Change Your Image
zorkorr
Reviews
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)
Catches the spirit of Star Wars
I see already that critics are no longer afraid of George Lucas, and in many ways, he did that to himself. The double edged sword of star wars is that because the original trilogy was very perfect in the eyes of many, any other star wars project that comes along will look deficient.
I liked "Clone Wars", perhaps with a bias that I like the mythological dynamics of the Old Republic and the Clone Wars overall. Lucas' execution of the new trilogy itself has had a hit and miss quality, and George nearly forgot the essence of what made it all magical. But Episode 3 and subsequent Clone war installments have inched back to that spirit.
This story had great action, good characters, and the intrigue that makes a good clone wars story. Assajj and Dooku are in top form with their Villainy, and a return of Christopher Lee to the role makes it all the more satisfying My complaints are few. I wish The story makers would stop trying for the slapstick laugh with the droid troopers. As amusing as they are with their moments, I'd like to see the droids be a little more straightforward in their mannerisms. Give them a respectable amount of competence, lest it make them less menacing and more like an army of clowns.
Anakin's relation with Asoka is good, but we run into a new complication. Asoka is doomed in some fashion, since Anakin is predestined for tragedy. Maybe Asoka's tragedy will affect Anakin on a deeper level, but perhaps they should have given Asoka to Obi-wan.
But all negative thoughts aside, this is a rousing adventure, a fun getaway for the child at heart, and a chance to see Anakin and the Jedi in a high spirited moment before the "darkness" covers the galaxy.
George and the Dragon (2004)
A pleasant surprise
I just saw this on SciFi channel, and normally I have contempt for most movies that play on that channel. But THIS one was enjoyable to watch. Good, sincere performances without the usual annoying clichés that infect most scifi CGI-filled fantasy films.
Good cast has fun with the story.
On the downside, there is some bad editing, cheesy CGI and everything is a bit rushed to speed towards the climactic battle. Still, it is a very ambitious piece, with action, humor and romance.
Fun for the whole family, I can forgive the technical glitches. This has ambition like Lord of the Rings, action that sort of equals Eragon but with well written characters who are as fun to watch as those of Princess Bride.
Awesome stuff
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
Better than Eragon
OK, you know what? We've all had our fun with Uwe, and I'm no exception. I consider Uwe Boll movies to be a unique experience in cheese cinema, but I say this sincerely: I liked this movie. There.
It was MUCH better than Bloodrayne, which was laughably bad, and in fact I'd say Uwe was starting to get a handle on making movies that don't cause eyes to roll .
I know it sounds silly, but I liked these characters, the acting wasn't so terrible and the dialogue wasn't painful.
Flaws: The film ends too abruptly, and there are story details sort of pushed through in a clumsy way, and some of the acting is over the top.
It IS a cheesy movie (look out, there are NINJAS!!!), but this movie was much more fun than Eragon or Dungeons and Dragons. Plus, I can certainly appreciate Uwe's shaping of a fantasy world, it's mythology. I also appreciate how he went all out on the action and fantasy element.
The actors handled themselves very decently. I was very impressed with Burt Reynold's restraint as the King. I really had doubts about his part, but he did a decent job and did it subtley opposite Matthew Lillard's more frantic pacing (Lillard was having waaaay too much fun, lol)
Leelee Sobieski was adorable and John Rhys Davies was a joy to watch (and he's done some truly bad movies) Jason Statham, Ron Perleman and Will Sanderson were fun to watch as a trio of brothers in arms, and they carried some nice chemistry. Brian J White was particularly good also. Overall, the cast was not bad.
If you are one of the many that crusade against Uwe, my review will not make much of a dent, and it's a shame because maybe, just maybe he is getting better in small steps. But I have to be honest, I enjoyed this film.
Bionic Woman (2007)
A moral to the story
When my Dad would teach Sunday school, his approach was very scholarly. For instance, concerning the virgin birth, he'd say "If it doesn't make sense, or if it's outdated, then DON'T believe it. Inevitably, a little old lady would chirp up and reply "Please don't take away the virgin birth. I've believed in it since I was a kid. It's special to me" I come here now as the old lady, where concerning the shows of my childhood. Don't take away my childhood by raping the classics. Ron Moore has pretty much raped the noble aspects of BSG and gotten every TV whore/critic to back him up. My childhood heroes have been turned into whiners, alcoholics and pussies in the name of "good drama".
And now, someone has tried with Bionic Woman. Guys, there are fans, I'm sure, for the whole "ultra dark brooding" approach. But you know what? Today's generation should have a chance to have heroes of some kind. The TV heroes of the 1970s, however corny or cheesy, enriched my childhood. All this brooding crap today is embarrassing. Good drama be damned, give us a show with redeeming qualities.
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
mixed feelings at best
I grew up on the old series, so naturally I have my prejudices. Many who praise the new series make a very good point to open your mind to new experiences. My mind is half opened with this. Over the years, I've come to realize that with remakes, you can't "go back". The 70s and 80s, for all their innocent charm, are dead in the new millennium.
In watching this new series, I have my share of pros and cons. I think a female Starbuck and Boomer are great ideas, and they work. Olmos is perfect for the role of Adama. I like the combat/fight scenes. Very realistic. Overall it's a very good series. But it's just not my cup of tea.
OK, the bad stuff that ruins this show for me: 1) Baltar is a big whiny puss-puss. The actor whined in an interview "gee whiz, I'd rather not be evil, just mentally unstable" to paraphrase. John Colicos took that role and ate up the screen with delicious evil, especially with his robot sidekick, Lucifer. The new Baltar is no fun at all. Colicos would do rings around this little emo baltar-wannabe.
2) The Blonde cylon. OK, this is obviously an attempt to grab the male viewers with sexy robots, and a cheap budget trick that is so typical of the Sci-fi channel since they didn't want to spend anything on good old fashioned menacing robots. Sure, the writers/producers say they've never understood the concept for the old cylons. That's because they're part of a shallow Hollywood that doesn't take time to understand anything.
3) Brooding Angst. Everybody HAS to have a goddamn chip on their shoulder about something. They call it "character development", but it almost, ALMOST amounts to "whinerbaby syndrome", where actors try to find something dysfunctional with their characters. Of all the episodes I've seen, nobody cracked a smile, told a joke, built up any sense of comeraderie. Even when humanity is down for the count, you'd think there would be some attempt to have levity. Good dramas have at least gallows humor. Detective Briscoe from Law and Order showed us you can still laugh in a serious moment. These guys are just no fun.
4) It bothers me that Olmos commented if he ever saw a four-eyed alien in the scripts, he'd never do the show. There has to be some balance between the human element and the Science fiction. It doesn't HAVE to be a space opera, but aren't they going to even allow the possibility of a fantastic element? God forbid your precious angst might get interrupted by a good old fashioned laser fight. At least, do something fantastic with the concept of cylon babies.
5) The writers and producers seem to take pride in making the audience uncomfortable with their story lines of humanity on the brink of extinction. They likened each episode to be a fascinating car wreck. Granted, the old series was aimed at families, and had more wholesome themes, themes that can't be taken seriously in this cynical age of vicious reality television and brainless MTV-ish tripe. But that approach is not entirely entertainment. Not to me. It's the opinion of one guy, myself, but there should be a healthy balance of shock value vs some hopeful element that brings out humanity's better qualities. After all, it's the struggle that brings out the best in people.
I find it sort of disappointing that some fans of this new series like taking potshots at the old series as cheesy, outdated, etc. I think it's ironic that science fiction, in general, never gets any respect even for its good "Star Wars/Star Trek" stories, and that in order for it to get respect, the creators of the new BSG have written out or ignored most of the elements that make this "Science Fiction". Maybe the old series was cheesy, but is there anything wrong with SOMEBODY being the "virtuous warrior" like the old Apollo with his space fighter? Anything wrong with the "Charming rogue" like the old Starbuck exploring other worlds? Would it kill you fans if somebody smiled once in a while on the new series? As far as good story lines, it's OK. As Science fiction, it's lacking. As entertainment, that's a subjective matter. I don't expect to change minds. I have a certain respect for this show, but the old series had something this show doesn't. It had a sense of charm. That may sound cornball to those who never grew up in the 70s, and maybe realists don't want charm with their apocalyptic vision of BSG, but when I see the large black hole of dysfunction and media whorism that pervades TV today, I am at least thankful I grew up in an era that gave me something about which to smile.
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)
Even better than the first
I must admit, I was impressed on several levels with this sequel. As far as the flaws, I can see some of the bad cgi, some cheesy acting, low budget effect, etc.
BUT This movie was more sincere in its efforts than the first. As a former player of the game, I saw that it held true to many of the game values, and I could relate to the characters and story.
The cast did a good job, and it was more of an ensemble performance. Like the first film, I was impressed with their exotic use of Lithuanian film locales.
If you've never played the game, you probably won't see it as more than "typical cheesy fantasy". For players, it will be a pretty cool experience, and not just a bit o fluff (One character gets killed by a Frost Dragon, another gets her arm teleported into a wall) I have a mixed feeling about the end, since the Hero doesn't "Get midievel" on Damodar, but I like that refreshing break from the clichéd final face offs that Hollywood demands to insert into every movie. Our hero is not a wisecracking killing machine. He's strong but just as vulnerable and not just out for revenge.
Bruce Payne is an interesting choice to bring in from the first movie, and he handles the role of evil Damodar well, despite having no real motivation outside pure revenge.
The chemistry between party members is above average, and they're smart characters, not the typical dumb pretty people. A decent film overall
Corpse Bride (2005)
a beautiful film
Very good animation with excellent songs. Gothic atmosphere that has a lot of charm. Interesting to note that the land of the dead has more color and life to it than the uptight Victorian world of the living. Some of the plot points are predictable (Victor's deception about being engaged, The villain's comeuppance, etc), but the experience is worth viewing overall. Tim Burton does a great job. The cast is in top form. Danny Elfman's singing is a blast. Christopher Lee, as the Minister, has a great moment near the end as the dead casually walk past him to go into the Church for the big wedding. This may be the best Chick flick of the year, IMHO. Take a date. The action, music and romance are well balanced
The Fog (2005)
You can't go back to the 80s.....
I'm afraid I can't look at this film without comparison to the original. Now, I like it when filmmakers attempt a remake with variations, little changes to set it apart, but I did not like a lot of the changes here. There were some good elements, but overall it is just disappointing to see a film with nonsensical moments.
The spoiler alert
First of all, The good bits:
Selma blair did a decent job I liked the Father Malone character. The Fog effects were creepy enough
OK, now the crap:
Why didn't the ghosts kill Nick Castle? They go after all the others related to the Founders, but not him. I call bullshit.
Spooner's character and his whole subplot was an incredible waste of time and irritating as hell. Everyone on the fishing boat should have died. His excuse for surviving was pretty weak
Elizabeth's connection to the ghosts makes no sense, because she a descendant of the founders, but the ghosts exclude her and Nick from the slaughter (LAME!). The original cause for the ghosts to return was the gold, but here the motive is muddled. If it was revenge, they didn't finish the job.
Several times people get into car wrecks and just walk away unscathed. Lame.
Maggie's performance is just irritating, especially when she gets that smug look while talking about the tragic history of the community.
Nick finds Spooner's camcorder, realizes it could prove Spooner is innocent of murder when the police take spooner in. What does he do? Gives it to Liz and just says "Keep it safe". Liz, of course, suggests giving it to the police, Nick says "Keep it safe". Senseless logic, Pointless subplot because it never matters when she loses it ANYWAY.
The film, while having some decent moments, suffers from the standard "Pretty people syndrome", where the kids have all the solutions and the adults mostly don't have a clue.
I shouldn't rip on this so badly, because it's not a terrible film, just disappointing compared to the original. The ending tried to set up a twist, but it was sort of lame. It's sad to see that what made older 70s/80s horror so excellent to watch become thought of as boring by today's "standards". Half the fun was the buildup of suspense, the rising horror and watching a competent cast play interesting, mature characters. So few scary movies today embrace that concept except as some dull obligation. Everything feels rushed. What these films need are older actors who can bring a better air of credibility.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Goofy scifi
Well, I wouldn't call this the worst film, just cheesy. John Travolta's enthusiasm shows, and he goes way over the top on his scenes.
The problem with this movie is trying to adapt a huge novel to work in the span of 90 odd minutes or so. Trying to make primitive men look like fast learners in a flight simulator is laughable, especially since the equipment they're using is almost 1000 years old.
Ignore harsh criticisms of the film. The costumes, special FX, some acting, etc aren't really that bad. The problem with the film is its poor execution and improbable story. It really irritates me when I read people saying "this has no plot". There IS a plot, but it just doesn't work. I've seen worse, but what makes this such a razzie-winning film is Travolta's heavy promotion of a movie that will make him the laughing stock of Hollywood until the next big star comes along and is made to look asinine.
An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (1997)
Not bad, just slow
All in all, it was an interesting mockumentary that got tiresome when Coolio showed up. Not that coolio was bad, but it just dragged along. Probably more accurate about the Hollywood mindset then people in LA are willing to admit.
The best moments were between Jeni and Oneal, the manic studio men. Richard Jeni had the right sarcastic edge and the best lines. Stallone, Goldberg and Chan were also amusing, but Eric Idle was a bit over the top. Some scenes were simply pointless, such as the cussing between Coolio and the black cop.
There are some inaccuracies in the trivia, which claims this to be the last film to use Alan Smithee, but the IMDb lists at least a dozen other projects after 1997 with that name as well.
Would have had a better impact, maybe even memorable like "Spinal Tap" if there was more work done, maybe some tighter editing or better writing to pick up the pace. Instead, it becomes forgettable.
All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos (2005)
Some good, some bad....
As I write this, I confess I was only able to see the second half of the movie as it premiered on SciFi. But then, that's when the action got going.
Danny Trejo was an excellent villain. His story was the best element in the movie, to see he wasn't entirely a nasty villain, but an ambitious man with mixed qualities.
The zombies were pretty decent. Let's face it, you can't go wrong with zombies, and the Hispanic flavor adds much to this genre. I was a little surprised at how the "rules" changed. The hero was bitten, but did not change or get infected. Most zombie fans would call this heresy, but rules can, and should, be changed. Look at how many vampire-based films are constantly changing the rules with wild abandon. I think the filmmakers were original to make these bold steps.
On the downside, the heroine is the only protagonist with any common sense. The actors can only do so much, so I wonder why filmmakers insist on making some of the characters do "stupid" things. Making mistakes due to Grief or terror is one thing, but the two goofy friends of the main couple just did a lot of the wrong things, and they were irritating as well.
Still, I'd like to see the more uncensored version of this to get a different impression. Right now it looks like a "C", maybe a C+. Good concept with mediocre execution.
Sin City (2005)
Fantastic
I must say, I am very impressed by this film. I do not read comic books, and I've never read the graphic novels for Sin City. This film has certainly made me curious.
The visual style is stunning, the romantic themes are endearing, the action is edge of your seat, and the characters are jaw-dropping awesome. I can't figure out why there is so much trashing by critics. What do you guys like??? Why do you even watch movies??? It's obvious that they miss the point on many great films, because SC grips you all the way and every five minutes it gives a moment where you just want to shout "DAMN, That was cool!!!!" The cast is top notch, the stories are excellent. Are there any flaws? None that got to me. It was a very satisfying experience.
To watch Marv, Hartigan, and Dwight in action is like watching Greek heroes from Mythology take on insurmountable tasks. It's Perseus vs the Medusa, Theseus vs the Minotaur, Jason traveling the world to get the Golden Fleece. These are ordinary men thrown into impossible situations, fighting the good fight for the sake of a woman they love. Each of them reaches a low point that spells their doom, but just as they are about to give up and die, they find within themselves the ability to go on, and not just cheat death in that moment, but to overcome defeat in ways they never dreamed possible.
This is all sounding dramatic, perhaps too dramatic, but these are the kind of moments that turn ordinary characters like Dwight, Marv and Hartigan into legends of epic mythological proportions, like Frodo or Luke Skywalker, Van Helsing or Hamlet, Odeysseus or Moses, etc.
Oddly enough, it's a very pro-Feminist movie. The women are very much empowered, and the good guys are very courteous to them, almost chivalric. It's refreshing to see a film that combines noir themes with outdated notions like chivalry. The film, despite its level of violence, is not crude. The dialogues and behaviors are from a bygone era in an age where TV And films try to shock us. There's a difference between "Shock value" and being "Jaw-Dropping". This movie balances all those details.
I highly recommend Sin City. It just kicks ass on many levels. Ignore critics. They don't get it, and they never will.
I, Robot (2004)
Excellent blend of action and thought
Some would say this deviates from the Asimov stories. I think of it as an interesting variation. A good mix of action, humor and mystery. I enjoyed listening to the director's commentary about how the filmmakers strove to balance the intelligence of the story with all the action moments.
I also appreciate the relation they created between Spooner and Dr. Calvin. It didn't devolve into senseless romance or some other exaggeration. They were complete opposites who worked well together. I liked how Dr Lanning was an essential character to the story despite being dead through the whole film.
A lot of fun with some food for thought. You can't go wrong with Will Smith.
King Arthur (2004)
excellent variation on the legend
I like seeing new angles on some concepts. It's always interesting to see how different director's approach something like this. I'm more of a fantasy fan myself, but I liked this gritty telling of the Arthur legend. The characters were well done, the story set near Hadrian's wall was a good touch, and Stellan was an excellent villain. Normally, you'd want a larger than life villain to chew the scene, but here he plays it quiet and almost without emoting, and it works.
I liked the various elements of Arthur Legend thrown in various places (The Sword in the ground, glances between Guinevere and Lancelot, etc) The only detail I wanted more of was Merlin. Not enough Merlin in the story, but Otherwise this was cool stuff. The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent and the big battle at the end was fantastic.
House of the Dead (2003)
Shut the brain down for this one
I watched this film because I like zombie films and I'm a fan of Ellie Cornell, and a fan of Jurgen Prochnow. I was particularly enlightened by the commentary tracks. I liked the big battle scene, but overall this film has lots of problems.
Perhaps an extra month of filming, an extra four million dollars, etc would have improved things drastically. The story should have focused on Jordan and Captain Kirk, the two characters with the most charisma. I didn't mind the video game footage, but a lot of elements didn't work.
Young actors with no improve skills should never be allowed to do improve. EVER.
The irritating blond was simply unconvincing as a zombie beast. That scene just feels amateurish The Narrator should never, EVER open a film with the phrase "If only they had stayed away, they'd still be alive". This kills the movie right in the first 2 minutes.
Uwe Boll's MTV style becomes a hindrance more than a help. They should have made the video game themes more consistent and campy, or else played it as a regular zombie film.
I liked the Liberty character, Ona Grauer does her best, but a lot of it just falls flat.
It's crazy cheese fun, but it could have been better.
Cursed (2005)
Wes is losing the magic
OK, given that there were technical delays, I can see why there are problems with this film.
what I think they needed to fix were character problems. Little brother Jimmy somehow "knows" a werewolf attacked them? No cops are present for most of the battle with Eva the bitchy boss, and Joshua Jackson's character does a complete 180 degree turn in his feelings and attitudes at the end, etc.
I will say I was completely surprised by the "gay bully" character, who you'd think was just a minor annoying character who actually turns into one of the good guys. Best twist surprise in the whole film. We can all guess that Josh is one of "them", but for him to suddenly turn around from sympathetic boyfriend to become the BIG BAD villain just feels awkward.
It has a few amusing moments, but the movie feels unsophisticated, clumsy and very undignified. Hollywood NEEDS to tap into actors like Robert Englund, Lance Henriksen, and Brad Dourif. I've seen these seasoned actors give a terrible movie concept real credibility. Remember John Carradine in "Revenge"? Peter Cushing in "Shock Waves"? Christopher Lee in "Howling 2"? Low budget films, not very good films BUT they had dignified, credible performances.
Now granted, scary films can be carried by a hip young cast, but it helps to balance the film with some sophistication, otherwise, the "hip" storyline becomes irritating. To suggest, as this film does, that one can become a werewolf through unprotected sex.....*sigh* that's irritating. Watching Christina Ricci SNIFFING THE AIR though the Hallways of her office building (cuz she's a "Werewolf") is irritating. Show some subtlety, guys.
Overall, it's amusing cheese, but as a Wes Craven film, it's lacking.
Robots (2005)
disappointing, but funny
Well, I think the best strengths of this film were: Dazzling animation effects. Robot City was a marvel to behold The humor was funny.
Other than that, I'm afraid this film is a sort of dismal affair. The kids will love it, but it lacks any real redeeming value for older crowds. The movie is a lineup of all the clichés Hollywood keeps in storage. One cliché after another, with no logic, setup, or Heart to it. By the last fifteen minutes, I'm shaking my head because it just goes from one formula moment to the next, and the character voices are simply accommodating the clichés.
Tries to be something like Toy Story or Incredibles with the aged "Out with the old, in with the new" situation themes, but without any buildup or chemistry. Big name voices and no chemistry. None. Ewan and Halle supposedly hookup for no reason, Mel Brook's character tells Ewan to beat it one moment, then inexplicably turns around and says "I'm with you all the way". Everything is wrapped up nicely in the end without any Heart. Ewan and Robin carry the film sort of, Ewan playing it straight and goody-goody, Robin being slapstick wacky, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I laughed a lot. It IS a funny movie, but a forgettable one. It just feels like somebody just wanted to go by the numbers really quick. Worth watching once.
Into the Sun (2005)
Another vanity piece
As I watch the latest four or five films by Steven (Belly of the Beast, Out For A Kill, Out of Reach, Into The Sun) It occurs to me that Steven Segal has simply stopped caring. The filmmakers don't even try anymore. Which is good for us cheese lovers, because it doesn't get any better than this!
Watching films like this is great popcorn fun, and yet I still have to shake my head at the lethargic attempts. Segal's always wearing black to cover up that good eating, his films are full of nonsensical scenes, sometimes choppy editing, dialogue is pure cheese, clichéd moments are processed quickly (Here's the wife/girlfriend with only two lines who dies in fifteen minutes, etc), half the time it sounds as if Segal dubbed his lines in or had some other guy do it who vaguely sounds like him, etc. Of curse, when he IS speaking, he gives minimalist effort. With "Into the Sun" he practically whispered through the entire freakin movie! Fight scenes are done with little tricks like slow-mo, lots of shadows, Thin screen, or quick edits and that just makes me suspicious.
to Quote the gang of MST3K from the episode "Cave Dwellers": They just didn't care! Still, it's fun watching both Segal and Van Damme try to stay afloat as they crunch out quite a number of direct to video gems. But Segal's efforts make Eric Roberts and even Don "The Dragon" Wilson look damn good. Hell, at least Don tries to emote in his low budget action films :) 3 stars out of ten, because it was terrible, ego-driven, goofy fun.
Alone in the Dark (2005)
For those who love cheese
I think I can give a mostly positive review to this film, mostly because it lived up to my expectations. It was just crazy cheese and nothing more.
Despite negative reviews, the world needs cheesy films. You can't fully appreciate films like Saving Private Ryan, Casablanca and War of the Worlds, etc until you've exposed yourself to films like Alone in the Dark, Ishtar, Battlefield Earth, etc.
I have seen worse, much worse. I do agree that this film COULD have been better with just a little nurturing. I think Uwe goes for way too much intense "MTV"-style action over substance that would've given a level of respect to the film. A good example is "The Relic", a horror film that built up its characters, even minor characters, to create a better level of intensity. AitD tried to match that level, but couldn't.
Slater did a decent job, Dorff did what he could, but Reid is severely miscast, even for a cheeser. Just listen to her try to pronounce "Newfoundland"......and you'll agree.
I did like the cameos by Ona Grauer and Will Sanderson, alumni from Uwe's other project "House of the Dead".
I liked the music, the action and the monsters, and I didn't mind the ripping off of other films. The 713 Forensics agent was a refreshing character who was misused by the script. The script should have helped explain, however, the connection to everyone. Could have used a scene between Edward and John, who were good friends apparently. One sloppy element was at the end (spoiler).....The city is supposedly evacuated, but then Carnby suggests everyone disappeared. Which is it? The conclusion also suggests that 713 HQ was attacked, but how do the monsters even know where the HQ is? If the monsters are affected by sunlight, how can one creep up on Edward at the end in broad daylight? We must take into account that any film must deal with time constraints, limited budget, a certain skewed vision by Director/Producers/writers, etc. I'm curious to hear the commentary track for this one. Having considered all of Uwe's obstacles, I'm still befuddled by the casting of Tara Reid and her lack of research into understanding her role and the pronounciation of words like "constellation" and "Newfoundland".
Alexander (2004)
Not so bad
To try and portray this kind of story would be easier as a miniseries. Even three hours is not enough to soak up the details behind who Alexander was. The big disadvantage is using Hopkins to fill in all the details that couldn't be shown.
But as a history lover, I am a bit more biased in favor of a film like this, because I can appreciate what Stone and Farrel attempt in making this movie. Guagamela was a real high point for me, and I just loved the soundtrack. I think a lot of complaints over certain details are a bit ridiculous. Alex was likely bisexual, but then that was the norm for ancient greeks, so I could understand the struggles and subtlties between Alex and Hephastion. If anything, it enhanced Colin's performance, since so little is known about Alexander or most of the people in his life. Even overacting and scene chewing is preferable to nothing. These were the days of epic characters, so I think it suits the actors to play them larger than life.
It's interesting to compare this film to Richard Burton's portrayal (a much cleaner, glam version), and I'm curious to see how DiCaprio handles the role in his version.
It wasn't Stone's best work, but I wouldn't say it is as bad as many so called critics like to think. I would have liked to see more (The conquest of Eqypt, Siege of Tyre, etc) but I was satisfied with the semi-factual presentation it gave. Powerful music, action and imagery mixed with historical moments make it a respectable work