Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stone blames 'fundamentalism' in US for 'Alexander' flop
Yahoo! News ^ | 01/05/05 | c/o Associated Press

Posted on 01/05/2005 7:26:43 PM PST by Angry Republican

LONDON (AFP) - Oscar-winning writer-director Oliver Stone blamed "raging fundamentalism in morality" for the frosty reception that his new film "Alexander" is getting in his native United States.

In London for its British premiere, Stone, 58, said that after a career full of cage-rattling work, he thought a biopic of Alexander the Great, the 4th century Macedonian-born conquerer, would be "a safe subject".

But he said he was "quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews" which greeted its US release, including outrage at the film's suggestion that Alexander was bisexual.

"Sexuality is a large issue in America right now, but it isn't so much in other countries," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: alexander; blame; crybaby; flop; fundamentalism; homosexual; oliverstone; stone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Did he ever think the movie flopped because it sucked?
1 posted on 01/05/2005 7:26:44 PM PST by Angry Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

Interesting ongoing discussion here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1314943/posts


2 posted on 01/05/2005 7:30:31 PM PST by Blue Screen of Death (/i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
Naw his ego wouldn't allow it after all he gave us a true portrayal of Viet Nam in Platoon, the story of klintoons and john kerry's service to the country in Viet Nam.
3 posted on 01/05/2005 7:31:24 PM PST by dts32041 (When did the Democratic party stop being the political arm of the KKK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death; F14 Pilot

Drat. I was just poking fun at F14 Pilot for posting the same article two seconds after me. D'OH!


4 posted on 01/05/2005 7:34:49 PM PST by Angry Republican (Screw the Sun! Ehrlich in '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

lol

pull mine


5 posted on 01/05/2005 7:35:20 PM PST by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

Admit nothing, deny everything, blame others for everything. /Leftist sodomy promoting perverted hollywood ideology.


6 posted on 01/05/2005 7:36:29 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (''Go though life with a Bible in one hand and a Newspaper in the other" -- Billy Graham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot; Admin Moderator

You'll have to talk to the Admin Mod.


7 posted on 01/05/2005 7:39:56 PM PST by Angry Republican (Screw the Sun! Ehrlich in '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
Any explanation's gotta be better than the truth. I was unfortunate enough to see Alexander. Here are just some of the reasons why it should only be shown in drive-in movie theaters in the daytime:

Other than Anthony Hopkins' and Christopher Plummer's, there wasn't a single likable character in the whole movie. I want to know why Alexander was such a charismatic historic character. I want to know why men would follow him literally to the ends of the Earth. I didn't see that here.

The battle scenes, although full of senseless violence, have no emotional impact. You don't really care who wins. It's not like other big screen movies, such as Braveheart or Gladiator, where you have an emotional stake in who wins or loses.

All of the Macedonians have Irish or Scottish brogues. Are they kidding?

Angelina Jolie has a Russian accent. Are they kidding?

Val Kilmer is wasted as Philip. He's a great actor, and Oliver Stone utterly wastes his performance.

Alexander is portrayed as hysterical throughout the movie, without no charisma. Again, you want to know why men follow him.

I was disappointed in how little you see of the Persians. I wanted to see something of King Xerxes. I wanted to see something of the intrigue in the Persian court. I wanted to see some characterization there. You see a couple of close-ups of Xerxes during the battle scenes, and that's pretty much it.

Everything that happens onscreen needs to move the story forward. There's a lot of extraneous drivel. Stone makes the beginning drama student's mistake. He "tells" us instead of "shows" us. Okay, we get it that Alexander probably had sex with men. So what? It was a common practice then. Everyone who studies Classical history knows that. Who cares? I get it! Don't beat me over the head with it, use it to somehow move the story forward. Instead, Stone is preaching at me, "Alexander was bisexual and probably even gay. Doesn't that just make him a wonderful guy!" I don't care! And don't tell me afterward how I'm some homophobic Red state Neanderthal. Blah, blah, blah. That's too easy.

I wanted to know what made Roxanne so fascinating that Alexander would risk his kingdom to marry her. (Great nude scene with Rosario Dawson, by the way; there can never be enough gorgeous naked women in a blockbuster movie as far as I'm concerned, but it didn't drive the story forward.)

I couldn't help but watch the movie and think, If only someone like David Lean or Mel Gibson had made this movie!

8 posted on 01/05/2005 7:41:51 PM PST by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
Even my VERY liberal sister's friend thought it sucked. Was she a fundamentalist too?

Roger Ebert, Oliver Stone worshiper gave it a thumbs down. If he can give it a thumbs down, you know it's bad!

If a movie sucked for being an overall crappy film, NIETHER side of the aisle will go see it.
9 posted on 01/05/2005 7:45:46 PM PST by Simmy2.5 (Kerry will be inaugurated January 20th! I BELIEVE!!! [DUmmie taken away in a straight jacket])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

It would have been kind of fun to ask Stone...How he could make a movie about such a world changing figure, someone that he could only scratch the surface of their life...yet, he is all obsessed with his bedroom behavior? I could care less....if it fascinates him so much why didn't he just shoot a gay porn with the title making a cheesy play on the name PETER ?


10 posted on 01/05/2005 7:45:48 PM PST by uncle fenders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

>"raging fundamentalism in morality"<

Good!
It would be nice if 'raging degenerency and immoraltiy' declined a bit.


11 posted on 01/05/2005 7:45:50 PM PST by G Larry (Admiral James Woolsey as National Intelligence Director)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death

Word of mouth from people at work is that this movie stinks.


12 posted on 01/05/2005 7:49:11 PM PST by handy (Forgive me this day, my daily typos...The Truth is not a Smear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: handy
Richard Burton's version of "Alexander the Great" (1956) is available on DVD at Hollywood Video. Rent that one instead.

"Troy" (2004) is available for rental now, and even tho' some have criticized it, the production values are eons above Oliver Stone's flop.

13 posted on 01/05/2005 7:53:17 PM PST by Ciexyz (I use the term Blue Cities, not Blue States. PA is red except for Philly, Pgh & Erie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

Fundamentalist Hindus? Yeah, its nasty how they always paint the Greeks as evil. ;-D


14 posted on 01/05/2005 8:01:01 PM PST by DeaconBenjamin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican

Typical liberal. It is always somebody else's fault.


15 posted on 01/05/2005 8:01:33 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

It's Bush's fault.


16 posted on 01/05/2005 8:02:58 PM PST by Angry Republican (Screw the Sun! Ehrlich in '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
Couldn't be that the movie was crap or that the acting was crap or that the writing was crap or that the directing was crap. It must have been those savage fundamentalists and their hangups about the sodomites.

Let's chalk one up for the fundamentalists then! Hey Hollywood - homo based crap doesn't sell. Just ask Ellen Degenerate or Rosie O'Lesbo. America won't buy homo. It don't work and we don't think it's normal either.

ps - Hey Oliver, your film was crap too!
17 posted on 01/05/2005 8:03:27 PM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
This guy hasn't made a decent picture since "Platoon" and "Wall Street".
"Alexander" just wasn't a great film and when your trying to make an historical epic it better have a good story but most of all a lot of action. This just wasn't "Gladiator" which was a really good film with a real moral story and ending, it was about truth and honor with a lot of great action.
I haven't seen "Alexander" and I may see it on DVD but from all accounts it just didn't have the right stuff.
I think back to all the great Steve Reeves pictures of the late 1950's early 1960's, they were all period pieces from the Greek and Roman periods and were great. Main component was a lot action and a decent story line.
People just were not interested in seeing a film about "Alexander" that emphasized his Bisexuality.
18 posted on 01/05/2005 8:11:10 PM PST by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

JFK was pretty funny. Tin foil alert up the wazoo!


19 posted on 01/05/2005 8:17:02 PM PST by Angry Republican (Screw the Sun! Ehrlich in '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Angry Republican
In London for its British premiere, Stone, 58, said that after a career full of cage-rattling work, he thought a biopic of Alexander the Great, the 4th century Macedonian-born conquerer, would be "a safe subject".

Maybe Oliver meant myopic?

5.56mm

20 posted on 01/05/2005 8:18:51 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson