Kingdom of Heaven revisited

Dmitry Markov · 03-06-08, 07:16 AM

As for Troy - I prefer to watch movies as themselves - I never watch them from the point of view "does it have good connectivity with written masterpiece or does not". So for me it doesn't matter that there are less then 66% of Homer in film - movie is movie and book is book.
I went to see Troy in cinema right after couple of hours of hard kendo training and I've been watching the movie beeing in kendo state of my mind. So battle sequences seemed to me very convincing... As for other aspects - I agree with Skybird - it is quite shallow but IMHO this comes from realistic approach to story-telling. I think the story of the real Troy is also quite shallow as any other real story is. Symbolism, characters, drama and so on appears afterwards - in hands of poet or artist. Real people just solve real issues of the day and there is nothing too deep in it (But maybe it is the deepest thing in itself who knows :hmm: ).

Best Regards!

Rotary Crewman · 03-06-08, 07:26 AM

I'm with Dmitry on this one. The movies were very good for what they were.

So going back to my original question, are the extended versions of Troy and Alexander any better than the originals?

mrbeast · 03-06-08, 08:56 AM

Can't really see an extended Troy being much better than the original cut. Will probably just be more of the same.

Oliver Stone has struggled with Alexander since its release. I think its been through about 4 cuts so far. I'm tempted to buy the new Alexander. But as to it being any better: I don't think it can be. Ok so one or two things might be corrected or improved upon but there are major flaws that mar what could and should have been a good film. For a start the casting is poor. Angelina Jolie and Colin Farrell are woefully miss-cast in the two most important roles in the film. The accents are plain silly and it cuts out a lot of the story of Alexander, shooting strait to the defeat of the Persian Empire in the fairly early stages of the film.

I can see what Stone was trying to do in the film its just a shame it turned out so bad.

IMO the story of Alexander could only truely be done justice in a 3 part epic like Lord of the Rings, with plenty of battles.

03-06-08, 07:16 AM	#1
Dmitry Markov Officer Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation Posts: 236 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	As for Troy - I prefer to watch movies as themselves - I never watch them from the point of view "does it have good connectivity with written masterpiece or does not". So for me it doesn't matter that there are less then 66% of Homer in film - movie is movie and book is book. I went to see Troy in cinema right after couple of hours of hard kendo training and I've been watching the movie beeing in kendo state of my mind. So battle sequences seemed to me very convincing... As for other aspects - I agree with Skybird - it is quite shallow but IMHO this comes from realistic approach to story-telling. I think the story of the real Troy is also quite shallow as any other real story is. Symbolism, characters, drama and so on appears afterwards - in hands of poet or artist. Real people just solve real issues of the day and there is nothing too deep in it (But maybe it is the deepest thing in itself who knows :hmm: ). Best Regards! __________________ Большому кораблю - большая торпеда!

03-06-08, 07:26 AM	#2
Rotary Crewman Sonar Guy Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The cold part of a Helicopter, the back. Posts: 395 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm with Dmitry on this one. The movies were very good for what they were. So going back to my original question, are the extended versions of Troy and Alexander any better than the originals? __________________

03-06-08, 08:56 AM	#3
mrbeast Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bolton, UK Posts: 1,236 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Can't really see an extended Troy being much better than the original cut. Will probably just be more of the same. Oliver Stone has struggled with Alexander since its release. I think its been through about 4 cuts so far. I'm tempted to buy the new Alexander. But as to it being any better: I don't think it can be. Ok so one or two things might be corrected or improved upon but there are major flaws that mar what could and should have been a good film. For a start the casting is poor. Angelina Jolie and Colin Farrell are woefully miss-cast in the two most important roles in the film. The accents are plain silly and it cuts out a lot of the story of Alexander, shooting strait to the defeat of the Persian Empire in the fairly early stages of the film. I can see what Stone was trying to do in the film its just a shame it turned out so bad. IMO the story of Alexander could only truely be done justice in a 3 part epic like Lord of the Rings, with plenty of battles. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode