Yes, I admit, I went to see Alexander this evening. I went in expecting to be disappointed, thinking that it would just be another Hollywood film that takes great liberties with the history.

Imagine my surprise when I walked out of the movie and realized that I enjoyed it.

The director actually researched the history. He didn't gloss over aspects of Alexander's relationships with others. There were visual references to various styles of art, literature and mythology.

Yes, I know that the critics don't like it, but from a classisist's point of view, it's a great movie.

And yes, I saw it with a huge group of classics geeks, and we had more good things to say about it than bad.

Well Oliver Stone is a great director. I have not seen it yet but it sounds great!

Maybe its not doing too well because it was researched well? I cannot verify this myself due to not seeing the movie but it does sound better than the travesty 'Troy'.

While Troy was indeed a travesty in the sense that they messed so many story details up, it was still pretty good imo :p it kinda lost steam after hector died though.

Troy was a Hollywood movie, plain and simple. It was not made to appeal to those who actually study things like the Trojan War.

Alexander, on the other hand, seems to have been made with Classics geeks in mind. Yes, it's a Hollywood movie, but it is reasonably accurate in relation to what we do know about the time.

I think the Greeks are disagreeing with that....

There seems to be some discord about Alexander being bi.

Note my use of the word "reasonably". I am well aware that there are debates about how accurate the movie is.

It's nowhere near as bad as Troy was.

Isn't there another version of this film on the way? I'm actually interested in seeing both because of how accurate Stone's version seems to be and because AFAIK the other version is a Baz Luhrmann one.

"Troy was a Hollywood movie, plain and simple. It was not made to appeal to those who actually study things like the Trojan War."

I don't think that Hollywood should be allowed to touch history or folklore. They have messed up too many movies and should relize that they don't have to make an American hero out of every foreign tale!

Why did they not use Greek actors? I do not think that Colin Farrell looks the part.

Cant wait to see this one... I might not be a classics geek but I like to think Id still enjoy...

HAS to be better than Troy in any case...

And as for the controversy over the issue of Alexanders sexuality, all i can say is that there is no way to be sure about anything (yes/no/maybe/huh?) concerning it, so they did the best they could.

here is this guy, spent most of his time fighting, invading, conquering and you get two war scenes from the movie.

That actually reminds me womewhat of a Hallmark-type mini-series I saw about Atilla The Hun (or was it Genghis Khan? It was the guy who IIRC was betrayed by his wife) where IIRC there were NO battle scenes.

Action movies should include the University of Walamaloo rules 1, 3, 5, and others...

No poofters.

(special thanks to Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, and Bruce)

That actually reminds me womewhat of a Hallmark-type mini-series i think attila the hun was the historical channel mini series. But anyway, it isn't your average hallmark type mini series. For one, the investment is highier so you have prettier costums and background. Better background than hallmark mini series, yes, just that. One can easily feel the 'fakeness' of these background throughout the movie. The sky and sea of Alexandria, fake; the walls of Babylon, fake; the think forest of India, fake.

Why did they not use Greek actors? I do not think that Colin Farrell looks the part. Because Alenxader himself is Macedonian, not Greek? Acting wise, Colin Ferrell pass the challenge with only one major flaw. His hair was eye naked fake. Alexander, to me, is someone with the beauty of Apollo, youthful yet well built.

from a classisist's point of view, it's a great movie. The movie heavily featured ideas from the Illiad. Risk you life and fight for glory (there was no point to fight a ten years war for a woman, Homer used this the explained why), Another aspect was the friendship between Achilleus and Patroklos. i think Achilleus and Patroklos in the Illiad was just really good friend at most. Because mourning over Patroklos' death, a female captive of Achilleus said Patroklos was going to make Achilleus marry her formally after the war. Also, not the forget the bird omens that was used in several times both in the movie and Greek myths.

However, if the movie can make the presumption that Illiad is The book for Greeks, than it made another mistake of forgetting The other book, Odyssey. When Odysseus saw Achilleus in hell, Achilleus told Odysseus that he rather be the lowest form of men and live a long life than the king of the deaths. Nothing is worth risking life and dying for glory.

The movie is good but it can be better if it is a two part movie that runs for 5 hours. This movie just explored a side of Alexander, the bad childhood experience that hunts forever side. A short life he might have, Alexander is, like all the great men and women, multilayers. The movie just briefly touches Alexander the strategist and Alexander the cultural melting pot. One of this biggest achievement that last until now is largely untouched in the movie, Alexandria and Egypt.

Because Alenxader himself is Macedonian, not Greek? Ancient Macedonians were greeks. They spoke the same language with some differences in accent and in grammar (just like spartans spoke differently from Athenians), they worshiped the same deities, they participated in the olympic games. The reasons, that a greek actor was not chosen for the role of Alexander, were that nobody, as far as I know, has good english accent and nobody is known outside of the greek borders.

As for the movie, no comment since I have not seen it yet and to be sincere I do not know If I will watch it because the shock of Troy has made me hesitant as far as historical based movies are concerned.