rogue27 wrote:
There are no spoilers below.
While I don't know enough about Alexander the Great to be certain of the movie's historical accuracy, some portions seemed a bit fishy and cooked up based on what I have read and heard.
Get a history book about him. Also... by the name of Yeshua... people pay to see MOVIES not DOCUMENTARIES. A movie needs to have things filled into it to make it entertaining. Not everyone is into history, historical accuracy, and it would not hurt the layman to have misconceptions just because he bases his knowledge of Greece or whatever just on movies.... unless he is majoring in History.
rogue27 wrote:
Regardless, the movie only contained two battles. The first one was filmed poorly with dust concealing most of the action. The camera perspectives also did a poor job of showing where everything was in relation to everything else, so I never really knew what was going on. The dust was realistic. It will be raised up by charging horses in a desert. However, at one point, the movie is nothing but 3-5 seconds of a dust cloud with nothing else visible. I get the point! It was dusty! Now let me see what's going on!
I was a bit disappointed at that there were only 2 battle scenes out of the 5 or so MAJOR battles Alex fought. I was hoping to see the Siege of Tyre, the battle in Phrygia which was the first Alex -vs- Darius battle, and back when Alex commanded Philip's left cavalry wing.
As for the dust cloud it was annoying but if you looked hard enough you'd see specks of Persians and Greeks fighting. Anyway, with 270,000 troops in Gaugamela...
though most historic sources I've read indicates Alex's 70,000 -vs- Darius' 300,000... I think they've eclipsed the said (in TTT DVD, showing the making of ROTK) 200,000 of Sauron's army in Pelennor Fields.
rogue27 wrote:
The other battle was much more visible, but a few parts seemed as if they were shown in double time. Still, it was pretty neat.
They did that out of "dramatic" effect, because history-wise this was a point in which Alexander could've died. However, in reality he received his arrow wound while besieging an Indian walled town/city in India. He was impatient with the "slowness" of his troops so he charged up the ladder into the wall. However, he was "too quick" for the rest of his troops to catch up and was surrounded by Indian soldiers once he got up in the wall. That was when he got shot on the right side of his torso.
rogue27 wrote:
The scenery and costumes were pretty good. Babylon and the Library of Alexandria looked great. In fact, the DVD might be worth purchasing just for the scenes inside of Babylon for people who want to build that stuff.
The costumes were quite historically accurate. Macedonian helmets did differ from that of the Greeks. The Persians outfits looked correct... but was thanks to the dust and marching in the sand, the vivid colors of the Persians were covered. However most of the Persian troops had wicker shields in reality. Alex's Heratoi (Companion Cavalry) were historically accurate, esp. the helmet. The Persian scythe-chariots kicked arse! The Persian army was composed mainly of Medes troops and with Parthian allies, which was the opposing cavalry force that was shadowing Alex's companions as they manuevered in battle.
rogue27 wrote:
Unfortunately, the movie was too focused on Alexander's mother. I think more time was spent in scenes with Alexander's mother than on anything else. The movie would display maps often, but it would not explain what it all meant. It kept showing a map with "Babylon" in the middle, but no lines showing troop movements or anything. A vague and short narrative would occasionally describe what Alexander did, but I never got a sense of the big picture from that.
Look for reply below about why the placed importance on his mother (an influencial person in his life; like how it is with most people). As for the map... didn't you notice the cord being "thumb-tacked" on certain points? That was showing where he and his army moved and also showed the borders of his empire.
rogue27 wrote:
Little details:
- Although it was shown that Alexander was taught by Aristotle, very little of Alexander's leadership, administrative, and tactical skills were demonstrated in the movie. That is unfortunate because those skills are what allowed Alexander to keep a handle on such a large empire.
- It was briefly mentioned that Alexander slept with "tales of Troy" under his pillow, and that was a nice detail because Alexander really did keep a copy of The Iliad beneath his pillow.
- The aftermath of Alexander's death (that's not a spoiler, everybody eventually dies) was summed up in about two sentences. That was a shame, because his death had a large impact on a lot of people.
- Braveheart did it well enough, but I am now getting very tired of cheesy inspirational speeches being given before major battles.
- Alexander supposedly knew the names of his 40,000 original troops. However, at one point in the movie, he asks one of his troops his name.
- Alexander was said to wait for the rest of his men to be treated before his own wounds would be treated. This was shown in one scene.
- It is widely known that Alexander's army involved a lot of homosexual activity. Alexander believed that it kept morale high and allowed his troops to fight better. The movie did retain that aspect, and there was a lot of "male bonding". However, it was only with Alexander and his buddy. Nothing was ever implied or suggested for any other portion of his army.
- I doubt that the real Alexander tried to inspire his army by yelling "You'll live forever in glory! You'll never die!" It sounds more like Alexander was reading the script for that recent Troy movie.
Agreed on most! But I think that thing about him knowing all the names of his troops is an exaggeration. As for all the homosexuality, its not really "Alex's" belief that homo-activity is a good thing. This was the actual cultural beliefs during the Ancient Greek world. If you noticed early in the movie, Aristotle talked about 2 kinds of "male bonding", a lustful and corrupting way, or a loving respecting way. So that basically gives you a picture of how sexuality was viewed in ancient Greece. Its normal for a Greek man during that time to have not just a wife but a male "companion".
IIRC, they forgot to give Colin Farrell Alex's final words during his death. As his men asked Alexander who would inherit his empire, Alexander simply answered: "To the strongest."
Here's a list of movies that has pre-battle inspirational speeches by the hero or a leader on horseback:
~Braveheart (Wallace's "FREEEEDDDOOOMMM!!!!" scream)
~Gladiator (Maximus' "what you do in life, echos in eternity" in the forests of Germania)
~LOTR (Theodren at Pelennor cavalry charge, and Aragorn at the Black Gate)
~TROY (Hector babbling something to the Trojan troops)
~King Arthur (haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't doubt they made him say something before a battle on horseback)
~Alexander (before the carnage at Gaugamela)
rogue27 wrote:
Main reason I dislike the movie: Too much stuff with Alexander's mother and heartfelt conversations between Alexander and his buddy. Why was that a problem? Those scenes were extended far beyond what was needed to move the plot along, and the time could have been better used to better explain the actual battles and progress of Alexander's empire. Alexander was also shown to be dumb and arrogant through the whole thing. There is no point at which he is very likeable.
If you expecting a documentary from Hollywood or Bollywood, or Hong Kong... just accept the fact that is something that will never happen.
If you sit through this movie, you'll see that it is about Alexander and the people influencial to him. Its called Alexander, because its about Alexander the person, the man, the ambitious leader, arrogant king, who like many of us have flaws of his own. The movie is not about his empire nor his armies.
I somehow doubt that the battlefield strategy of his, nor by knowing that by respecting other cultures he'd keep his empire together can be considered "dumb". You have to look at how these people thought during that time period to understand why he did what he did. Its also of the childhood influences he had through his mother, Aristotle, the stories, legends, and epics he heard/read, and what his father taught him about war that MADE Alexander become what he was.
He inspires his men by fighting along side him, the way a Sergeant would fight along side Privates during battles. Thus his men respect him the way a Private would respect a Sergeant, rather than some far way General commanding the battle far from behind the frontlines. He gets wounded like his men and as far as wounds go, the didn't show how his helmet got split with the sword blade cutting to the skull (note: "to" as in not penetrating the skull, but touching/reaching that deep) Alex also got an arrpw injury on his shins.
True he is arrogant, but if you noticed how he was when was young, a lot of people basically fed him the "you will be great" line and this of course goes into his head. Don't forget, this is Ancient Greece with monarchs who have absolute power. I wouldn't consider it odd that a king, especially one who accomplishes what he said he'd do, to be an arrogant individual. The fact that was raised and influenced by the best, was what made Alexander great. And this was true historically.
Troy was about what I expected. (The battle scenes were pretty cool, and I loved the tactics employed). Brad Armpitt did a good job too. I expect Alexander to be worse than Troy, but hopefully the battle scenes will be epic in nature....
