A young man is plunged into a life of subterfuge, deceit and mistaken identity in pursuit of a femme fatale whose heart is never quite within his grasp. Remake of François Truffaut's 1969 film 'Mississippi Mermaid'
Alexander, the King of Macedonia, leads his legions against the giant Persian Empire. After defeating the Persians he leads his Army across the then known world venturing further than any Westerner had ever gone all the way to India. Written by
The scene where the men mutiny is a combination of two separate mutinies. In India, the men refused to march on, and Alexander claimed he would go on with his Asian troops. This threat failed, and they turned back. The second mutiny was when it became clear that Alexander wanted to send his veterans home and replace them with Asians. The men claimed that they would all leave with the veterans, but this time it was clear that Alexander very well could replace them with more than competent Persian soldiers. After the execution of the ringleaders (shown in the compressed combination in the film) the men begged forgiveness. One inaccuracy between history and film is that the general Craterus did not publicly speak out at either mutiny. See more »
On road marches (as opposed to marching to contact, i.e., when the enemy is in sight or there is imminent contact), the 4 to 7 metre (13 to 21 feet) sarissa would have been broken down into its two components for ease of transport. In the movie, the sarissa is always shown at full length deployment. See more »
Our world is gone now. Smashed by the wars. Now I am the keeper of his body, embalmed here in the Egyptian ways. I followed him as Pharaoh, and have now ruled 40 years. I am the victor. But what does it all mean when there is not one left to remember - the great cavalry charge at Gaugamela, or the mountains of the Hindu Kush when we crossed a 100,000-man army into India? He was a god, Cadmos. Or as close as anything I've ever seen.
See more »
Alexander proves too smart for dumb American critics
The US reviews have been really terrible and the IMDb user rating is lower than KING ARTHUR, so I'm wondering if Europe has got a different cut, because the film I saw was excellent. Problems, yes, like Anthony Hopkins and Val Kilmer hamming away and Angeline doing a very odd accent. Farrell's not bad even though he doesn't have enough small moments to work with to shade the role: after Clive Owen's disgracefully bad performance in KING ARTHUR it's amazing that it's Farrell the critics are laughing at.
You don't get involved in the characters as much as you should, but its an amazing flick, a real movie. It feels like it's been done for real not by a computer by someone as mad and vainglorious as Alexander himself. Not a total success, but the 80% that hits the target is really intelligent and ambitious and is worth more than a lot of pictures that work better, if you know what I mean.
I think the reason Hollywood is so dumbed down now is when someone tries to do something different on a big scale like Alexander, HEAVEN'S GATE, REDS, ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, THE RIGHT STUFF or films like that is that the American critics who are always complaining about dumb audiences and filmmakers can't get them and tear them a new *beep*hole killing them off at the box-office. Certainly seems to be the case with Alexander. Not the most successful flick I've seen this year but easily one of the best.
623 of 1,146 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?