|
|
TF.ORG - The Films - movies download portal
| Movie download page |
|
|
| Year: 2004 |
| Director: Oliver Stone |
| Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Connor Paolo, Christopher Plummer, Gary Stretch, Colin Farrell, Jared Leto |
| Genres: Drama, Adventure, Action |
| Runtime: 175 min. |
| IMDB: This film on IMDB |
| Subtitles: OpenSubtitles.org |
| Soundtrack: available |
Historical, glamorous biopic (with mystical and religious elements) about the life of famous Macedonian ruler and conqueror Alexander, the Great (appr. 356-323 B.C.), mainly concentrating on his youth and his conquering of Persia and India. The son of Macedonian king Phillip II and his wife Olympias became king when he was 20 years old and died with 32, by this time having conquered 90% of the world as it was explored by the time he lived, ruling over parts of three continents and several countries. |
Files: |
 We recommend you to use such download managers as FDM, ReGet or FlashGet for more comfortable films download.
To achieve the best video quality download free video-codecs from Free-codecs.com.
Comments |
| Date: 2007-02-11 19:37:52 |
User: roberto |
| Stone's film is probably better than Troy, which suffered from pedestrian direction, stilted performances, and a hack musical score that sounded like it was written in a weekend; in place of those things, Stone gives us some truly stirring visuals, music that soars and charges more often than not, and, um, performances that … Well, um, okay, about those performances …. He goes on to talk about how the film is flawed, about its dismaying depictions of women, the historical chapters it overlooks, and a surprisingly timely political subtext. |
| Date: 2007-10-04 01:08:10 |
User: James Shields |
At first, I didn't feel much of a need to comment on the film, since so many others have written and have said so many things. But I think there are some really important points to made, and I haven't seen anyone make them. So here I am writing.
In my opinion, almost everyone misunderstood the relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander. In the modern world, especially in the West, two men are either very close to each other, sleep together, and have sex, or they keep a good comfortable distance from each other and, if they're friendly, might punch each other on the arm. In this film, we see a relationship that is hard for most people today to understand, namely a passionate love relationship between two men in which sex is not very important and possibly even absent.
Aristotle essentially explained the whole film near the beginning when he told the young couple something like the following, as best I can remember it, "When two men lie together in lust, it is over indulgence. But when two men lie together in purity, they can perform wonders." Or something like that. Given what I know of that culture, I am sure that "in purity" means no sex, or at least very little. That's why we never see them kiss. In the film, as in many older films, kissing is a metaphor for sex. Even when Alexander kisses his mother, it refers to the idea of sex. That's why Alexander kisses Bagoas, but not Hephaistion.
Now I'm not sure if the real historical Aristotle would have made that remark. That's not exactly what he says about homosexuality in the Nicomachean Ethics. But the remark is plausible enough since Alexander could easily have heard such an idea during his youth. Plato (before Aristotle) expressed that idea, and Zeno of Citium (after Aristotle) did too. So even if Aristotle never said this to Alexander, it is plausible enough that the idea was in the air and that Alexander heard it from someone or other.
Some have complained that the "homosexuality" (assuming that A's relationship with Heph. should even be called that) was thrown in their faces too much. But it's crucial to the plot. Stone is hypothesizing that Hephaistion was essential for what Alexander did. Further, it's a standard Hollywood convention to juxtapose a love story with some great political, military, or otherwise grand event. There are tons of examples. Titanic, Enemy at the Gates, Gone with the Wind, ... the list could go on forever. It really is homophobic to complain about Stone continually going back to this theme, because he has a perfectly good artistic reason to do it.
A few more details: Alexander's hair. I think that Stone was trying to make Alexander look like Martin Potter in Satyricon -- a nod to Fellini.
Alexander's accent and soft appearance. Another nod to a great director passed on, this time Stanley Kubrick. Farrel really looks a lot like Ryan O'Neil in Barry Lyndon. In fact, he really looks like a Ryan O'Neill / Martin Potter coalescence. I think it's deliberate.
The softness of Alexander's personality. In a lot of scenes it made sense. He was gentle enough to know how to approach Bucephalus and tame him without scaring him. He was open minded enough to adopt a lot of Persian culture and encourage intermarriage, while the other more "he-man" folks around him were less comfortable with the idea.
Yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I do like the film. People's hatred of the film is hard for me to understand. |
| Date: 2008-03-19 15:51:49 |
User: Elmer |
I read the negative reviews just like everyone else, and I went to see it with slightly lower expectations than I had about a month ago. Having said that, however, I still loved the movie. I didn't find it boring in the least, and I was truly engrossed in every scene. The two battles featured in this movie carry more tension than anything "Troy" could have ever hoped to show. The performances in this movie are all right on the money. Colin Farrell has a scene in the film shortly before the second battle where he argues with Crateros that is just amazing. Also, a quick word about Val Kilmer, he has a wonderful human moment in the scene where Alexander tames the horse where he demands to be able to buy the horse half price if Alexander can tame it. Here is a man who is willing to risk his son's life, and then use it to get a discount.
The time structure didn't really bother me at all. It may not have been completely necessary, but it didn't confuse me at all. Since I could still follow the narrative fine, I let it go. Some critics say a flashback to Philip's murder is unnecessary, and they should have handled that in the flashback at the beginning of the story, but I thought it placed an extra amount of importance on Cleitus, after seeing him murdered. Also, the scene where Alexander confronts Olympias concerning the murder of Philip was, in my opinion, very emotionally powerful, and it would have been ill advised to have that scene so early in the film, since it carried so much weight.
Several people criticized the scenes with Anthony Hopkins, saying the grinded the film to a hault. What everyone seems to be missing, in those observations, is that Hopkins still plays the role as perfectly as it could be played. Can't we just sit back and enjoy watching this great actor perform admirably, even if the scenes aren't the most exciting in the world? Look into his eyes during his final speech in the film, where he weighs his responsibility in Alexander's death, and, now, tell me the film would have been better off without him.
Stone has, in my humble opinion, crafted a great film that will be appreciated by those with an open mind and patience. I have always had a high tolerance for long movies, and I think many films would be better if they were willing to add another half-hour. Is the movie boring??? Yes. But you know what, pacing is over-rated. Pacing is important to people who have trouble keeping awake at the movies. If you have the ability to remain focused on one thing for three hours, than you just might love "Alexander". "2001" is a poorly-paced, boring movie, but it's still one of the greatest films ever made.
It's a great film for those who will let it be. |
| |
| Add comment / More... |
|
|
|
Soundtracks
Four Rooms
(1995)
Ally McBeal: A Very Al ...
(2000)
Elf
(2003)
Lara Croft Tomb Raider ...
(2003)
|
Home
