Alexander: DVD by February?

Tuesday, December 28, 2004
By Roger Friedman

'Alexander' on Life Support

Warner Brothers is about ready to pull the plug on Oliver Stone's
"Alexander."

The $200 million movie has become a gigantic fiasco, the company's
biggest since Kevin Costner's "The Postman" took in only $17 million.

"Alexander," which stars Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer,
has only grossed $33.9 million. The sad fellow took in a little over
$41,000 during the holiday weekend on its remaining (and paltry) 232
screens. That translates into $177 per show. Ouch!

The remaining exhibitors who have had this dud are now entering their
sixth week and will likely dump it. Expect an "Alexander" DVD in time
for Valentine's Day, possibly with featured "extras," like watching
Farrell get his blonde highlights - just kidding.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142718,00.html

One-Shot Scot

Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
of a porno mobie?

TCS

"TCS" <The-Central-> wrote in message
news:slrnct333p.vco.The-Central-...
> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting
> as
> watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
> the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
> of a porno mobie?
>

Never even heard of this movie

kaydigi

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-> wrote:

>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
>of a porno mobie?


1. Americans don't care about history.
2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.
4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."

RichA

RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
> <The-Central-> wrote:
>
>>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
>>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
>>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
>>of a porno mobie?
>
>
> 1. Americans don't care about history.

Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
true.

> 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
> 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.

Yes, they did. As did shakey cam

> 4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."

Thus Achiles was less controversial in Troy.

Justin

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:41:11 GMT, Justin <> wrote:

>RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
>> <The-Central-> wrote:
>>
>>>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting as
>>>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
>>>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
>>>of a porno mobie?
>>
>>
>> 1. Americans don't care about history.
>
>Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
>true.
>
>> 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
>> 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.
>
>Yes, they did. As did shakey cam

Hurt, as in box office dollars.
>
>> 4. No one wants to go see a queer "hero."
>
>Thus Achiles was less controversial in Troy.

RichA

Justin wrote:
> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
>> <The-Central-> wrote:
>>
>>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
>>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
>>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
>>> lame plot as thin as that
>>> of a porno mobie?
>>
>> 1. Americans don't care about history.
>
> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
> true.

Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of successful
Vietnam War movies?

A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history" is completely
meaningless. Some Americans care about history, and some don't, just like
any other cultural group and subject matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a
poor movie, and its box office receipts reflect that.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary

"Justin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
>> <The-Central-> wrote:
>>
>>>Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as interesting
>>>as
>>>watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even bother trying to pull
>>>the special effects scenes together with a lame plot as thin as that
>>>of a porno mobie?
>>
>>
>> 1. Americans don't care about history.
>
> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even if not
> true.
>
>> 2. Alexander was boring, unfortunately.
>> 3. CGI battles didn't hurt Gladiator.
>
> Yes, they did. As did shakey cam
>

Gladiator did quite well in the theatre, in stark contrast to Alexander.

Mark

Mark B.

In article <cr01ue$ghn$>, Mike Kohary <> wrote:
>Justin wrote:
>> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
>>> <The-Central-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
>>>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
>>>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
>>>> lame plot as thin as that
>>>> of a porno mobie?

>>> 1. Americans don't care about history.

>> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even
>> if not true.

>Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of
>successful Vietnam War movies?

>A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history"
>is completely meaningless. Some Americans care about history,
>and some don't, just like any other cultural group and subject
>matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a poor movie, and its box
>office receipts reflect that.

Box office receipts indicate a movie was not popular, not that it
was a poor movie.

Many films that are considered classics now died at the box office
when they were first released. Those were in the days before
every film had to be blockbuster and to be considered good had to
be in the top-5 of boxoffice receipts.

At one time a movie took months to make the rounds of the cities
in the US - and now it's "everywhere at once". That can be both
good and bad - depending on whether you judge a movie by how much
money it makes, or what it's longevity is.

Some films for the past few years have had big BO, but weren't that
great in the overall scheme of things - and just sort of disappear.


Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion

Bill Vermillion wrote:
> In article <cr01ue$ghn$>, Mike Kohary <>
> wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> RichA wrote on [Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:17:25 -0500]:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:40:25 -0600, TCS
>>>> <The-Central-> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Audiences have tired of CGI-battle movies. They're about as
>>>>> interesting as watching a kid play with his playstation. Why even
>>>>> bother trying to pull the special effects scenes together with a
>>>>> lame plot as thin as that
>>>>> of a porno mobie?
>
>>>> 1. Americans don't care about history.
>
>>> Not unless it's a history where Americans are the victors, even
>>> if not true.
>
>> Well, I simply don't believe that. What of the preponderance of
>> successful Vietnam War movies?
>
>> A statement as general as "Americans don't care about history"
>> is completely meaningless. Some Americans care about history,
>> and some don't, just like any other cultural group and subject
>> matter. The fact is, "Alexander" was a poor movie, and its box
>> office receipts reflect that.
>
> Box office receipts indicate a movie was not popular, not that it
> was a poor movie.

Sure, I know that. But in this particular case, the two happened to go
hand-in-hand. The public isn't always duped by poor movies, and they sure
weren't duped by this one. The movie got bad reviews and poor
word-of-mouth, and I think this time Americans simply listened and didn't
waste their money. I don't think it has anything to do with the notion that
Americans don't care for history in their movies, and there are several
recent hits to disprove that claim.

I'm not a Stone-basher, far from it. I love many of his not-so-recent films,
and Platoon is an all-time favorite. But lately, he just seems to have
"lost it". There's no other explanation - the movies he's making today bear
little resemblance to the great films he was producing 15-20 years ago.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary