquo;s not a whitewash. We see him when troops are resentful, when he makes errors in judgment or lets ego get the better of him. But there&rsquo;s something flawed about the tone, so bent on grandeur that it's excessively reverent. Mannered and sanctimonious.I was surprised at how derivative Alexander felt, as if Stone was afraid his usual volatile, sardonic approach wasn&rsquo;t respectful enough. There were stirring, magnificent moments: young Alexander taming the stallion he will name Bucephalus, his later, victorious reception in Egypt. Lush spectacle and elaborate vistas that would have knocked DeMille on his ass. With it&rsquo;s impressive cast and Stone&rsquo;s resolute, unequivocal sensibilities, it&rsquo;s difficult to understand why Alexander seems to be groping for the right strategy. Why it flounders and stumbles. You hear the lofty dialogue and can&rsquo;t believe the pontificating. The actors aren&rsquo;t bad, but their delivery is off-point. The one exception, Angelina Jolie (as Alexander&rsquo;s mother, Olympias) nails the material, and the scenes between she and Farrell are some of the film&rsquo;s best. Jolie can go over the top without trying our credibility. Even with a thick dialect she communicates, without making a speech. If only Stone had been content to reveal Alexander&rsquo;s humanity and left the adoration to us.There&rsquo;s been some debate over the casting of Colin Farrell as Alexander but I think he was an inspired choice. There are times when his energy and attitude lapses, when his choices as an actor seem ill-advised, or worse, embarrassing. However, this responsibility is Stone&rsquo;s, and with decisive guidance, I think Farrell would have done just fine. Stone is telling the story of a legend, whose mother worshipped Dionysus and father was possibly the god Zeus. Connotations of a messiah are hard to ignore and Stone alludes to other Greek scripture as well. But there&rsquo;s something odd about the visual language of the film. It&rsquo;s not just the golden hair that frequently looks ridiculous. It&rsquo;s expressions on Farrell&rsquo;s face that send the wrong message; imagery that looks arbitrary or misdiagnosed. Historians disagree as to whether Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, but historians often take liberties with information they don&rsquo;t like. The fact that sex between male friends in ancient Greece was acceptable and unremarkable is hard to deduce from Alexander&rsquo;s bizarre subliminal text: Farrell&rsquo;s androgynous look in key scenes, the fey appearance of Jared Leto as Hephaistion, Alexander&rsquo;s ubiquitous eunuch that looks like Julie Newmar in her Catwoman days. I have no problem with gender-blurring but resent the notion that copulating men must succumb to effeminacy or submission. When I heard that Stone was at the helm of Alexander, I believed that here, at last, was an iconoclast with the cojones to take on the &ldquo;controversy&rdquo; without caving to bullies who mask intolerance under the guise of Christianity. Past experience might have taught me better. It would be difficult to describe the depth of my disappointment with vague narrative references such as "...Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs." While I can appreciate the sly wit, there is clearly an unspoken intent to downplay Alexander's sexual predilections. The studios are glad to accept money and talent from the GLBT community, then sell us out in a heartbeat. We're told that no one cares if we're gay, as long as we don't make an issue out of it, by people who never try to imagine being queer in a culture where hetero-sex is constantly shoved down your throat. Radio, television, movies, periodicals, plays, advertisements, you can't escape it. An overwhelming majority of teen suicides are committed by gay kids because they are told over and over again that, at best, there is something horribly wrong with them. Imagine the healing power of knowing one of history's greatest heroes unashamedly loved and made love to his lifelong friend, Hephaistion. That one of the world's fiercest warriors mourned his friend&rsquo;s death for days without hiding behind macho affectation. Think about the good this movie could have done. How different the world would be if we didn't pander to ignorance. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177179608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/a/MemberTagFilms.aspxa
Number of films tagged: 69

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 78

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:47:14 GMT696978Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mother/MemberTagFilms.aspxmother
Number of films tagged: 2522

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 152

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT252253152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT99948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorrible
Number of films tagged: 72

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 73

]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:19:31 GMT724273Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/manipulation/MemberTagFilms.aspxmanipulation
Number of films tagged: 249

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 65

]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:46:13 GMT2493965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/king/MemberTagFilms.aspxking
Number of films tagged: 619

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 54

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT6192954Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/visual/MemberTagFilms.aspxvisual
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 161

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT14028161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/painful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpainful
Number of films tagged: 26

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 34

]]>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:44:12 GMT261934Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/greece/MemberTagFilms.aspxgreece
Number of films tagged: 208

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:21:06 GMT2081727Tag