[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Alexander’s depictions of the battles were pretty accurate, and Rosario Dawson’s tits were nice. You can’t say the same for Air Bud 2.
x2
Rosario Dawson’s tits almost trump the badness of the movie and they certainly trump the Air Bud movies.[/quote]
Do you see her actual boobs or just lots of cleavage?
In Alexander, the fights were pretty good, and some parts were also good. And from a historical point of view, it’s dead on how Greeks and Macedonians of the day lived their sexual lives.
But the fucking dialogs in between, and the speeches. Man, this movie tried too fucking hard to be pompous and glorious. Farrel as Alexander tried pull a “Maximus’ Speech” several times, and it makes you go like ‘wtf dude’.
If you are a history buff, you will never get past the fact they choose Rosario Dawson as Roxana. Roxana (or more accurate Roshanak) was a Bactrian, Iranian. And thus, her ethnicity would have had resembled that of the modern Tajiks, Pamiris, perhaps the Kalash. It could had also resembled what we currently call an Asian/Mongoloid type, or a mix such as the one present among today’s Uzbeks or Uygurs (for there was Iranization of Mongoloid peoples then as there had been Turkinization of Iranian people since the middle ages.)
As awesome as her tits are, Dawson casting as Roxane makes as much sense as casting Jackie Chan as Shaka Zulu or Cameron Diaz as Empress Dowager of late 1800’s China.
To put it simply, Dawson casting was a horrendous and atrocious example of an ethnic token actor in an otherwise historically accurate (but lame and boring) movie.
weak movie.
I kept expecting the next scene to be better.
it wasn’t.
well maybe the next scene?
nope.
you get the idea (all except for the tits part, that was alright)…
[quote]jzzz wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
It was like sitting through 5 hours of the Gay History Channel
I could watch that gay history channel all day!!![/quote]
You’d like Alexander then.
what i’ve seen of it…farrell is really bad in that movie.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Alexander’s depictions of the battles were pretty accurate, and Rosario Dawson’s tits were nice. You can’t say the same for Air Bud 2.
x2
Rosario Dawson’s tits almost trump the badness of the movie and they certainly trump the Air Bud movies.
Do you see her actual boobs or just lots of cleavage?[/quote]
Actual boobs.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Alexander’s depictions of the battles were pretty accurate, and Rosario Dawson’s tits were nice. You can’t say the same for Air Bud 2.
x2
Rosario Dawson’s tits almost trump the badness of the movie and they certainly trump the Air Bud movies.
Do you see her actual boobs or just lots of cleavage?
Actual boobs.[/quote]
10/10 on the boobs
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Alexander’s depictions of the battles were pretty accurate, and Rosario Dawson’s tits were nice. You can’t say the same for Air Bud 2.
x2
Rosario Dawson’s tits almost trump the badness of the movie and they certainly trump the Air Bud movies.
Do you see her actual boobs or just lots of cleavage?
Actual boobs.[/quote]
They are awesome, it’s worth renting to just watch that part.
[quote]AdamC wrote:
what i’ve seen of it…farrell is really bad in that movie. [/quote]
Farrell did suck. In most of his movie rolls he comes off as a likeable guy, as in, you could have a beer with him, but the idea of him as a charismatic warlord is pathetic. I wouldn’t follow that fucker to McDonald’s, let alone the end of the know world.
Just fast forward the flick to about a hour or so into the movie. Watch the 20 or so seconds of Dawsons tits and then turn off the movie. You would not have missed a thing.
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
jzzz wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
It was like sitting through 5 hours of the Gay History Channel
I could watch that gay history channel all day!!!
You’d like Alexander then.[/quote]
It wasnt bad
I prefer the old ones from the 60’s stuff those type of movies need good actors an there arnt many around these days.
“Dude… check this out. When my character is dying at the end of the film, I’m going to film everything in red. You know… symbolism. It’s going to symbolize HIS DEATH… fuckin’ A! Deep. Like when I slowed Jim Morrison’s voice in The Doors… Fuck, this is genius shit.”
Imo rome is awesome
Alexander was ok
Kingdom of heaven is worth watching
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Farrell did suck. [/quote]
He had to “suck” - he was playing the role of a butt-loving Macedonian warlord conquering male lovers wherever he went.
[quote]elnyka wrote:
In Alexander, the fights were pretty good, and some parts were also good. And from a historical point of view, it’s dead on how Greeks and Macedonians of the day lived their sexual lives.[/quote]
Errrr no. There is no source which suggests that Macedonians had lovers of the same sex. What the filmmakers have done in this instance is superimposed ideas about Greeks on to Macedonians. This is a massive fuck-up in that the only Greek sources from the time come from Athens; applying stuff we know about Athens to Greece as a whole and then to Macedonia also is just called being a shit historian…Alexander the Gay is not historically accurate. Robin Lane Fox, the historical advisor on the film, and a good historian, should have had their heads for including all that gay stuff in the film with no evidence to back it up.
True that there are no reliable, definite sources on Alexander and Hephaestion, but there are sources regarding Alexander and Bagoas.
Furthermore, pederasty was not only present in Greece, but at large all over the region. It was even present in Persia, for Baogas was a lover of Darius III himself (and reportedly of Alexander after Darius’ murder.)
Macedon by that time was highly hellenized, and pederasty wasn’t repudiated in Helenistic until centuries later. So there is nothing to suggest that pederasty wasn’t acceptable by the mores of Macedons at the time.
The details of Alexander and Hephaestion’s live might have been exaggerated, but the practice of pederasty at the time is not the subject of debate.
Furthermore, this isn’t about Alexander the Gay, but Alexander the Macedon, living with Macedon/Helenistic mores of the time.
That you are referring to the acts of pederasty in the film as “gay stuff” makes me question whether you understand what these terms actually mean.
It is one thing to laugh and say “hahaha, gay” just for shits and giggle.
It is quite another to attempt a serious discussion on the subject without being able to differentiate between “gay” and “pederasty”.
Oh dear. Firstly, I’d like you to name a primary source that hints at any sort of relationship between Alexander and Bagoas…because it doesn’t in Quintus Curtius’ or in Arrian’s, the only major Ptolemaic sources we have. It isn’t a historian’s job to prove that Macedonians DIDN’T practice pederasty, but to prove that they did.
My point was that we only know about Greek life at the time because of Athenian sources; it is dangerous to generalise information from these sources outside Athens (to Sparta, Corinth, etc.), but we do it because we have to. However, we do have some reliable sources for Macedon, my point being that we don’t need to generalise.
Also…I’d argue that because pederasty to some extent involves an older man putting his penis into a younger man’s arsehole, it is pretty homosexual, gay, whatever-that’s just arguing semantics.
I think its important that people avoid romanticising Alexander’s life, or trying to relate his life with today’s society.
I hate to be pedantic but its Alexander of Macedon.
You win.
Haha I don’t mean to sound like a twat! I just saw the thread and thought it would be wrong not to comment given its a specialist subject of mine! For the record there are lots of historians who think Alexander and Hephaestion may have had some sort of relationship for different reasons- its just that I don’t think it can be proved, so that was just my argument to that point.
Its nice to know people are still interested in discussing history!