I couldn't believe at first that they had Colin Farrell, an Irish ruffian, to play Alexander the Great. Even someone like me, who has a spoof mentality about historical YYism, thinks this is a wrong choice. God knows, I've noticed Colin before he was as hot as he is today, I like his temperament with the borderline tendencies of rogue, scumbag, neurotic, etc., but Alexander the Great, the legendary Macedonian great The conqueror and the handsome man forced Colin to subvert the public's aesthetic expectations, and the result was a flood of bad reviews.
I read the report earlier that during the filming, Angelina and Colin rubbed constantly in and out of the play, and finally there was a scandal, which made me laugh. From then on, I had a mentality of being full and waiting for a good show. Because the other two epic films "Troy" and "King Arthur" that have been blowing loudly this year, the former is embroidered pillow rotten straw bag, the latter is tasteless, and after being hit by the blow, I dare not say anything about "Alexander the Great" anymore. High expectations, even though the director of the film is my beloved Oliver Stone.
Just like the dream of literati and knighthood, modern film directors have an epic complex. In the era of lack of heroism, they fantasized about the sword and the sword, and fantasized about the thousands of horses and arrows. A hero whose blood boils for the empty echoes of a distant era. And Oliver, a director who has "Born to Kill" and the Vietnam War trilogy on his list, would really feel uncomfortable if he suddenly advocated a classicist orthodox hero today. Alexander's bisexuality and Oedipus tendencies are not spared in the film. Colin also plays the king of the world as a child whose eyes are always full of fear. The mysterious nobility and elegance of ancient Greece are lost in the hoarse speech. Intermittent outbursts of anger were more boyish than masculinity.
Don't get me wrong, Colin actually tried his best. He tried his best to express that Alexander before reality became history, history became legend, and legend became myth. No matter what historians say about Alexander, after all, the Great Emperor was only 33 years old when he died, and later generations used to paint an idealized halo on their predecessors. Fearless heroes and wise kings are certainly lacking, and the film is not as useless as those people say. Although there is a lack of a strong narrative thread running through it, the lack of coherence in the shaping of the characters, and the excessive historical preaching also created obstacles to appreciation, its rough and realistic style and aggressive visual effects are still worth the price. The costumes and props of the film are very delicate, the actors are not perfect in appearance, but the makeup effect is very eye-catching. The scheduling of war scenes is several levels higher than that of "Troy". The battle between the desert and the rainforest adheres to Oliver's consistent high-level comprehensive use of sound, light, and shadow. The magnificent overhead shot won my heart as soon as I see it, this is the real big deal! Although the film failed to handle the overall level and rhythm when dealing with the relationship between Alexander and the people around him, for some scenes, it was still very well done. The scene in which Alexander and Cratilius quarreled at a banquet, and could not stand the excitement and killed him, was very tense, hearty, and full, and I liked it.
It may be my prejudice. I think the empire shown in the film is very ideal. The king takes the lead and kills the enemy. The generals can accuse the king in public, disagree with him or even fight with him. Free will, not the slavery of our feudal imperial ritual moral system. At best, the power struggle is just an assassination, and it is not as terrifying as the inside story of Gong Wei. There were countless murders on the journey, but to conquer a place was just to capture precious beauties and set off again. The simplicity of their actions was incomparable to the genocide of later generations.
Twenty-five lawyers in Greece are suing Oliver Stone and Warner Bros. for grossly distorting the image of Alexander and making their national hero gay. I kind of suspect this is a ploy to hype. It is well known that Alexander is gay, and this aspect of the story is handled very modestly, within an acceptable range. I haven't seen many movies about homosexuality, so I can't make a fair assessment. Personally, I like this kind of relationship between a comrade-in-arms and a lover.
The opinions of film critics are often at odds with those of us who are watching the fun, thinking that "Gladiator" had only a beautiful and gorgeous packaging, and the fictional Roman general was so weak that it still won the Oscar for best picture and best film. male protagonist. There is no hero in the world, so it became the name of Shuzi (actually, I didn't mean to have trouble with Ridley Scott). Relatively speaking, this scolding "Alexander the Great" is like a piece of beef that has not been roasted to the heat. The taste is not very good, but it has some chewiness. If you accept a fragile Alexander the Great, if you, like me, don't care about the political sense the film is trying to convey, you might as well go watch it and see what you can chew.
2005.2
View more about Alexander reviews
