The London Independent (Left wing, of course) has this wonderful headline: "Alexander the (not so) Great fails to conquer America’s homophobes." Don’t you just love this? This beastly movie flops, and the Americans as "homophobes" get the blame. "Alexander has proved to be the Thanksgiving weekend’s biggest flop, and while it is a portrait of a legendary leader who ruled far-away lands more than 300 years before the birth of Christ, it has brutally exposed the cultural and moral divide which slices America in two." I love this. Read it.
It’s amazing that the paper blames the alleged social divide for the flop, even while the article’s title refers to the movie as "Alexander the (not so) Great." So what’s the deal here? If a movie stinks, you have to watch it anyway, or else you’re a bigot? If the London Independent recognizes that the movie is bad, shouldn’t that be enough to explain its poor performance at the box office? Do we really need alternative explanations?
How would the newspaper explain the success of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "Will & Grace," not to mention the covert incorporation of tolerance for homosexuality on countless shows, movies, and music? Americans would have endured the homosexual references if this were truly a grand, sweeping epic with huge battle scenes and inspiring speeches, a la Braveheart. People know that Oliver Stone makes weird, conspiratorial movies by now and seek to avoid them.
I sent a similar letter to The Independent and posted it to my humble site as well. If, as they say, the movie has a "poor script and suspect casting," features Colin Farrell in a "shockingly bad blond hair-do," and is "not entertaining," I should see it why? To prove I’m not a homophobe? The only thing "brutally exposed" here is the agenda of The Independent.