Stone blames failure of 'Alexander' on 'fundamentalism' (It's not my fault)

[hoosier]

Stone blames failure of 'Alexander' on 'fundamentalism'
Last Updated Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:40:22 EST
CBC Arts

LONDON - Often-controversial director Oliver Stone has blamed the failure of his epic film Alexander on the "raging fundamentalism" in the U.S. South.

The film, which stars Irish actor Colin Farrell in the story of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, was greeted with derisive reviews.

Colin Farrell plays the title role in 'Alexander.' (AP photo)

It was also a failure at the box office. Budgeted at roughly $150 million U.S., it has pulled in only $34 million so far.

"I was quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews about a character we don't really know too much about," Stone said before the film's British premiere on Wednesday.

"I operate on my passion and sometimes I'm naive. I don't think about the consequences."

Some conservative groups objected to Alexander's portrayal of the famous warrior as a bisexual.

Stone, the director behind such controversial pictures as Natural Born Killers and JFK, believes the hostile reaction to the film is linked to "a raging fundamentalism in morality in the U.S."

"From day one, audiences didn't show up," he said. "They didn't even read the reviews in the South because the media was using the words 'Alex the gay.' As a result, you can bet that they thought, 'We're not going to see a film about a military leader that has got something wrong with him.'"

Adding that the film is "the epic of my life," Stone says he thought Farrell's acting was "extraordinary."

"He's had some tough reviews but he'll ride it out," the director said.

For his part, Farrell said that friends of his who have seen the film tell him "It's not exactly Gladiator."

However, he said he would work with Stone again "in a heartbeat."

[James]

Well . . You would think that Alexander the Great would have a kind of Glorious Madness . . . an intensity that was almost palpable.

Colin Farrel is not intrinsically like that.

Who were you more impressed with Goerge C Scott in Patton? Or Farell in Alexander.

You can see the madness in George C Scott.

[smiley21]

my fav. excuse is that it is Bush's fault cause he started the war in Iraq

Whatever. Your movie sucked.

[33girl]

Some of the most liberal people I knew attended this movie and they didn't have a prob w/ it because of the gay factor, but BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD MOVIE.

What a jag.

[moe.ron]

The movie just sucked. It was Troy lite.

[Coramoor]

That's kind of funny.

I didn't want to see a movie about one of the greatest leaders in history with Colin Ferral and Angelina in it. They may be decent actors....but they are not cut out for this type of film.

[OleMissGlitter]

I saw it and I did not think it was that bad...I didn't fall asleep and neither did anyone else I was with. We thought it was okay. But that's just my thoguhts.

[cashmoney]

Originally posted by James
Who were you more impressed with Goerge C Scott in Patton? Or Farell in Alexander.

You can see the madness in George C Scott.

Dude, thats one of my favorite movies. George C Scott was brilliant in that movie. You couldn't have found a better person to play that part. And the way Patton was portrayed couldnt have been better. There is no way in hell you can even attempt to lump Patton and Alexander together and view which was better.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by James
Well . . You would think that Alexander the Great would have a kind of Glorious Madness . . . an intensity that was almost palpable.

Colin Farrel is not intrinsically like that.

Who were you more impressed with Goerge C Scott in Patton? Or Farell in Alexander.

You can see the madness in George C Scott.

Which raises the question that my friends and I have debated: Who would be a better casting of Alexander?

Given the givens -- that the actor has to look the part of the one of the greatest if not the greatest conquerers the world has seen; that Alexander died in his early 30s, so the actor has to be relatively young; that the actor has to be able to pull off somewhat classically-syled dialogue; the intensity noted above; etc. -- who would anyone here have cast?

And I guess folks know that Baz Luhrmann has an Alexander film in development; he has Leonardo DiCaprio slated to play Alexander.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
And I guess folks know that Baz Luhrmann has an Alexander film in development; he has Leonardo DiCaprio slated to play Alexander.

Really? When is it slated to be release?

[James]

Oh God, DiCaprio as alexander the great?

Its hard to say who I would have cast . . . preferably someone older that looked much younger. There is a certain solidity that comes with age, experience, and/or responsibility that is hard to fake.

I can't think of anyone in today's bevy of actors that would be convincing.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Really? When is it slated to be release?

No telling. It's just in development now, so it could be years, if ever.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by James
Oh God, DiCaprio as alexander the great?

Tell me about it.

Its hard to say who I would have cast . . . preferably someone older that looked much younger. There is a certain solidity that comes with age, experience, and/or responsibility that is hard to fake.

I can't think of anyone in today's bevy of actors that would be convincing.

I know. My friends and I kept coming around to "so-and-so if he were 15 years younger" or "so-and-so twenty years ago."

[moe.ron]

Out of pure curiosity, I went to IMDB and found out the following:

Leonardo DiCaprio .... Alexander, the Great
Nicole Kidman .... Olympias