Victor Davis Hanson: Culling From Among the Mediocre in Hollywood

VDH Private Papers ^ | November 27, 2004 | Victor Davis Hanson

[quidnunc]

A short review of Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great

Well, I thought it was simply terrible. The film goes on for nearly three hours, but we hear nothing of what either supporters or detractors of Alexander, both ancient and modern, have agreed were the central issues of his life. Did he really believe in a unity of mankind, and were his mass mixed marriages, Persian dress, and kowtowing cynical, sincere, or delusions of megalomania? We see nothing of the siege of Tyre, Gaza, much less Thebes or even the burning of Persepolis. Other than the talking head Ptolemy, none of his generals have much of a character. There is nothing really in detail about the page purging other than a single reference; Stone, I would have thought, could have had a field day with Alexander’s introduction of both crucifixion and decimation.

-snip-

[Paul Atreides]

Woody Allen's with guns.

Talk about contradiction!

[Rummyfan]

As for "King Arthur", I hope it inspires young people to read the traditional story, because this was not it. The cinematography was pretty, but the storyline was a snoozer. The Arthur just seemed depressed. Realism shouldn't overcome our myths and legends---this dulls their original purpose, which is to stimulate and inspire one to greatness.

Since you brought up King Arthur..... EXCALIBUR is the definitive and best ever film of the Arthurian legend.

[liberallarry]

There is a difference, you realize?

Not really. It's story-telling. Either you tell it well...or you don't. Doesn't have to be true to the book or to history.

[TEXOKIE]

bttt

[ReadyNow]

Homosexuality ruins everything.

[LexBaird]

Born on the Fourth of July was extremely powerful.

Born on the Fourth of July was a propaganda piece. As were Platoon, Nixon, and JFK. Scarface was just a remake of Little Caesar, and Conan is an adaptation of a long-standing pulp fiction character which was handled adequately at best.

[Sam the Sham]

I have a widescreen. You can only see "Lawrence of Arabia" properly on a widescreen TV.

Yes, the speck on the horizon shot Lean used so well there.

[LexBaird]

Since you brought up King Arthur..... EXCALIBUR is the definitive and best ever film of the Arthurian legend.

Nonsense. The winner and undisputed world champion Arthur movie is: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[liberallarry]

I disagree.

Off the top of my head I cite

John Travolta in "Get Shorty"
Russell Crowe in "Gladiator", "Master and Commander", and "L.A. Confidential",
Harrison Ford in "Witness"
Jude Law in "Enemy at the Gates"
Pierce Brosna in "The Thomas Crown Affair" and all the James Bond movies"
Brad Pitt in "Snatch" and the one where he plays a star-crossed lover.

There are many, many others.

[liberallarry]

That still leaves Wall St. and Salvador. On the rest we disagree.

[liberallarry]

Must not forget Anthory Hopkins as "Hannibal the Cannibal"

[AmishDude]

The total budget is $215 million, including a promotional budget of $60 million. I can't think of anyone who has had that large of a budget for one film (LOTR doesn't count). Maybe Cleopatra (adjusted for inflation). Look for the comparisons to that movie, although I suspect Cleopatra is actually a better film that was just too insanely expensive.

I had a list of Oliver Stone's success posted, but the new way of listing my posts keeps me from being able to recall it. Basically, if you give him $50m and a controversial script, you can pretty much count on him making $50-$100m with overseas receipts.

(It seems his US history films -- BOT4th of July, JFK, Nixon -- do far better overseas, which I find interesting.)

Any Given Sunday even made money. But this one will be a flop of legendary proportions (Gigli, Cleopatra...but not Pluto Nash).

Box Office Mojo had it 6th on Friday -- behind Spongebob. It made 3.9 on Monday, 4.3 on Thursday and 5.7 on Friday. I would guess its main competition is the implausible, but apparently likable National Treasure. It's killing, despite negative reviews (Medved happened to like it, though.

[FreedomCalls]

Somehow, Hollywood has lost the ability to depict such people without wanting to diminish or belittle them in some way as if to reassure us that they were no different from us.

The Incredibles takes this theme and runs with it.

[LexBaird]

That still leaves Wall St. and Salvador.

Haven't seen them. Probably never will. I get the feeling that Wall Street

couldn't rise above being a commentary on the 80's "decade of greed" stereotype, let alone rise up to the level of a film I'd call great. How is it relevant now, let alone 50 years from now.

I think you are far more generous than I with the accolade of "Great Film". I'll go years without seeing one that I think will stand the test of time, as well as change the way movies are made forever after. The most recent addition to my list is The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but I'd have to reach back a ways before that to name one.

[AmishDude]

The Oscars are having an animated category this year. Well, it isn't 100% certain, but they're expected to vote for it. Here would be the eligible films:

• Clifford's Really Big Movie
• Disney's Teacher's Pet
• Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
• Home on the Range
• The Incredibles
• The Legend of Buddha
• The Polar Express
• Shrek 2
• Shark Tale
• Sky Blue
• The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie

I'm rooting for The Incredibles. Now if they would just create a category for special acting performances, like Andy Serkis as Gollum or even voice performances in cartoons.

[liberallarry]

But this one will be a flop of legendary proportions (Gigli, Cleopatra...but not Pluto Nash).

Looks that way.

But it will have plenty of company...most recently "Heaven's Gate". I've seen Cleopatra, by the way. Visually it was great - especially for its time - but it was a real stinker.

The horrible thing is that plenty of stinkers make money; "Gunga Din" and "Fort Apache" recently put me to sleep. I've walked out on a number of recent block-busters.

[Rummyfan]

"Fort Apache" recently put me to sleep

John Ford's FORT APACHE or some newer version? 'Cause I love John Ford's version!

[LexBaird]

most recently "Heaven's Gate"

Oh, how soon they forget. Remember Waterworld?

[AmishDude]

If you watch a lot of movies, blockbusters will be boring and pedestrian. If you watch very few, you want to see fun and a bit more mindless fare.

The biggest flops seem to be (they pretty much have to be universally seen as a bad film, have a big budget and make back less than a third of it), as listed by MSN are: Title (budget (incl. marketing if available)/box office (worldwide if available))

• Gigli ($74m/$7.2m)
• Howard the Duck ($37m/$16m)
• Hudson Hawk ($60+m/$17.2m)
• Ishtar ($55m/$12.7m)
• Inchon ($50m/$1.9m)
• Battlefield Earth ($73m/$21.5m)
• Cleopatra ($44m/$26m) adjusted: ($259m/$153m)
• Heaven's Gate ($44m/$3m)
• The Postman ($90-100m/$17.6m) [Interesting note: Waterworld actually came very close to breaking even.]
• Town & Country ($85-90m/$6.7m)
• Cutthroat Island ($100+m/$9.9m)
• The Adventures of Pluto Nash ($90-100m/$4.4m)

[liberallarry]

A few weeks ago, I watched Casablanca for the first time.

Be sure to follow with "The Maltese Falcon", "To Have and to Have not", "Key Largo", "Notorious", "The Philadelphia Story", and "North by Northwest".