[liberallarry]

why would supposedly smart insiders turn over $160 million to someone of such meager talent

Because his talent is not meager. He's made some great films and is a master of his craft.

Hansen doesn't know what he's talking about. It's he who's letting his political bias cloud his judgement. Making great films is very hard to do. Only a few succeed and none, or almost none, consistantly. Let him try to do it if he wants credibility as a critic.

[Allan]

I gather you must have liked that schlock, Larry.

[Revolting cat!]

Did you hear the great theme song Alexander Ragtime Band? It rocks, $160 million worth of rocking!

[WOSG]

rofl, I've seen enough horrible $100 million movies to know that mediocrity hasnt stopped Hollywood from funding directors. IMHO, Stone had one great movie, Platoon, and the rest was mediocre or worse.

[LexBaird]

Because his talent is not meager. He's made some great films and is a master of his craft.

Stone excells at making films that are contoversial. That does not equate with great. They generate a lot of discussion and press, but they are of minimal lasting influence.

Compare this movie with Lawrence of Arabia - another film about a larger than life military hero in the Middle East, also with homoerotic undertones. David Lean was a great filmmaker. Stone is just a workmanlike cinamatographer who occasionally releases a controversial propaganda opus.

[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.

[karnage]

I agree that Stone has made some great movies - PLATOON and JFK. ANY GIVEN SUNDAY was a lot of fun. ALEXANDER is a miss for him - Hanson makes a good point in that the movie never addresses the fundamentals of Alexander's character; other than obvious courage, and success in battle, we don't see what made him great. And the movie really does spend a lot of time on his homosexual attractions.