You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« ITA Update | Main | Thanksgiving Seder » November 25, 2004Skip AlexanderLast night I saw Alexander, Oliver Stone's movie about the Macedonian conqueror which stirred mild controversy over historical interpretations. Although the previews offered some foreshadowing of its failure, a great story and a star studded cast offered the promise of a holiday blockbuster. The three hour film feaures Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, and many more. The script for the movie, penned by Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis, is downright awful. The dialogue features continuous speeches that are tedious, pedestrian and, well, much too long. Images and scenes get repeated and at times the viewer has no idea what's going on. The atrocious script and poor editing were enough to give the movie a thumbs down, but the acting somehow made it worse. Aside from Angelie Jolie, who took a bad role and made it worthwhile, all of the central characters never found their groove. The New York Times said it well: Certainly it's brought out the worst in terms of the puerile writing, confused plotting, shockingly off-note performances and storytelling that lacks either of the two necessary ingredients for films of this type, pop or gravitas.The movie ends with Ptolemy rambling about his time with Alexander. The speech, like so many in the movie, made me want to pull my hair out. Then I finally found someone I could connect with. As Ptolemy pauses, he realizes he had been blathering and asks a scribe writing down his thoughts to throw that part away, only to start rambling once again. The scribe looked bored and trapped, and that's exactly how I felt watching the movie unfold. Truly, I walked out of the theatre upset that I had just lost three hours of my life that I would never get back. The historical controversy surrounding the film threatens to overshadow an equally important point - the film is simply bad. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at November 25, 2004 02:40 AM CommentsFor such an articulate review, and one that I believe, as opposed to the numerous other cash-in critiques, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read "Truly, I walked out of the theatre upset that I had just lost three hours of my life that I would never get back." And after complaining that the dialogue was so pedestrian... Posted by: Shaun at November 25, 2004 07:30 AM | permalink Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at November 25, 2004 09:49 AM | permalink Such a shame (but hardly surprising from the maker of JFK, Natural Born Killers, Nixon & other "look what they taught me in film school... who needs writers when you've got surreal camera angles?" classics). I'd hoped that this would follow the success of TROY with enough of a box office that the historical epic might be returned, but I literally have yet to hear ONE positive review of the film. (Out of curiosity, just how bisexual is Alex in the film? My understanding is that Rosario Dawson is shown as the true object of his desire.) Posted by: Jon Darby at November 25, 2004 11:54 AM | permalink The bisexuality is appararent and blatant, and he has a number of male lovers in the film. But of course the acting and writing in all of those scenes is awful. Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at November 25, 2004 12:05 PM | permalink Posted by: Shaun at November 25, 2004 02:32 PM | permalink Thank you for the warning. I was going to see this for a friend's birthday, but this review,along with the slew of negative reviews on Rotten tomatoe, means we will now be watching 'Ocean's Twelve' instead. Posted by: Tara at November 26, 2004 06:00 AM | permalink Josh, If it was a wasted three hours, I assume you went with the "guys/gals" instead of taking a date. ;-) A belated Happy Thanksgiving to "In the Agora." Posted by: Joel Thomas at November 26, 2004 01:49 PM | permalink I gave up on Stone years ago. Mr Darby's got it right in that Ollie tends to like to show off with his cinematic techniques & call it *artistic*. But it's the constant revisionist history & didacticism in his films that finally drove me away for good. (I could see Incredibles twice more rather than Alex!) Bring on Ocean's Twelve! At least Soderberg can direct a film without calling attention to the fact. Posted by: Moochie at November 29, 2004 03:12 PM | permalink |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|