December 22, 2004
Oliver Stone defends Alexander and bins Margaret Thatcher film
Oh this makes me laugh. Oliver Stone has defended his film Alexander by saying, just so as not to upset or alienate anyone, that it's...
...themes and approaches are too complex for Hollywood tastes.
The Guardian continues the story with his comments at the Marrakech film festival:
The director told attendees...that the bold themes were too risqué for filmgoers with "conventional minds".According to Screendaily.com he told an audience at the Moroccan event: "The script was just too ambiguous, too questioning about an action-hero who was masculine/feminine.
"These are tough qualities in Hollywood.
"It's just too big a life. It doesn't fit in into the Hollywood formula."
Stone speculated that Hollywood producers and studios would have transformed the story into a revenge saga as Alexander pursued the men who killed his father. "Revenge movies are the western ethos," he said "One of the problems with the movie for the conventional mind is there is no villain."
Stone also denied rumours circulating in the press that he was preparing to direct a biopic of Margaret Thatcher.
Yeah, yeah, whatever, but no Margaret Thatcher biopic? NO! That's another great let down of the day!
[Alexander] has been a flop in the US, taking roughly $29m in its first two weeks, having cost $150m to make.
Still, let's see how it does in Europe eh, after all it was backed largely by European funds so it may be recouped here, and I'm reserving final judgement until I actually see it.
Posted by at December 22, 2004 09:00 AM
Comments
Posted by: Simon at December 22, 2004 11:42 AM
Pretty funny how he's walking on eggshells. Wasn't the final result pretty much what he had in mind? In his statements one should substitute the phrase "the public" for each use of the word "Hollywood", since bad box office killed the movie and that's not "Hollywood's" fault but "the public's".
Vic
Posted by: Screen Rant at December 22, 2004 12:39 PM
Alexandar...could've been better, story seems a little disjointed to me...i thought Mel Gibson would make a better film about this guy.
BladeIII...no where near the level of pt.1 & 2.
but still a must for fans
Posted by: kevin at December 22, 2004 01:28 PM
Stone is f*cking genius!
Yeah, I'm talking about Alexander. Superb movie
And always thought this Thatcher stuff is just a stupid joke :)
Posted by: Kiru_Biru at December 22, 2004 01:42 PM
I only heard less than 10 comments about this movie is good...
I expected an epic movie like Troy... :-(
Posted by: m3g4tr0n at December 23, 2004 10:54 AM
This movie is gonna do big money overseas just you watch and see.
Posted by: Frank at December 23, 2004 05:05 PM
Alexander sucked so bad. It was unwatchable. Ollie you moron. The problem wasn't your "risky"
tale of homo love making. The sappy love banter between Alex and his 80's rock star boyfriend would be horrific between any gendered couple. piss poor movie, Farrel sucked, Jolie Sucked, none sucked worse than Ollie here. NBK ruled!
Posted by: Duke Leto at January 7, 2005 11:12 AM
Oh, man, just like Alexander would say "You're not trying to understand them!" Is it really so hard to understand the movie?
Troy is totaly unpassionate, unemotionaly, untouched. Alexander is a movie to remember. So many details, so many eye-telling words. That is excatly what I call a MOVIE, not a BLOCKBUSTER.
Posted by: Suzana Purkovic at August 9, 2005 03:08 PM
I made the big mistake of going to see this movie, I love epics but this one was just bad.I had read here that the gay scene had been cut out, well let me tell you the hole movie is full of gayness, I don't know witch part they cut but it wasnt the gay scenes, "not that there is anything wrong with that". I should have gone with my first instinct and see Blade but then again I thing I would have been as disapointed, the onlu diff would have been a 2hrs let down for Blade instead of a 3hrs bore + those damn commercials before I felt I had been sitting their a hole day.