Alexander the Great (1956) versus Alexander (2004)

[deleted]

Thank you.
I think the 2004 version contains too much and too little at the same time.

I just hope Valerio M. Manfredis books will be filmed ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327405/ ). I've read the books and they are great.

"King talks to tree. Phew what a loony!"

You hit the nail pretty squarely on the head; I can't forgive Stone though for making such an awful, randomly inaccurate film and thus probably precluding anyone else from making a really serious historical film about Alexander, one of the most fascinating and important figures in human history, in the future. (However if you read about Alexander's later days, after the heroic adventure story of his youthful conquests, you will see that he was actually an SOB--a cruel, murderous, drunken, power-mad dictator, and his significance as the agent of spreading Greek civilization outside of Greece was merely tangential.) Incidentally, enough details survive in the histories to construct a very long movie about his life, even though I think we do not have any original written sources dating from before about one-hundred years after his death--it is as if all we ever could know about Abraham Lincoln was contained in the Carl Sanburg biography!

the 1956 one was horrible. that an the 300 spartans are the only ancient greece movies that i disliked.

for the 2004 version haters. why?
what about its fantastic battle scenes(best ones of the year)
what about the fantastic scenes between alexander and his father
what about the beutiful set(or cgi) of babylon
what about its big budget
what about its time of hard work,making it

i thought it was perfectly portrayed and very well done

why do all you hate it so much???(very big movie and wasn't easy to make at all

Alexander (2004) is suprisingly accurate. Some events are skipped or told out of order, but Stone gave possibly the most accurate portrayal of Alexander that can be expected out of Hollywood.

The main problem with Stone's film, aside from Jolie's acting, was that Stone spent too much time on some events that are not as historically important, and not enough time on the other events that Alexander is most remembered for.

But I do rebuke anyone who slam's Stone's film for being 'incredibly inaccurate.' Stone's film is more accurate than most recent historically-based films that come to mind, 'Gladiator' included. While watching it, just remember that most of what you see comes straight from the historical record, or was deduced by the greatest living scholar of Alexander, R. Lane Fox. Also keep in mind that there is much you don't see, but unless Hollywood was willing to sink the amount that made 'Lord of the Rings' into an 'Alexander Trilogy,' don't expect everything.

Re the lighting: I think it's just technology. I'm not an expert on this, but in the 50's, it took a great deal of light for color film to expose properly -- especially in widescreen formats. I believe a lot of night scenes had to be filmed in daylight using dark filters. I think they did the best they could given the constraints.

Re the 2004 movie:

There were some criticisms of this movie that annoyed me. Some complained about the accents. Since his own language was Macedonian did they expect that Alexander would speak English with a Canadian or American accent? What accents should they have used? His mother was, as I understand it, not Macedonian. Therefore, her accent would have been different. What accent should she have had? Who cares? It's not relevant.

At worst, I would call this movie a magnificent failure. Oliver Stone merits respect. Alexander the Great is an amazing historical figure. If you were improve this film, what would you add or delete? I thought that the movie was historically accurate. However, Oliver Stone also investigated Alexander's psychological makeup by showing the impact of his father AND HIS MOTHER. For me, that was a bold step.

Unlike "Kill Bill" Alexander did not lend itself to two movies.

The Richard Burton movie is fifty years old. It's difficult to compare the two in 2006. I will say that Oliver Stone's movie will be judged well in the years ahead.

Sturdy Ram said it better than I ever could.

“The audience is not being able to understand the difference between ancient and modern morals, but to be honest I don't care about the wider audience. Why should Oliver have to sugarcoat and alter his work simply because the 'MTV generation' and mass TV watchers of the United States don't know their history? I say he shouldn't. Their ignorance is *their* problem, not Oliver's. In a long shot, Oliver Stone chose to create a historically accurate film around the life of a man, both fact and fiction, who created the gateway for humanity's future path. Many will not appreciate this film, because their minds are too stuffed with current calamity to realize where their freedoms and dreams of equality originated from. This is a brilliant film, which was portrayed correctly, from a personable point of view, to create the character of Alexander in the manner in which he lived; uninhibited by other influences save those whom he loved and knew were trustworthy. This movie is about the origins not only of the Western mind and intellect, but also plan larger into the scheme of the man who saw and dreamt of the future- a world that accepted each other and lived together in diversity in harmony. This man was Alexander-- our Western father. Like it, hate it; it doesn't really matter. The fact is Oliver Stone brought to his team of experts internationally respected historians to make this film as accurate historically as possible. This should not go without notice. Colin Farrell, a known Irish- now Hollywood lover boy, does indeed display the heart and integrity of a natural born leader. He has lead this cast in an epic performance, well past his personal years and experience. He is worthy of praise in his portrayal of Alexander. The movie is fantastic; Well done, Olivier, Colin, etc... Well done”



Angel: If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do 'cause that's all there is.

the original Alexander The Great movie is interesting failure and Oliver Stone's one is a much better film

All right ramblers..let's get ramblin'
Seth Gecko (FROM DUSK TILL DAWN)