Re: It is great

Tom, you make some good arguments for your side.

You say: "The media and the American public would have liked him to copy Gladiator and tell the story of how a man's internal will and resolve overcomes countless conflicts he faced. Instead Stone shows an internally conflicted man, whose total devotion to a vision drives him to greatness."

I think there is a very subtle difference between the two. In fact not enough to make us care one way or the other. Whether it's his internal will or his devotion to his vision that drove him doesn't matter. Both are just way too boring.

With regards to understanding why people considered him great, yoru point makes sense but it still doesn't change anything. There are many generals/conquerors throughout history who fought alongside their men (unlike the American Civil War), but that still doesn't make for an interesting movie. Perhaps show us more details about HOW he conquored the world. Or maybe tell us WHY he conquored the world. We care more about his legacy and historical achievements than we do about his inner personal conflicts.

I guess that maybe Stone tried to be TOO true to the man, which would be good for a television documentary or a historical documentary piece. But to get people to come to a theater, choose over all the other movies out there, plop down their $10 and sit for 3 hours, it'd better be a great story. Unfortunately people like to be entertained or emotionally moved at the movies, not necessairly educated. As an educational product perhaps Alexander (the movie) is great, but as a wide release movie, it is crap. And I don't think it is an American thing to want to be entertained at the movies. This film is bombing all over the world.