The difference between the “dumb” of NATIONAL TREASURE and ALEXANDER is that NT knows it’s dumb, and revels in the ridiculousness of itself. ALEXANDER hasn’t the foggiest idea how dumb and boring it is, and tries to sell itself as grand cinema.
And at least National Treasure didn’t feature Nic Cage giving speeches with lines like “There will never be another treasure – another NATIONAL treasure – like this!” He just found a room packed with cool stuff, said it should be spread out to museums in Cairo, NY, London, etc., and then bought a mansion with his share of the loot.
I’ve got no problems with dumb movies that know they’re dumb. I’m amazed that so many of you do, seeing as the Movies board never goes more than a couple of months without a thread on the coolness of zombie movies.
[size=7]BRETT TODD’S NATIONAL TREASURE SPOIL FEST ABOVE[/size]
Just remember this thought when you think, “Gosh, movies really suck today.”
They suck because people go see sucky movies.
“Conquer your fear, and you can conquer death.”
I do like Mr. Farrel’s blonde bleach job; too bad about the black, bushy eyebrows, though.
caught a sneak of it last night.
the crowd was laughing its ass off for much of the movie, especially when alexander gives other characters not-so-subtle lusty looks. the movie really drags on after the last major fight. you could tell the audience really wanted for it to just end so they could leave. Val Kilmer is suprisingly good in this movie, even with overbearing makeup. Angelina Jolie has a terrible accent, and is unconvincing as Alexander’s mother. I could definitely see the direction Stone wanted the film to take. This is a drama and tragedy, not a pure action spectacle like Troy. A lot of the themes about the burden of a child’s responsibility to live up to his parents is spoon fed to you, and many metaphors are taken too literally. I thought the action pieces were very well presented, and if you’re going to watch this movie at all, you should watch it for that. a low 6/10.
Forget the army size, the real controversy is that some Greeks are threatening to sue Stone for portraying Alexander as -shock, horror - bisexual.
Just remember this thought when you think, “Gosh, movies really suck today.”
They suck because people go see sucky movies.[/quote]
This thread and the NT treasure one shows that all too clearly.
Saw this movie today and while I didn’t think it was a giant turd, it’s not that good.
The good points:
- I thought Farrell was great
- Stone is still able to do some interesting film things here and there
- The two battles are superb, but mostly the first and largest in the middle of the film. Went out of its way to give you the big tactical picture while putting you in the middle of the carnage
The bad points:
- Angelina Jolie… not sure I can ever really watch her in a film, she’s too distracting. Her Dracula accent was a mess.
- Too long and too much cheesy “epic” stuff like speeches, stiff motions that try to look “classical,” overwritten lines of dialogue.
- The script. You can see all the cop-out screenwriting band-aids trying to hold this script together and the just don’t work. This script was not ready for shooting by a long shot, but they went ahead with it anyway.
- Reducing Alexander to pop-Freudian conflicts because we really don’t know that much about him.
and I really don’t think I’ve seen a worse movie. Sorry, a worse movie by a director who once was good with actors who should have been competant and an AMAZING subject.
My audience was laughing, too. Great review in the Washington Post…hilarious, actually. God, what a stupid film!
The good points:
- I thought Farrell was great
Really? Alexander the cry-baby? I haven’t seen ANYTHING Farrell’s done yet to think he could have pulled this film off, and I was right. He’s not dreadful, I just can’t imagine him leading an army.
- Stone is still able to do some interesting film things here and there
I guessed I missed them. I really loved his early films. There wasn’t a single image in what I saw that impressed me, other than Rosario Dawson’s spectacular breasts.
- The two battles are superb, but mostly the first and largest in the middle of the film. Went out of its way to give you the big tactical picture while putting you in the middle of the carnage
Well, I only saw one battle, and while you are right to say he went out of his way to make the first battle clear…he DIDN’T! I was totally confused and I’m pretty good at deciphering war movies. Clouds of dust and more clouds of dust. He was trying to outdo Peter Jackson and just failed, miserably. Sure, some of the close combat was cool, but you expect that. Yikes!
Saw it yesterday, and it’s really pretty terrible. The acting has some decent moments, but it has just as many (if not more) mouthful-of-scenery ones. I thought the script was God-awful; the dialog was often overwrought and clunky, and there were several scenes where I literally didn’t know what the fuck they were talking about. The story is too disjointed to really get into. The only thing I was interested in was the relationship between Alexander, his lover, and his wife. The stuff with his mom and dad was painfully lame, and the stuff with his council was useless because you never get to know any of those characters and I could hardly keep them straight. If you’re a real student of Greek history, it would probably be easier. I have some familiarity with Alexander and his life and conquests, but you have to pretty much know all the players of the era by name to understand what’s going on. I know Alexander and Philip of Macedon and Ptolemy, and after that I’m struggling.
The battle scenes are cool in the sense that they’re chaotic and visceral, but (despite the RTS overhead view in part of the first battle) it’s very hard to tell what is going on and to keep straight who is who. The costumes and sets are all pretty great. The music is not only really really bad, it’s also really really prominent. In several key scenes the score practically drowns out the actors.
Thumbs way down.
Yay. With the release of Hellblazer in theaters whenever, both my favorite historical and comic book figures will be desecrated. Now all I need is Renny Harlin’s Catcher in the Rye starring Macauley Culkin to make my life complete.
Yikes! It came in 6th place in the U.S. weekend boxoffice.
Friday-Sunday, November 24th-28th 2004
Title Gross Total
1 “National Treasure” $46.2m $87.9m
2 “The Incredibles” $33.2m $214.7m
3 “Christmas with the Kranks” $32.0m $32.0m
4 “The Polar Express” $27.2m $82.2m
5 “Spongebob Squarepants Movie” $23.4m $58.6m
6 “Alexander” $21.6m $21.6m
7 “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason” $9.1m $32.5m
8 “Finding Neverland” $6.5m $7.8m
9 “Ray” $5.0m $65.0m
10 “After the Sunset” $4.6m $24.6m
I can’t remember the last time a wanna-be blockbuster sold so few tickets on its first weekend.
Those were wigs. Really, really bad wigs. =]
I guessed I missed them. I really loved his early films. There wasn’t a single image in what I saw that impressed me, other than Rosario Dawson’s spectacular breasts.
Damn, almost reason enough to sit through the movie.
Was she in a Dracula movie? Which one?
Hackers.
Sucked the life right out of me.
And another Director’s Cut hits the shelves! I guess nobody noticed since the original release flopped so badly… the DVD appeared on Play.com at a €7.49 bargain bin price. The only extra: an Oliver Stone commentary I’ve yet to listen to.
Surprise: I’m completely flattened by how good the film is now. Most likely my changed expectations have a lot to do with that, but unless memory of the original release fails me completely the film did improve a great deal in the DC.
Stone rearranged a number of scenes so that the film starts out with two big chronological blocks: 30 minutes of Alexander’s childhood, then 45 minutes for Gaugamela to Babylon. Only then does the intercutting of “home” and “campaign” scenes begin, and each cut is now clearly motivated by the narrative: Alexander begins to mistrust everyone around him, loses faith in his divine destiny, and finally descends into madness. The intercut scenes illustrate a parallel character development across two different timelines which I found quite fascinating.
Again, I’m not sure if I’m simply misremembering the original release but there seems to be a lot more dialogue, resulting in greater logical consistency and more credible characters. The battle scenes were expanded to a full 15 minutes for Gaugamela and 10 minutes for the elephant battle in India. I’m still sad that other signature battles like Chaeronea or one of Alexander’s many sieges aren’t shown… oh well.
I actually enjoyed Alexander more than Troy when I watched them on the big screen. Colin Farrell was hilarious (literally–the audience burst into laughter the first time that “grown-up” Alexander appeared) and lacked the dramatic presence to pull off such a big role. Heck, I sometimes wondered whether he had the acting chops to interpret the complex character of Sonny Crockett. Regardless, I got a kick out of the big battles, so I might check out the Director’s Cut.
Any extra nudity? Er, of the Rosario Dawson kind, I mean. Not Hephaestion. Or Bucephalus.
Of the Rosario Dawson kind you’ll get the same as before, but also a good deal more of Hephaistion! Okay, not actually steamy gay sex but the character and his relationship to Alexander are a lot more detailed and credible now.
Gaugamela is one of the best parts of the entire movie - the Director’s Cut organizes it slightly better, with more timely situation cards, and did a really good job of outlining the battle, though it could have lasted a bit longer.
— Alan