I just wonder if anyone has seen both films and if they could compare them.
I've only seen Oliver Stones Alexander and thought it was horrible i many many ways and I wonder about the quality of this. Is it wotrh a look or? I have not been able to find it on a normal-priced DVD.
"King talks to tree. Phew what a loony!"
March and Burton.
'Nuf said.
Okay, i will go over what i believe was better
Alexander- Richard Burton version was better, it seemed more realistic and more accurate, though mind you in the battle scenes colin farrell did a good job.
Olympias- Jolie was better, i have to say i think she perfectly captured the jealousy and cunning that Olympias was said to have.
Phillip- I like both, some scenes in 1956 version are good, others were better in 2004 version.
Cinematography/Sound/Special effects- 2004 version, but what did you expect, they didn't have CGI in the 50's!
Historical Accuracy- Again i like both, okay confusing Stateira with Roxanne was a bit much but other than that it was okay. More accurate than Troy!
Screenplay- 1956, much better, especially dialogue wise
[deleted]
Both films ultimately fail, but both can be watchable
However I prefer the 56 films jsut I like I prefer most Classic Historical epics to the Modern ones.
Baldwin08.com
The next best thing to Ron Paul!
[deleted]
Cinematically speaking, They do not compare. In no way Wessen's constipated, gaudy play can compare with the images seen in the 2004 movie; the feverished battle view as Hydespades, the entry into Babylon, the magnificent soundtrack and the realistic costumes. in the 2004 version you really feel far from home when they are in the plains of Bactria or into the bogs of India. The 2004 version was all done in the same locale.
The 1956 play, however, had better actors and writing, and if both stories were to be told, the 1956 one would be more interesting. It was however marked by its epoch, as Alexander's bisexuality is downright ignored, whereas it is undoubtely central in the much more soapish 2004 movie.
Both actors playing Alexanders were, IMO, poor choices. The 2004 version didn't look nor sound like a leader of men, while Burton, if more convincing in that aspect, was too old-looking and wooden. IMO DiCaprio would have been just fine in the 2004 version.
There is nothing to compare... between two total craps.
Both movies are pure garbage..
Real movie about Aleksandar Makedonski must wait for his Balkan director...
Oliver Stone can work on some texas oil kings, presidents etc..
I haven't seen Oliver Stone's Alexander in about five years, but from what I remember it was much better than Robert Rossen's 1956 film. Both the 2004 and 1956 film are heavily flawed, and both are boring. But I found this film to be much more dull and uninteresting; no to mention amateurishly edited; than the Oliver Stone film.
If I had to compare the two films on different merits (or lack of) I would do this:
Acting:
The acting in both films were bad. Colin Farrell was hammy, while Richard Burton was slightly better, but still as wooden as the Trojan horse. I liked the 1956's version of Philip, while I also liked Val Kilmer's portrayl (I'm in the minority with that, I think).
Script:
Both scripts were terrible, in that they were dull and difficult to follow. The 2004 script was melodramatic and cringeworthy, while the 1956 version was underwhelming and boring. The 1956 version was easier to follow as it charted Alexander's career in chronological order (give or take a few scenes). The 2004 version on the other hand jumped from one thing to the next, making it impossible to understand if you weren't familiar with Alexander's life.
Editing:
The battles in the 2004 version are slightly ruined by choppy editing. It's almost impossible to follow what's going on - a real shame as otherwise they were nicely staged.
The editing in the 1956 film was even worse -in one scene we see Memnon of Rhodes discussing the battle plan for Granicus when two Persians object to him. Memnon answers back but the scene fades out while his lips are still moving - making it obvious this scene was supposed to last longer but was left on the cutting room floor. The scene where Memnon makes his last stand is laughably bad; I mean how long was that? Was it two seconds?
Directing:
The battles in the 1956 version were clumsily directed. Several other scenes were supposed to carry dramatic weight but just ended up being underwhelming. The 2004 version's directing was better, but often let down during the battle scenes, especially with the weird infra-red sections in India which seemed pointless.
Costumes, props and sets:
The 2004 verison had the most historically accurate costumes, props and sets I've ever seen for a Hollywood epic set in the Classical period. While they weren't 100% correct, they were much better than anything else I've seen on film (Gladiator, Troy etc).
The 1956 costumes were horrible on the other hand. The helmet of Philip's envoy at the start of the film looks like it's being made out of papier-mache and was painted by a seven year old. Alexander's shield on the other hand looks like a battered trash can lid - the arm straps even snap off in one scene.
Soundtrack:
The 2004 soundtrack by Vangelis is bombastic, often drowning out the dialouge with synthesizer music. As individual pieces of music they are pretty good, but they're not really suited to a historical epic. The 1956 soundtrack on the other hand was tinny and forgettable. There only ever seemed to be two themes - one for Alexander's victories, and another horn solo for the Persians.
Overall, the 2004 film edges out the 1956 version in my opinion (mostly because of the better costumes, props and sets). But both are heavily flawed and don't really work as pieces of entertainment.
Personally I think that both movies show that Alexander's career is not really suited for film. Perhaps a television epic might be better as the length of the series would allow them to go into greater detail.
[deleted]
IMHO both actors who played Alexander were waaaaay too old for the role. Alexander died at 30 to 31-years old. Richard Burton was already older than that when he filmed the movie and Colin Farrell was almost that old when he filmed his role. While Colin was albeit a little younger than Richard, he was still almost a decade older than Alexander was when his most of story took place.
I know that most movies requires a certain amount of suspension of belief, but watching a grown man (especially one with a 5:00 shadow) play a teenage boy kept taking me out of the movie. For that reason alone I couldn't enjoy either movie.
both flawed, but fascinating 56 has better acting and though burton belittled himself he's quite good, photography & score are dissapoinments stone's version is a mess, but a glorious failure it has scenes you'll never forget, triumphal entry into babylon the elephants & buchephulus in india fevered visions, but colin farrel can't carry it and angelina jolie is awful maybe she thought it was camp ? both are worthwhile
shareI actually find Oliver Stone's version in spite of any flaws it may have both more interesting and entertaining than this one personally.
share