Bill Hicks once pointed out that people got too wrapped up in the moral discussions about Basic Instinct to simply realise it was a very bad film. I'm seeing a very similar thing happen with this film.
There have been a lot of people giving this film a 10/10 and pour a load of praise on the film in IMDb reviews. Interestingly most of the comments have been defencive rather then actually positive, and they have been far too concerned with the ethics and morals of the film rather then it's function as a piece of historically based entertainment. Any film on the IMDb has a higher number of people giving it a ten then 7-9 and sometimes any other number, even those with weighted average ratings closer to 3 or 4 and it very sad that people do that. I've noticed that when there is a bad film made by a trendy (and usually much better) director it seems to get a load of 10 ratings before most people would even have had a chance to see it and this is no exception.
Anyway I think it needs to be explained to those that praise the film and go on about people not liking it and how they don't understand the morals of the film and that the bisexuality is okay, etc, etc, just why the majority thought this film was rubbish. It's nothing to do with Alexanders orientation or how that was portrayed or the morals of the film.
There are only two things you need need to know about the film:
1) The casting was terrible. Some of the minor characters were cast reasonably but the choices for Alexander and his mother was disastrous. Not because of either of those character acting skills but because of the following reasons.
1a. Colin Farrell was incapable of dropping his Irish accent or putting on a more sensible accent for his role. As such the supporting Macedonians were all forced to wear Irish accents as well. It's also been noted that he didn't make a very successful blonde. Sure the guy can act, but when casting you have to consider *suitibility*!
1b. On that note, why on earth cast a woman only 2 years older then Farell to play his mother? Totally bizarre. I love Jolie as an actress, and like most men think she is gorgeous, but she was just not suitable for that role. Also because she was one of the few cast members that chose to put on an accent other then Irish she stands out like a sore thumb.
1c. The rest of the cast too have been blatantly chosen for their stature as actors rather then their actual suitability or capability to pull of the particular roles they were chosen for. The cast list is impressive, but that seems to be it's entire reason for being. It's almost like Stone is showing off the names he can attract (and the studio can afford) for his film. That is not, in my mind, they way to cast a movie.
2) The film has terrible pace and is nightmarishly long.
Alexander is someone that has fought more battles then I've had pizza's (and I've had a lot of pizza's). Yet if you were randomly skipping through the movie you'd really struggle to stop it at a point where an actual battle is going on. Visually these rare battles are impressive, but because of the poor build ups and the way the excessive scenes of long theatrical style monologues kill off any excitement you may otherwise be feeling about the battles it is very hard to appreciate these scenes.
Of course as I'm sure you've all noticed it's very trendy to overshoot films these days. It seems rare to see a film under 2 hours long and so many directors seem to be making films long apparently just for the sake of it. They want to be as epic as lord of the rings or Gladiator and figure that all it takes is to make the film really really long. Well the first thing you'd noticed about those two films (or 4 films technically) is that they don't seem anywhere near as long as there running time (even the 4 hour special edition of return of the king kept me interested for the duration, and I wouldn't normally compare films to LOTR but with so many people suggesting this is worth a 10 I think it has to be done). This film however seemed about twice as long as it's excessive running time and that is a very bad thing. People gave up and walked out with at least 40 minutes still to go! Now all those monologues may not be intended to come across as such, but all the actors seem to have adopted a theatrical style of reading their long long lines as if they were reciting Shakespeare. If this was a play I could live with that, but this is a film and it needs the right kind of pacing.
So in summary - terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. Bi-Sexuality and ancient morals are irrelevant in evaluation of this film, terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. QED.
Oh yeah there are also a good few cheesy clichés and terrible lines (like the one about "of all the Alexander's he is the greatest" what moron wrote that!). But really, overshadowed by the pace/casting.
There have been a lot of people giving this film a 10/10 and pour a load of praise on the film in IMDb reviews. Interestingly most of the comments have been defencive rather then actually positive, and they have been far too concerned with the ethics and morals of the film rather then it's function as a piece of historically based entertainment. Any film on the IMDb has a higher number of people giving it a ten then 7-9 and sometimes any other number, even those with weighted average ratings closer to 3 or 4 and it very sad that people do that. I've noticed that when there is a bad film made by a trendy (and usually much better) director it seems to get a load of 10 ratings before most people would even have had a chance to see it and this is no exception.
Anyway I think it needs to be explained to those that praise the film and go on about people not liking it and how they don't understand the morals of the film and that the bisexuality is okay, etc, etc, just why the majority thought this film was rubbish. It's nothing to do with Alexanders orientation or how that was portrayed or the morals of the film.
There are only two things you need need to know about the film:
1) The casting was terrible. Some of the minor characters were cast reasonably but the choices for Alexander and his mother was disastrous. Not because of either of those character acting skills but because of the following reasons.
1a. Colin Farrell was incapable of dropping his Irish accent or putting on a more sensible accent for his role. As such the supporting Macedonians were all forced to wear Irish accents as well. It's also been noted that he didn't make a very successful blonde. Sure the guy can act, but when casting you have to consider *suitibility*!
1b. On that note, why on earth cast a woman only 2 years older then Farell to play his mother? Totally bizarre. I love Jolie as an actress, and like most men think she is gorgeous, but she was just not suitable for that role. Also because she was one of the few cast members that chose to put on an accent other then Irish she stands out like a sore thumb.
1c. The rest of the cast too have been blatantly chosen for their stature as actors rather then their actual suitability or capability to pull of the particular roles they were chosen for. The cast list is impressive, but that seems to be it's entire reason for being. It's almost like Stone is showing off the names he can attract (and the studio can afford) for his film. That is not, in my mind, they way to cast a movie.
2) The film has terrible pace and is nightmarishly long.
Alexander is someone that has fought more battles then I've had pizza's (and I've had a lot of pizza's). Yet if you were randomly skipping through the movie you'd really struggle to stop it at a point where an actual battle is going on. Visually these rare battles are impressive, but because of the poor build ups and the way the excessive scenes of long theatrical style monologues kill off any excitement you may otherwise be feeling about the battles it is very hard to appreciate these scenes.
Of course as I'm sure you've all noticed it's very trendy to overshoot films these days. It seems rare to see a film under 2 hours long and so many directors seem to be making films long apparently just for the sake of it. They want to be as epic as lord of the rings or Gladiator and figure that all it takes is to make the film really really long. Well the first thing you'd noticed about those two films (or 4 films technically) is that they don't seem anywhere near as long as there running time (even the 4 hour special edition of return of the king kept me interested for the duration, and I wouldn't normally compare films to LOTR but with so many people suggesting this is worth a 10 I think it has to be done). This film however seemed about twice as long as it's excessive running time and that is a very bad thing. People gave up and walked out with at least 40 minutes still to go! Now all those monologues may not be intended to come across as such, but all the actors seem to have adopted a theatrical style of reading their long long lines as if they were reciting Shakespeare. If this was a play I could live with that, but this is a film and it needs the right kind of pacing.
So in summary - terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. Bi-Sexuality and ancient morals are irrelevant in evaluation of this film, terrible casting, terrible pace, excessively long. QED.
Oh yeah there are also a good few cheesy clichés and terrible lines (like the one about "of all the Alexander's he is the greatest" what moron wrote that!). But really, overshadowed by the pace/casting.