Demobrats at it again!

Click title to link directly to the Newsmax article wherein Oliver Stone cries about the fact no one watched his horrible portrayal of Alexander the Great:

American audiences' rejection of the terrible movie,
whose low point is Angelina Jolie as a Freudian mother
from hell vamping
with snakes while talking in a Natasha
Badenov accent, is a sign of "a
raging fundamentalism in morality,"
Stone complained in London.

Stone is right, we don't know enough about Alexander the Great, so why stoop to slander then? Why create Alexander in Hollywood's mold? I do not think that Egyptians would appreciate it if you took King Tut and made him gay, or perhaps made Cleopatra a transvestite. Greeks did not, then, appreciate Hollywood's portrayal of Alexander. And then, of course, the paying public didn't want to watch a poorly conceived movie about him when better (and more family friendly) movies, Shrek 2 and Shark Tale for instance were out. Also, the History Channel did an excellent portrayal of Alexander so who needed to see Stone's movie? Not I.

It had nothing to do with my morality, I simply like historical fiction to have some historical reality. I have nothing against Alexander being gay, if it was true, Geez, Ben Franklin had syphilis, Queen Nefertiti (we think) masqueraded as a man and actually became Pharoah for a time, Bill Clinton is a rapist . . . truth is sometimes not pretty. What I disliked about Stone's is that the movie sucked. My colleagues who watched it came back with that review. So I didn't waste my time or my dime. I rented the unrated version of Girl Next Door instead, Very Funny!