The movie Alexander has made made a diasappointing hash of a subject matter that in my opinion had almost infinite potental. The casting is terrible. None of the characters really stand out. Alexander (Colin Farrel) comes off as a wooden stooge. His father Phillip is no better. I think the only character that kind of stands out is Alexander's mother, played by Angelina Jolie. There are too many scream-run-hack-sack scenes, totally unnecessary. Too much random sentimentality that doesn't even strike home. If you are sad, look sad, act sad, we can figure it out, you don't need to burst into tears or make weird facial expressions. Most of the possible drama is dumbed (or lets say Hollywooded) out. The races are stereotyped. Indian have red hair. I have no idea where that came from? The Persians and Mongolians are 'barbarians'. The accents are weird - the Macedonian characeters have American, British and Irish accents, all others have Mexican or Arab accents. The non-Macedonian characters are not even portrayed as human, no discernable character or intelligence, apart from what follows from their stereotype. The Indian King Ashoka has not even merited a mention.
I think the one saving grace for the movie is the depiction of the human side of Alexander. Sometimes I feel that people who achieve superlative success are often driven by their 'ghosts', deep feelings of rejection, emptiness etc.. Alexander is shown to be torn between his mother and father, continually trying to please both, when pleasing one automatically wins the disapproval of the other. He entire quest is a desire to prove his worth to the world! Alexander is also attracted to his childhood male friend. I am not sure if this should interpreted as a deep desire by Oliver Stone to create a realistic projection, or just another attempt to scandalize and hence sell the movie. In conclusion, what could have been an all encompassing memorable epic, is reduced into an action flick slightly better than a Steven Segal movie. This movie should have been made by a Steven Spielberg or Roman Polanski.
PS: Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist and Steven Spielberg's Munich are out. Munich is brilliant. I am sure Oliver Twist is going to be quite good as well.
I think the one saving grace for the movie is the depiction of the human side of Alexander. Sometimes I feel that people who achieve superlative success are often driven by their 'ghosts', deep feelings of rejection, emptiness etc.. Alexander is shown to be torn between his mother and father, continually trying to please both, when pleasing one automatically wins the disapproval of the other. He entire quest is a desire to prove his worth to the world! Alexander is also attracted to his childhood male friend. I am not sure if this should interpreted as a deep desire by Oliver Stone to create a realistic projection, or just another attempt to scandalize and hence sell the movie. In conclusion, what could have been an all encompassing memorable epic, is reduced into an action flick slightly better than a Steven Segal movie. This movie should have been made by a Steven Spielberg or Roman Polanski.
PS: Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist and Steven Spielberg's Munich are out. Munich is brilliant. I am sure Oliver Twist is going to be quite good as well.
7 comments:
Yeah, totally agreed. Was too commercial for something that is great on its own.
[intern] yes i am waiting!
[jay-san] maybe it was out a while back. i don't remember it coming out or seeing it in the theaters. i would like to see it. it is out on dvd now, thats how i know.
yes the actions scenes are good. it's a great action movie. but why use a topic like Alexander as a stage for it? it's like using a Rolls Royce to deliver pizza.
yes. i think it had potential for deep enduring drama. most of it had been lost.
all characters look like over energetic bunnies with attention deficit disorder :D..
[sanity-starved] yes! refer jay san's comment.
[intern] yes, seriously. i expected much better.
The most annoying thing is not that people did have stereotypes in their minds (which is natural actually), but the characters kind of live the stereotype. Also, there is little development of any secondary characters in the movie, just Alexander, his mother. Thats most of the movie!!
i second you on Munich..
Yep Munich was good..very Intense...but I felt it was a bit too pro-israeli.. In the sense a lotta shit the Israeli's did during 1970's was covered..with Spielberg as Director thats conceivable. And did u know that it had the next James Bond in the film..Daniel Craig..the blond guy! Gee can't imagine him saying "My name's Bond!"
Oscar??...well! outside chance.. Spielberg has a good chance to snap up the best director award though!
PS: haven't seen Alexander so no comments on that!But I like Farell was brilliant in Phonebooth!
Aditya Rao
[aditya] hey!!
i wouldn't think munich was pro-israel. there would be some invariable effects, but on the whole i think spielberg has done well to not take sides.
ohh..i didn' tknow that..heh :D..this would probably be the last decent movie he can make..once you are james bond..you remain james bond..
actually there are quite a few people from psbb who blog here - sp, kierthi (you can get him for sp'
s blogroll) and roshni
[intern] yes! it was pretty un-sided. actually, the killings are portrayed as some glamorous affair. the real sorditity comes out. 99.99% percent of film makers would be tempted to create a james bond style action thriller where the israelis crush the palestinians or something like that.
Post a Comment