Alexander (2004) User Reviews

Stone stumbles over Alexander

[mharrsch-1 · 7/10 · 14 December 2004]

When "Gladiator" stirred a latent interest in films about the ancient world I was so hopeful we would finally be able to enjoy some exciting cinema about my favorite time period. I have not been totally disappointed. USA Television network has given us Attila, Caesar, and Helen of Troy - not without flaws but solid efforts. Wolfgang Peterson's "Troy" did not resemble the Iliad I had studied but I appreciated the performances of Eric Bana and Brad Pitt. Brukheimer's "King Arthur" could have used more experienced epic direction but was loosely based on historical accounts of Sarmatian auxiliaries and their commanders in late Roman Britain and I liked the grittier result to the fairy tale legends of my childhood. Then I heard about Oliver Stone's production of "Alexander" and I was sure we would have a film of the caliber of "Ben Hur". Unfortunately, Stone managed to take what should have been a ready-made screenplay and solid performances by Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Colin Farrel and imparted as much insight into the character and charisma of the world's most famous conqueror and military genius as the images of shadowy figures thrashing about in the blinding dust of Stone's Gaugamela.

His opening sequence with Anthony Hopkins, as Ptolemy I, droning on about his memories of Alexander was more protracted than a prologue to a History Channel documentary. In fact, I heard a man behind me mutter something like "I came to watch a movie not the History Channel!"

Stone's next major error was to omit any scenes of Philip's military prowess. "The Lion of Macedon" was as much a military genius as his celebrated son but Stone leaves us with little more than an impression he was a drunken lout. The omission of the battle of Charonea was nothing short of a blunder since it epitomized the sharing of military experience between father and son with Philip masterminding the battle and Alexander, a mere 18-years old, leading the cavalry in a critical maneuver to assure the victory. Stone handles Alexander's tutelage by Aristotle clumsily as well. Instead of focusing on Alexander's insatiable curiosity about the world around him and how Aristotle nurtured his intellect, we see a brief scene where Aristotle is essentially defending Alexander's friendship with Hephaistion to a sneering Cassander. During Alexander's brief lifetime, Alexander maintained his relationship with his tutor for years, sending examples of plants and animals from the lands he conquered back to Aristotle for study.

Then to skip both the battles of the Granicus River and Issus totally left me aghast. I think the most damaging omission was the battle of Issus. It is at Issus that Alexander first confronts Darius himself and Darius flees from the Macedonian onslaught, leaving his wife and daughters to Alexander's mercy. When Stone depicts Darius running from Alexander at Gaugamela it is done in such a way that the audience doesn't perceive it to be a lack of personal courage but just an escape, especially without the knowledge that Darius had broken and run from Alexander before.

Furthermore, Gaugamela was not executed in a way that illuminated Alexander's strategy and daring. Stone should have watched "Alexander: The Art of War" produced by the Discovery Channel for better insight.

Stone treats us to only one last battle scene in India at the Hydapses River. Again, it looks more like a running jungle battle vis-a-vis Vietnam than a carefully strategized battle where Alexander had to execute a tenuous river crossing below the expected battle site to draw some of King Porus' forces away from the center and enable Alexander's infantry to be effective.

As for the near mortal wound, Alexander was wounded at the siege of Malia, a fortified town on the way back to the Indian Ocean. He dashed over the ramparts of the town before his main force could catch up to him and he wound up cut off and, with three other companions, cornered and fighting for his life. Two of his companions were killed and a severely wounded Alexander is protected by the last remaining companion bearing the shield Alexander had supposedly taken from the grave of Achilles at Troy - another missed cinematic opportunity!

As for Alexander's bisexuality, I objected to Stone's portrayal of Hephaistion as an eye-linered catamite walking around in billowing robes. Hephaistion was as skilled a warrior as Alexander and a successful commander in his own right. Maybe Stone could not bring himself to accept a deep relationship between two very masculine men.

Now, I can only hope that the vehicle starring Leonardo diCaprio is produced or HBO gives Alexander the treatment he deserves with a blockbuster miniseries like "Band of Brothers".

Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 22 June 2019]

Alexander is directed by Oliver Stone and Stone co-writes the screenplay with Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis. It stars Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, Jared Leto, Anthony Hopkins, Rosario Dawson, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Christopher Plummer. Music is by Vangelis and cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto.

Alexander is an historical epic based on the life of Alexander the Great. Off the bat I have to say that this "Final Cut" version of the film is the only one I have seen. Upon its initial home format release - the first theatrical version - I lasted an hour and 15 minutes before growing restless and sought enjoyment elsewhere. Consequently as a massive fan of historical epics through the years, it has been a constant nagging itch for me to see Alexander in its entirety. So with Oliver Stone tinkering away with versions - convinced he has made a worthwhile epic - I finally delved in.

The Final Cut, as far as I'm aware, is a vast improvement on that savagely received theatrical release, well that is said by those who tried again instead of calling quits at the first production. Straight away I could see the difference, where once was a plodding first hour, now sits a vibrancy, with Stone seemingly saying that he can do great action and drama, just please hang around during all the historical chatter, sexual connotation, family strife and conquering machinations, and I will enthral you as a whole.

By his own admission, Stone reveals he took on a most complex historical character and in his eyes has made a film to befit such complexity. We get a splintered narrative, as we kick off with the crux of Alexander the Great, the leader, while Alexander's childhood and family forming is interspersed at various junctures. The battles are high in intensity and blood letting - exhilarating at times - but more crucially they let us engage with the tactical "ahead of their time" manoeuvres of Alexander the Great. This version mostly flows alright, and I got to feel how Alexander's mind was working in the process, even if come pics closure I didn't fully know the man.

Epically cast of course, some of them work, others not so much. Farrell's looked odd, in the way that Pitt's was in Troy (released this same year as Alexander), but apart from the accent issue he grows into the role and is fiercely committed. Jolie is just wrong for the role of domineering Olympias, worse still the scenes she does with Farrell are damp and threaten to derail the drama already built up. This latter point is more annoying given a great thread involving Dawson as Alexander's wife Roxanne is built up superbly, only to not be pulled until some drama very late in the play. The rest of the cast come through as ok for period flavours (expected for Hopkins, Plummer and Meyers, interesting as regards Leto).

This is not the life ambition masterpiece Stone wanted to make, even if he proclaims on the extras that he's happy and content with The Final Cut version. This cut still shows some cracks, but these are not seismic enough to hurt the film. For there's a lot of grandeur, blood stirring and thought gone into the production, and there's a lot to be said for that in this day and age of soulless cash making filmic exercises. Honourable failure then? Yes for sure, but a better film in this form than some may have thought possible back in 2004. 7/10

Splendorous Alexander The Great Irishman

[filmquestint · 7/10 · 22 January 2005]

Oliver Stone is Oliver Stone. When you go to see one of his films you know you'll enter unknown territory. I though that was what movies were all about. A personal vision. Not documentaries or Sunday school classes. Richard Attenborough's "Ghandi" was that, and as a consequence Oscars, praises, oodles of cash. Ben Kingsley was superb but the title character is treated as if nobody had ever heard of "Ghandi" the same can be said of another Attenborough biopic: "Chaplin". No, Oliver Stone gives his audience a little bit more credit and, naturally, he is paying the consequences. I think the film is mind blowing. Arbitrary? Yes, beautifully so. Even the accents of the actors is one of the many strokes of genius. Within its historical context those characters spoke with different accents. They were in the ultimate melting pot. Colin Farrell bold portrayal, Irish accent and all is bound to leave its mark. Oliver Stone took every imaginable risk and I for one, applaud him with a loud Long Live the Cinema.

Director's Cut: Not as bad as everyone says but certainly flawed across too many aspects

[bob the moo · 4 September 2007]

The story of Alexander the great, the King of Macedonia who sweep across much of the world as it was known at the time. With flashbacks to his relationship with his father King Philip and mother Olympias, we follow Alexander as a boy taught by Aristotle and his rise to power and first conquers all of Persia before moving eastward into deeper Asia as he attempts to reach the Ocean to return to Macedonia. However this road is tough and his men struggle with his methods of ruling his conquered territories and with the seemingly never-ending quest.

Despite the fact that this was slated (maybe because it was slated) I decided to give a try for myself. The only option available to me for rental was the slightly shorter Director's Cut, so I took that one and my comments are based around that – how different it is from the original release into cinemas I'm unsure but it was what I had. Taking the eagle of the early scenes as my guide and looking at film from a great height, it is actually not too bad. Cosmetically it all looks good with lots of money spent on the CGI, the battle scenes, the cast, the costumes and so on. However the reality is that every audience must watch this scene by scene and deal with it line by line and it is at this level where the film doesn't really work.

To give it its dues though, the overall sweep is good and the battle scenes are impressive even to this post-Lord of the Rings viewer and it is fair to say that the money is right up on there on the screen. Talk about the narrative, the script, the performances, the delivery though and it is a different story. Whether the story is historically accurate or not I cannot say but, like with many of these things, I am happy to take the overall story as reasonably educational while also recognising that much of it will have been either made up for the sake of the telling or simplified for the same reason. The problem for me was not with the accuracy but more with the script. It is written like speeches rather than conversations; nobody seems to talk so much as proclaim. This makes the characters harder to get into and comes over like the writers were forcing themes rather than building them into their characters.

I actually liked the flashback structure as it gave us both elements of Alexander building towards the conclusion of the film. That said though, it is a bit laboured at times and not every timeshift works as well as it should have done or contributes as much as I suspect it was supposed to. Stone's direction is impressive in regards the battle scenes but it is as writer and deliverer of the story that he falls down; even his "cut" contains structural problems and failings.

Without a good script the starry cast mostly struggle. It doesn't help that the themes are mostly handed to the cast in clumps rather than being woven into the dialogue and the characters. Unlike many reviewers I didn't really mind the use of Irish accents; it was a bit funny at first but I got used to the device of the accents representing a certain people. Farrell is left exposed by his director. I do not mean the shot of his balls but more the fact that he seems rudderless in his performance, never being consistent and swinging wildly with each scene. It doesn't help that each line he says is delivered like it is "the most important thing ever™" – with this in mind I didn't care what he looked like, it was more fundamental issues I had with him. Leto, Meyers, Beattie and others provide unremarkable support but the bigger worry is in the A-list names that misfire. Contrary to what some have said, I thought Jolie did a pretty good job with her manipulative character; it is not her fault that she is too young for the role and I'm not entirely sure why she was cast as I can think of a handful of older actresses who could have risen to the role. More disappointing was Dawson who offers little apart from a nude scene (which is an absurdly comic sex scene in itself). Contrary to what my girlfriend might say, I do think Dawson is a good actress and although the male part of me appreciated seeing her naked, I cannot help but wonder why her real talents were wasted in a role that gave her nothing to work with and very little to do anyway. Hopkins is a good narrator and as a device he holds the film together well. Blessed provides a slice of his usual ham then disappears, Plummer likewise while Kilmer does an OK job as the father of the piece.

Overall then this is not as terrible a film as the critics would have led you to believe but this is not to be confused with me saying that it is "good". The overall sweep of the film is OK while technically it is professional and impressive but the script is poor, the characters delivered on a basic "and here's the theme for this scene" level, while the performances are either weak or, at best, well-meaning. Like I say it isn't as totally valueless as some have claimed but what potential there is, is mostly missed.

Utterly preposterous movie on the greatest king

[kirangnsh · 1/10 · 20 August 2005]

By Zeus, this movie is awful! The movie is not just scripted poorly, it is directed pathetically! Mr.Stone completely loses grip on story telling... and by at the end of the movie, is clueless about what he wanted to say.

What put me off was neither the director's *obsession* to prove Alexander's sexual orientation, nor the plethora of inaccuracies/biased opinions through out the movie. It was the complete lack of representing why Alexander was "Alexander The Great". I would have endured it better if it were a documentary, with its purposes stated upfront.

Great men are so few; and when somebody goes ahead and downplays such a great person with their frivolous 'research' and story writing, it is outright annoying. I strongly believe that our next generation should learn from the great souls of the past. And if a director, when has such an opportunity, makes a bum of himself/herself, it is very, very irritating.

I am from India, where Alexander appears in our history text books at various grades at school. The fervor that the name Alexander brought to me when I was in school, which is nearly forty years ago, is simply indescribable. We Asians love him, adore him. We call him Sikandar, and the word stands for 'the heroic', 'the majestic', 'the king'. Rather than making the movie focus on his greatness - valor, ambition, respect for a fellow human being, and ultimately success in so many aspects of life, the movie was made about the most unimportant aspects of his life.

And for the records, Alexander won against the Indian kings, the last one being Porus. Alexander gave back the kingdom to Porus, for the courage shown by him after Alexander captured and 'interrogated' him. After this last war, Alexander's army was tired, and did not want to take on the army of Magadha, and Alexander returned home. The movie from this point on, does not even deserve comments.

Alexander supposedly asked his hands to placed in display after his death, showing the people "the one who conquered the world, after death, left empty handed". Instead of the ending of the movie being something to that effect, it was the Ptolemy's soliloquy at the end, which was... AARGH! absolutely absurd.

Alexander - The Final Cut

[topherdrewpg · 7/10 · 4 October 2021]

It took Oliver Stone four tries and ten years of edits to get this film right...but he finally does.

The Final Cut, released in 2014, shuffles the story elements around so the narrative is fast-paced and cohesive. Alexander's bisexuality is explored much more deeply. Those close to Alexander are further explored.

If you're going to watch Alexander, watch The Final Cut. It's far and away the best version.

You've got to be kidding me...

[jedblues1 · 1/10 · 29 June 2005]

I'm giving this film one star for the reason that it has absolutely no excuse whatsoever for its wretchedness. With a cast like it has, a budget ample enough for three good films, and a legend-centered plot sure to pique the viewer's interest well before the movie is even seen, it delivers a seriously despicable, laughable fiasco.

Of course it's set in ancient Greece. What's interesting is that Alexander sounds straight out of Dublin. And his mother? Why, it's Angelina Jolie, and she's...straight out of Prince Vlad of Tepes' castle in Transylvania. That's right, Vlad of the Dracul. I suppose miss Jolie spent some time watching Gary Oldman deliver his line, "Leesten to Dem! Di tcheeldren ov da nyyaat; vhat sveet muzik dai mike..." or "Alexander, Oi know vat veemen vi-ll do in yore loif..." Yes, it is that bad. So far no good.

As for Alexander's supposedly legendary tactical genius and indomitable character, here instead the viewer gets to watch the boy from Dublin with painfully obvious bleached streaks in his hair and freshly tinted eyebrows look at Jared Leto countless times with a facial expression that's half "Mommy can I have another cookie?" and half irritable bowel syndrome. Leto reciprocates, and captivates movie-goers with a luxurious dark mane of Paul Mitchell's finest work and eyes that make Dakota Fanning look Chinese.

Kilmer is wasted here, as is Hopkins. I didn't give a damn about either of their characters. Watch it yourself to see if you do.

As a boy I was fascinated by Greek mythology, Greek Tragedy and Comedy. I jump at any chance I can get to tack on extra elements of wonder to my understanding of these subjects. At least I learned something new by watching Alexander. His mother was a vampire wanna-be snake temptress and Alexander's horse had more charisma than he did. Yup, Alexander's horse gets my nomination for best actor.

JD

It was ok, could be better

[chera_khalid · 6/10 · 22 September 2023]

Alexander" was not bad, earning a 6/10. The acting, particularly from Colin Farrell in the titular role, had its moments but also felt uneven, and the casting choices were a mix of hits and misses. The music and cinematography contributed to the epic scale of the film, while Oliver Stone's directing aimed for grandiosity but occasionally felt overindulgent. The writing attempted to capture the complexity of Alexander the Great's life but struggled with pacing issues and historical accuracy. Its strength lies in its ambitious scope and battle sequences, but it suffered from a lack of focus and a meandering narrative. Overall, 'Alexander' is an uneven historical epic with moments of brilliance but also significant weaknesses.

How is it possible to take one of history's most interesting figures and a huge budget and make possibly the world's worst movie, ever?

[garlingmatthews · 1/10 · 5 February 2005]

I was saddened when Alexander the movie received criticism for featuring homosexuality. Besides being a neanderthalic prejudice, it distracted from the many valid reasons for criticism. This is a strong contender for worst movie ever made.

I will say first that this film has a marvelous cast. But it really doesn't help. Really.

It's almost totally ahistorical, but that's standard practice. It's irritating if you know something about Alexander's life and deeds (I studied him college), but the people I feel sorry for are the ones who walk away thinking they've been exposed to an educational experience. There is a small book in explaining how wrong this assumption is. It'd write it, but it would involve watching the movie again. But the rather liberal interpretation of the available information is a side issue in explaining why this is a strong contender for worst movie ever made.

The script is dreadful. Mind-bendingly dreadful. It's deficiencies take several forms. I shall enumerate them;

1) The dialogue is actually a series of monologues. Every-one is apparently reciting excerpts from their autobiographies, or treatises on whatever is at hand, letters to whomever they are talking to, letters to the editor, political speeches, self-help manuals... It's certainly not conversation.

2) It's portentous. I sometimes like portentousness, it can lend atmosphere. Here, it lends to the tedium. The tedium doesn't need adding to, it's already oversubscribed.

3) It never knows when to stop. Anthony Hopkins has a monologue at the end that goes on for several minutes. You keep thinking it'll end, hoping, praying it will end (this Anthony Hopkins! He could probably read the ingredients of soap and make it sound interesting), and it does, eventually, but by then you slipped even further into a coma and are in no fit condition to cheer. Colin Farrell seems to spend half the movie looking off into space and holding forth at length on, oh, whatever, but always passionately.

4) It's badly written. It's a bad series of portentous monologues that never know when to stop.

Aside from the script (perhaps) the film features other flaws that inhibit it from greatness. Such as?

Pointless time jumps. I have nothing against time jumps. Highlander, Once upon a time in America, Godfather part two, Once upon a time in the West, For a few dollars more, and probably other films that weren't by Sergio Leone... Many great films feature them. But usually they follow a rationale. Usually they aren't apparently random and unconnected. Here, it's like they put a couple of reels in the wrong order.

Sins of omission. While I said that the lack of adherence to historical accuracy was a side issue, not mentioning almost any episode that might actually have been exciting or interesting seems a dubious policy. Alexander, as the posters implied, was the stuff of legend made real. (I make no moral judgement here). Does it mention the phalanx? Any the innovative ways that he overcame apparently unassailable fortresses by looking at the problems from another angle? The political methodology whereby he kept a grip on all of the peoples behind him? The Gordian Knot? Does it hell. It does feature a couple of battle scenes, the second of which is shot in a vivid and pretty colour scheme, and both of which illustrate that he fought at forefront of his army. So that's something.

The most laughable sex scene ever committed to film. Alexander wins over his bride by making kitty-cat claws gestures and noises. There's more, but that's definitely the stand-out feature.

I could go on, but this film has already eaten enough of my life. The only thing epic here is the ineptitude. It actually made me feel nauseous.

Alexander Revisited - The Final Cut

[allmoviesfan · 7/10 · 17 September 2023]

Oliver Stone finally got it right. This is the third time I've cued up a version of the Colin Farrell swords and sandals epic. The first two occasions, I fell asleep and/or hit the stop button, which is something I rarely do.

The final version is a much, much better version of Alexander than anything that has gone before. Granted, that isn't a huge bar to leap over, but everything was better: pacing especially, and the epic battle scenes felt longer and more bloody. And Farrell's Alexander comes across as being a lot less petulant than before, that attitude being one of the things that irked me about the previous two versions.

Oliver Stone, despite a few missteps, is the master of the historical epic. And proves so in this final version of the film. There is some absolutely spectacular filmmaking here: the battle scene where the enemy comes to fight on giant elephants is some of the goriest and most epic combat on film I have ever seen. Incredible stuff!

"Alexander Revisited - The Final Cut" is worth your time.

I didn't know the Greeks were all Irish

[mgerity-1 · 1/10 · 20 August 2005]

After reading the comments on here, I have to say that I am stunned that anybody liked this film at all. I don't lightly say that I rank this as the worst non-B grade movie I've ever seen--ever. To begin with, all of the "Greeks" in this movie have Irish accents. Well, most of them, that is. Inexplicably, Angelina Jolie has a middle-eastern-meets-Russian kind of accent, and some have no accent at all. This hodge-podge of ridiculously out of place accents was so distracting that it was hard to stay focused on the movie. I laughed out loud when one of the soldiers actually said "aye" when confronting Alexander--I almost expected him to follow up by asking for "me Lucky Charms". I kept wondering how it was even possible that nobody in the production chain ever caught this absurdity and put a stop to it.

Beyond that glaring issue, the movie was bombastic and melodramatic to the extreme, it was too long, and the battle scenes were incomprehensible. I almost turned it off about 10 times, but I kept thinking there was no way it could get any worse. It did. Horrible. Oh, and did I mention the accents?

Give THE FINAL CUT a try!

[octagonproplex · 9/10 · 23 December 2019]

Oliver Stone's "Final Cut" version of his much maligned Alexander the Great biographical motion picture is simply the most monumentally redeeming subsequent edit from a theatrical debacle ever.

There's actually four different versions available (theatrical, director's cut, final cut, ultimate cut). The rejiggering I'm most staunchly voutching for is the third version, officially titled in full as "ALEXANDER REVISITED: THE FINAL CUT". All the versions are significantly different in narrative context and structural articulation (well the "Ultimate" is just a shorter refinement of the "Final" I guess). However, at an unabashed 3 hours and 34 minutes, The Final Cut is the most poignantly pregnant - some 40 minutes heavier than the theatrical, even while trimming out some content from that initial release. Ironically, whereas the theatrical felt like a hard long bloated slog, this substantially more voluminous revisitation carries itself with so much more deftly assured confidence of momentive purpose that its approprately earned heartiness gives the sense of no time wasted at all. Actually, dissecting all of the various incarnations of the seemingly same production is a truly fascinating excercise if you're really curious to. Especially because of how flat-out awful the theatrical version was. While the Final Cut version does retain some flaws, it approaches something approximating masterpiece level status in its epic resonance.

The things you may have initially hated will all still be present - but this time they're also accounted for!

The Final Cut version adds back much essential scenes and nuances, as well as more brutal edits of battle that actually inform the circumstaces and stakes far more effectively. The situational geography and ingenious war tactics are readdressed with much more clarity. And it returns to the original scripted and shot intention for a non linear narrative with scenes jumping from various time periods to contextually strengthen and impact character dynamics and motivations by contrasting juxtaposition. Plus, it may have legendary greek composer Vangelis' most robustly stirring music score!

It's a complicated subject, from a sprawling script, and an audaciously daring director - but the 3rd time's the charm. Oliver Stone's true vision of Alexander is well worth reassessment. Trust me.

Historical and breathtaking epic movie but overlong and a little bit boring

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 28 January 2005]

Historic , big-budgeted , mammoth rendition and enormous epic movie with stunningly staged battle scenes, but overlong , as it lasts too much , around three hours , and a little boring pacing ; this one being professionally directed by Oliver Stone (2003) . Being previously adapted by Robert Rossen with Richard Burton as Alexander , Danielle Darrieux , Harry Andrews , Peter Cushing , and Fredric March as Philip II as King of Macedonya . The movie centers Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell) , the famous Greek conqueror of the fourth century and disciple of Aristoteles , he was born in Pella and died Babylone (356-323 B.C) . It starts the year 326 B.C. in a divided , troubled , bloody Greece . Alexander was son of Philip II (Val Kilmer) , King of Macedonya , who vanquished Greeks in Queronea , unified the cities and Greece in the league of Corinto , but he died cruelly murdered . Olimpya (Angelina Jolie who is less than a year older than Farrell) , Alexander's mother , will stop at nothing to rule over for her son and proclaim him King . Alexander , disciple of Aristoteles (Christopher Plummer) , will fight the Persians commanded by Dario III who will be vanquished in Granico , Issos and Gaugamela . Starting in 334 B.C., Alexander crossed into Asia on his eleven-year conquest of the known world . From his conquests of Egypt , creating Alexandria as capital , to battles with the Persians and the capture of Babylon and Persepolis that he fired , operations near Samarcanda and in Afghanistan, and pushing all the way to India where he reigned unchallenged . Emperor Alexander will marry a Babylonian princess (Rosario Dawson) and later on , he will arrive in Samarcanda and Khiver pass (Afganistan) . In India he was infected by fevers and he died suddenly at 33 years old (323 before Christ) . The empire will split amongst various generals : Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) , Antioco , Seleuco , among others.

Big budget epic about the legendary Greek conqueror . Here we find Alexander is the result of a dysfunctional royal family who wishes create an idealized world modeled in Greek style , this he does by conquering all around the world before dying at 33 years old . The overall casting is important , the remarkable main cast include prestigious players as well as a notorious plethora of secondary actors . The great main and secondary casting help in overcoming the sluggish developing . Film runtime results to be overlong and a bit tiring, because of it goes on for three hours and some , and it tires too much . At the picture there are historic events , overwhelming battles , spectacular scenarios and gorgeous landscapes . First-rate production design : temples , palaces, monuments.., the battles are very well staged by a cast of thousands and other scenarios by means of computer-generator special effects . The motion picture obtained enough success at box office , it was a real blockbuster but achieved more hit-smash in Europe than the United States where had gotten awful critics . Riveting and colorful cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto , similar to extraordinary and fascinating Vangelis' musical score . Oliver Stone direction is good , though a bit confusing and embarrassing . Rating : 6 , acceptable and passable .

An Epic Hubris

[gftbiloxi · 1/10 · 7 August 2005]

Viewers who expect an epic display of world conquest will be extremely disappointed in Oliver Stone's Alexander, which includes exactly two fairly brief battle sequences in its three hour running time. The film is not about conquest; it is an attempt to create a character study of one of history's most self-contradictory and enigmatic figures.

The emphasis, however, should be on the word "attempt." Alexander fails in three basic ways: in its cast, in its refusal to meet certain character issues head-on, and in a directorial decision that easily ranks among the most serious misfires in recent memory.

Alexander the Great was a charismatic, self-contradictory, and enigmatic leader who led and inspired the largest army the world had seen up to that point. He was a battle-tested killing machine by age sixteen, King of Macedonia by twenty, conqueror of the known world by thirty—and above all one of the great military geniuses of his or any other age. Colin Farrell plays the character as a weak-minded, emotionally distraught entity, going through the entire film with a series of facial expressions that would lead to believe he is desperate need of a dose of salts. It is completely impossible to accept him in the role.

Although Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie give acceptable if not particularly memorable performances as King Philip and Queen Olympias, the remaining performances are equally impossible. Jared Leto's Hephaistion looks for all the world like a Malibu hooker afflicted by an eyeliner addiction; it is impossible to perceive him as Alexander's military whip. Franciso Bosch's Bagoas could be an ancient-world version of Cher after a particularly thick night, albeit with better cleavage. As for Queen Roxane, history notes that she was an unattractive minor tribal princess that Alexander found annoying but whom he married in order to secure military aid from her father. The role, however, is considerably revised, and while Rosario Dawson gives it all she has the part plays like something out of bondage skin flick.

During the film's theatrical release some audiences complained that Alexander was portrayed as a homosexual. Unfortunately, you cannot offer a psychological portrait of Alexander without indicating his general indifference to women and putting him in bed with at least two men: the general Hepaistion and the eunuch and sex slave Bagoas. That is who Alexander was; that was what the ancient world was like. But instead of meeting this issue head-on, the film attempts to "indicate" the relationships through a series of longing gazes, the occasional caress, and some of the most embarrassingly bad dialogue ever written for the screen. The resulting relationships read like something off a television soap opera that has been canceled halfway into the first season.

For the sexually insecure, there is a DVD issue that deletes some eight minutes of this footage; although I went with the unedited version, and although the scenes in question are very badly done, I cannot imagine the deletion of these largely cringe-inducing scenes improves the film to any significant degree—largely because virtually everything about the film is no less awkward.

The script is at best mediocre and the story line so incoherent that Anthony Hopkins is required to provide constant narration—something that has the effect of telling us what happened rather than allowing us to see it happen. But by far the greatest failing of the script and story line is Oliver Stone's decision to present a chunk of the story, such as it is, out of sequence.

In essence, the first half hour of the film establishes the tri-fold conflict between King Philip, Queen Olympias, and the young Alexander and runs up to a major confrontation. At this point the film suddenly jumps eight years ahead to the invasion of Persia, and the jump does not read as intentional but as an outrageous, unexpected, and disastrous flaw in the film. Approximately two hours later the film presents this "lost time" in the form of a flashback—but by this point of the scenes have been lost and we've all figured out the details anyway. Oliver Stone is a master of creating parallel story lines and time lines. One need look no further than JFK to see his skill. It is astonishing, utterly astonishing, that he could do no better than this and, not being able to do better, did not find a better way entirely.

When all is said and done, Alexander is presented as an out-of-control weakling, his psychological motivations are hilariously pat at best, and it is utterly impossible to imagine that this person could command such a large force, much less lead it to a single victory, much less conquer the known world. Clearly Stone was attempting to reach a new height in epic cinema, but the Greeks had a word for ill-advised ambition founded on a god-like arrogance: hubris. It was a sin they believed was never left unpunished, and in this instance the punishment is a career-crippling, if not entirely career-killing, film.

As noted, there are several DVD versions, including a director's cut that removes approximately fifteen minutes, eight of them dealing with Alexander's sexuality. Bonuses include documentaries on the making of the film and on composer Vangelis, who scored it, as well as an amazingly beside-the-point commentary by director Stone and historian Robin Lane Fox.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

My take on this

[bolender-1 · 5 December 2004]

At first, I didn't feel much of a need to comment on the film, since so many others have written and have said so many things. But I think there are some really important points to made, and I haven't seen anyone make them. So here I am writing.

In my opinion, almost everyone misunderstood the relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander. In the modern world, especially in the West, two men are either very close to each other, sleep together, and have sex, or they keep a good comfortable distance from each other and, if they're friendly, might punch each other on the arm. In this film, we see a relationship that is hard for most people today to understand, namely a passionate love relationship between two men in which sex is not very important and possibly even absent.

Aristotle essentially explained the whole film near the beginning when he told the young couple something like the following, as best I can remember it, "When two men lie together in lust, it is over indulgence. But when two men lie together in purity, they can perform wonders." Or something like that. Given what I know of that culture, I am sure that "in purity" means no sex, or at least very little. That's why we never see them kiss. In the film, as in many older films, kissing is a metaphor for sex. Even when Alexander kisses his mother, it refers to the idea of sex. That's why Alexander kisses Bagoas, but not Hephaistion.

Now I'm not sure if the real historical Aristotle would have made that remark. That's not exactly what he says about homosexuality in the Nicomachean Ethics. But the remark is plausible enough since Alexander could easily have heard such an idea during his youth. Plato (before Aristotle) expressed that idea, and Zeno of Citium (after Aristotle) did too. So even if Aristotle never said this to Alexander, it is plausible enough that the idea was in the air and that Alexander heard it from someone or other.

Some have complained that the "homosexuality" (assuming that A's relationship with Heph. should even be called that) was thrown in their faces too much. But it's crucial to the plot. Stone is hypothesizing that Hephaistion was essential for what Alexander did. Further, it's a standard Hollywood convention to juxtapose a love story with some great political, military, or otherwise grand event. There are tons of examples. Titanic, Enemy at the Gates, Gone with the Wind, ... the list could go on forever. It really is homophobic to complain about Stone continually going back to this theme, because he has a perfectly good artistic reason to do it.

A few more details: Alexander's hair. I think that Stone was trying to make Alexander look like Martin Potter in Satyricon -- a nod to Fellini.

Alexander's accent and soft appearance. Another nod to a great director passed on, this time Stanley Kubrick. Farrel really looks a lot like Ryan O'Neil in Barry Lyndon. In fact, he really looks like a Ryan O'Neill / Martin Potter coalescence. I think it's deliberate.

The softness of Alexander's personality. In a lot of scenes it made sense. He was gentle enough to know how to approach Bucephalus and tame him without scaring him. He was open minded enough to adopt a lot of Persian culture and encourage intermarriage, while the other more "he-man" folks around him were less comfortable with the idea.

Yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I do like the film. People's hatred of the film is hard for me to understand.

OK oliver

[pookey56 · 1/10 · 6 October 2005]

i laughed out loud while watching this movie. i haven't enjoyed all of Oliver Stone's films so i'll give him this one. this movie left me wondering several things: 1) was Alexander's mother born before, or at the same time as her son?(and why did she go to a transylvanian voice coach?) 2) how much hydrogen peroxide was in the bleach Colin used? 3) did Val use plasticine on his face in the hopes of being unrecognizable? 4) did anyone go to the library to help with the pacing of this film? you know, those buildings with books in them? 5) was Bucephalous black, or white? did anyone care? (he was the best actor anyways) 6) if i had 9 figures to spend making a movie, would it have been this bad? (more proof that throwing money at a film doesn't do the trick) 7) did the people making this film know it was about Alexander the GREAT? did they know he was an extraordinary leader? or did someone tell them he was an angst-filled whiner? (see question #4) this film has my vote at the razzies this year for worst film. as i said i found myself laughing out loud. other leads turned the film down. if Alexander had been played by David Spade or Paulie Shore, i may have been more charitable of this mess of a film. please please, no more director's cuts or added footage...and by the way, i am a fan of most of the actors in this movie. what happened? but i stand by my statement about bucephalous. this animal didn't over-act, had a legitimate accent, and stood his ground with that poor elephant, who also gets a nod of approval from me. as far as i can tell, these are two characters who had no choice about being in this movie.

*arguabley "not bad" aspects of Alexander: 1)the desert/battle scenes, aka THE MUMMY 2)the blood looked real 3)employed a LOT of costumers for those thousands of outfits 4)the men looked better than the women (except Eva green) 5)mass carcass scenes post-battle, aka GONE WITH THE WIND, but not nearly as good. 6)not bad historical narrative by sir Anthony. otherwise, "huh"? 7)by all accounts, Alexander was a progressive and compassionate ruler, compared to his brutal times. much like Alfred the Great was ahead of his time in this aspect. 8)many "boys will be boys" scenes, aka BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but not nearly in the same league..nor universe, come to think of it... 9)some great busts, murals, statues and other art scattered around in the back ground 10)a zebra!! 11)one can forgive the globally conscious and compassionate Jolie for just about anything...

you may want to give it a watch, if you can get past the first few minutes. i only gave it a one based on the economy-busting amount of money that Mr Stone had to work with...perhaps i should upgrade my rating to, 1.01.

many people liked it many people hated it

[fernisanje · 7/10 · 28 December 2004]

well, i just saw this movie and i can honestly say that even though the script was disappointing, many actors excelled in the movie. Anthony hopkins being the narrator gives you a sense of presence and understanding the movie better for younger viewers. Angelina Jolie ( which i never respected as a good actor) really blew my mind on this movie. Colin Farrel, another chick magnet like brad pitt in troy which bring money to the box office did a great job in this movie and i was simply impressed. Oliver Stone gave the chance to new actors, and others which weren't known much; just like Peter Jackson did in the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy". All the characters are developed well and they all have different personalities, which brings a good variety. I was impressed even more by Clitus and craterus.I know its history, but i think that Ptolemy wasn't the guy for the job. Val Kilmer which i thought was a 'has been' by now came back in Alexander and also did a good job. Many metaphorical moments in the movie with some flashbacks like the ones used in Hero.It could had been a great movie , and Oscar sweeper, But the script needed a much better effort than the one that was given.It had great potential, great actors, great director but a bad script. Not many people want to watch a 3 hour long movie with a bad script, thats why i conclude that it was all a 50/50 between people who liked it and people who didn't like it. Colin Farrel should be nominated at least for his effort for the Oscars, also Angelina Jolie should deserve a Oscar for her performance in the movie, though i think meryl streep from 'the manchurian candidate' will win it. I give it a 7/10 instead of 5 because the battles, the effects and the character development and performance were mind blowing. 7/10 it is.

Watch Michael Wood's series instead.

[s-s-lyall · 1/10 · 10 October 2005]

You'd have thought given the amount of ancient source material which is still extant, dodgy or not, on Alexander's life that Stone could have cobbled together a story from the various accounts without resorting to simply making bits up (i.e Alexander being shot in battle with Porus), pointlessly attributing speeches from one character to another (i.e Darius's daughter giving a reply to Alexander which is actually that of Porus), having set designs which were simply ludicrous (i.e Olympias having the Ram on a tree thingy from Ur in her room)...I could go on, and on, and on...This film was simply awful on every level, the battle of Gaugamela just looked like a complete shambles, why did the Macedonians (Including non-Irish actors) put on Irish accents? A misguided attempt to mask the misguided casting of Farrell? Who was himself hammier than a pig farm but given that the script often stank more than the latter I loathe to blame him entirely.

Avoid this film at all cost, especially if you have any education in the Classics, it's not even worth putting yourself through it for a laugh.

Oh yeah and it was the 'directors cut' I just watched, have never seen the original release and if this was an improvement God help those of you poor souls who saw it at the cinema.

great synopsis of a part of our history

[gabbi_5 · 6/10 · 30 November 2004]

I thought Alexander was a great movie, a little long, but it was tolerable. It was nice to finally see a movie that explained a true part of history. I encourage everyone to see the movie for themselves, especially if they are into history or enjoy war movies. Angelina Jolie starred once again and gave a outstanding portrayal of Alexander's mother. Like all Oliver Stone movies, Alexander was long, but it was definitely worth seeing. Many people in theater I was at clapped at the end. Colin Farrell really impressed me with his portrayal of Alexander, especially because it was such a different and unique role for him. Jared Leto also did a nice job, I think the entire cast worked well together.

The Problem with Alexander

[jz-10 · 4/10 · 30 April 2006]

The historical epic is trying to make a comeback, and failing horribly. Just as Emmerich failed with the enduring legend of Achilles and the Trojan war, Stone fails miserably with Alexander.

In the 60s, in the era of Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia, audiences knew what they wanted and expected from a historical film--good history, a sympathetic hero (and hopefully heroine), lots of action. In many ways, our expectations have become much more sophisticated. We want convincing costumes and sets, special effects that make the action absolutely believable, and acting and dialog that allows us to get inside the characters' heads.

I submit that Alexander and Troy bombed because the directors threw buckets of effects and money onto stories that they didn't understand themselves--they used overwhelmingly broad strokes and declamatory speeches when nuances and realism would do much more.

We never understand the title character in Alexander. He's driven to conquer the world, but why? What's going on inside his head? Millions of dollars were spent on battle scenes, but almost nothing on a realistic portrayal of the man, his family, or friends. Olympia and Bagoas are not remotely believable in their femme fatale roles. Olympia, in particular, is nothing more than a caricature--she is never seen without at least one snake being present--is that subtle or what?

Stone obviously doesn't understand Alexander, and so portrays him as an enigma. But as an enigma film, it fails as well! Rent "Donnie Darko" or "Mulholland Drive" instead

Alexander – an Instant Camp Classic

[votarus4 · 7/10 · 28 November 2004]

Oliver Stone has imagined a vigorous, opulent homage to the Sword and Sandal genre, and like the best of those films of a generation ago, sheer visual style, over-the-top acting, and showmanship win the day. The best of those films-Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur and Spartacus-also had brilliant scripts, pitting their protagonists in the center of conflicts where superhuman will and wit overcome immense odds. But as history's first and most insatiable conqueror, Alexander seems unchallenged. Mighty ancient cities fall beneath his sword like so much marshmallow, and his one true enemy-Darius, King of Persia-has no words in Stone's film at all!-he's just a face. Thus, without a central conflict to dramatize, Stone's film lowers itself to the Sword and Sandal genre's middle road, where writing takes a back seat, and characters make portentous pronouncements before going off to fulfill their destinies. Angelina Jolie, as Olympias, Alexander's mother, comes off best and worst in Stone's decadent stew. Her unnatural devotion to Alexander seems to inspire the 'You-Must-Conquer-the-Known World' flame, but she's quickly side-lined by the script and is left screaming in the wilderness, having no real effect on the ensuing action. But she looks magnificent, and her face at the moment of Philip of Macedonia's death, is alone worth the price admission. Her Transylvanian accent, however, is a distraction, as are the Irish, English and Scottish dialects of other actors. Stone's script also avoids Alexander's more elaborate military strategies-studied and duplicated for thousands of years-and makes short shrift of the ongoing power struggles he had with his generals. Colin Farrell, as Alexander, works hard and holds the screen for 3 hours with a strange mix of petulance, arrogance and good old fashioned Hollywood charm. He and Jared Leto, as Hephaistion, have a long and tender love scene (fully-clothed) on a Babylonian balcony, looking down on what has to be the most opulent scenery ever devised for a feature film. This is a clear, if telescopic homage to D.W. Griffith's 1916 Masterpiece, 'Intolerance.' All in all, Stone's Alexander is never boring, never brilliant, but always visually exciting. Probably the most gorgeous film made in years. Terrific showmanship. 7/10

What Was Mr. Stone THINKING?

[robertconnor · 1/10 · 20 January 2005]

Alexander is essentially about this Russian sounding babe (played by Ms. Jolie) who marries into this big Oirish family, is driven to preferring snakes because her husband only has one eye, and begins dying her little boy's hair blonde. Then it all kicks off, Colin Farrell gets his eyebrows bleached and goes off in a flouncy tantrum to conquer the world. Meanwhile Jared Leto stands around with a twisty Cher hairdo, gazing longingly at bottle-blondie Colin, who every now and then gazes back with tears in his eyes and whispers 'Oy cahnt live if livin' is without you...' So anyway, about half way through that really handsome guy from The Book Group (the one in the wheelchair) and those porridge commercials shows up, but he has a different hairdresser... he stands around a lot, proving that sensible haircuts WERE possible in ancient times. I think he loses his razor at one point, but finds it again eventually... later Tim Piggott-Smith has to smush his hands around inside a dead animal, but they cut all his lines, so of course it all makes PERFECT sense.

Then the elephants come...

Out of the mindless masses.

[sturdy_ram · 10/10 · 26 November 2004]

The audience is not being able to understand the difference between ancient and modern morals, but to be honest I don't care about the wider audience. Why should Oliver have to sugarcoat and alter his work simply because the 'MTV generation' and mass TV watchers of the United States don't know their history? I say he shouldn't. Their ignorance is *their* problem, not Oliver's. In a long shot, Oliver Stone chose to create a historically accurate film around the life of a man, both fact and fiction, who created the gateway for humanity's future path. Many will not appreciate this film, because their minds are too stuffed with current calamity to realize where their freedoms and dreams of equality originated from. This is a brilliant film, which was portrayed correctly, from a personable point of view, to create the character of Alexander in the manner in which he lived; uninhibited by other influences save those whom he loved and knew were trustworthy. This movie is about the origins not only of the Western mind and intellect, but also plan larger into the scheme of the man who saw and dreamt of the future- a world which accepted each other and lived together in diversity in harmony. This man was Alexander-- our Western father. Like it, hate it; it doesn't really matter. The fact is, Oliver Stone brought to his team of experts internationally respected historians to make this film as accurate historically as possible. This should not go without notice. Colin Farrell, a known Irish- now Hollywood loverboy, does indeed display the heart and integrity of a natural born leader. He has lead this cast in an epic performance, well past his personal years and experience. He is worthy of praise in his portrayal of Alexander. The movie is fantastic; Well done, Olivier, Colin, etc... Well done.

how Alexander conquered the known world while facing different phases in his life

[esposit · 7/10 · 16 January 2005]

Finally I saw this movie! After all that talking and controversy about it, I became more and more curious about what this talking all about. I must say that I've seen better epic movies ... even Troy was better! However I give this movie a 7 out of 10 ... It's not that bad but it could have been done much better. Firstly: I cannot understand why there was all that talking about Alexander's sexuality and the 'gay scenes' that there were supposed to be. There wasn't a big deal really! It's true that there is a lot of flirting between guys but only one kiss was seen in the movie that of Alexander (Farrell) kissing a young male dancer. The sex scene with Alexander's wife was by far more explicit when compared. I think and agree that the movie is historically accurate and that Alexander was bisexual. Sexuality was not an issue at those days so men were more free to do whatever they wanted to. Homosexuality was not a taboo!!! I admire Farrell for taking such roles ... it wasn't the first time that we saw him as a bisexual (A home a the end of the world). He is known to be some kind of a playboy so pretending to be the opposite in movies might be hard and it shows good acting. Acting means showing feelings that you don't really feel, and I think that Farrell and Leto did a great job. The acting of all of them was convincing enough and I think we had some of the greatest performances when compared with their past roles. Jolie was sexy (as always) and she really delivered. Her acting was great as did Hopkins and Kilmer. But flaws are not missing in this movie! Too different accents, Jolie is almost as old as Farrell and she played his mother, Farrell's hair, Leto's excessive make-up (too much eye liner)!!! The fight scenes were great but at first I couldn't understand who was killing who and who was winning ... it wasn't clear at all ... there was so much confusion! And the last thing ... I didn't really fell in love with the characters as we all did in Gladiator! This movie is kind of 'dry' in some aspects. I'm sure it could have been a masterpiece but it has certain things that are really missing. The movie starts with old Ptolomy (Hopkins) narrating the events of Alexander. At first we see the warrior as a young boy which became an obsession to a mother who is a snake fanatic (Jolie), who was also a crazy and cunning woman who desperately wanted her son to become a powerful king, than we meet the king (Kilmer) who was a beast and a drunk who slept with God knows how many women, there was nothing human in him. The movie than focuses on the different relationships of Alexander with his mother, the king, his best friend and lover (Leto), his soldiers when he becomes king after the murder of king philip. We see an Alexander who faces war and its bloody side, the glory of conquering the known world, marriage with a woman he doesn't really love (his true and only love was Hephaistion (Leto)) and betrayal.

Half my brain died and can't read anymore.

[nick-946 · 1/10 · 27 June 2005]

Alexander. What have you done to me? I used to be able rate moves as good or bad but this boring incomprehensible piece of crap has created a whole new scale. Nothing else no matter how bad, can register on the Alexander scale. They are blip absorbed by the massive absurdity of this movie.

Writing this comment is hard. I'm lost to where to start. Okay, lets start with the accents. Even after the 10 or so hours, days even, this movie went for the Irish accents still stood out like dogs balls. It hurt my brain to hear some orange headed Scotsman plead to go back to family in Greece. Yes he said "arsh" I think he meant arse.

Hooboy I just remembered TAX SYSTEM! Firstly, I never knew the Greeks used their characters but spelt in language that didn't yet exist as the inhabitants of England were busy picking fleas off each other. The way it spelt would sound out "tah sgstim". Oh how about Cyprus? In the initial scene of the mosaic map Cyprus is spelt with Greek characters and two minutes later when it shown again its in English characters. You'd think $215 MILLION dollars would actually pay for someone to look for mistakes.

I doubt anyone watched this movie before it was released. If they did they should be shot, along with Oliver Stone and the rest of the cast. I hope the never work again. Why the hell couldn't they hire any Greek actors? I reckon the went down to Bridie O'Reily's picked a bunch of Guiness drinking hoons to cast for this film.

Staring is a good way to waste hours in film according to Stone. Alexander spends more time staring at Leto and the Sun than doing anything else. After staring at Leto he cries. A lot. After staring at the sun he gives a contrived monologue. In fact this movie is a whole bunch of monologues and crying scenes smashed together in random order.

And then we come to the battle scenes. Oh my God. I thought Alexander was the greatest military genius in the history of man. Not, bloke who rode blindly into enemy soldiers, while his army was half a kilometre behind him, then sat around on his horse staring off into the distance while the enemy stood around not killing him. The battle scenes made no sense, were difficult to follow and involved a lot of images of bloodied feet. What happened to famous Greek phalanx? It was more like the Persians vs. the Persians. Or even better a bloody football hooligan mêlée. All they needed were flares and darts, it would fit in with Irish, English and Scottish accents. Seeing as we're back on accents, Angelina Jolie's accent was something I'd expect to hear on 'Allo'Allo. She was nearly Russian, in fact here accent was more convincing than Sean Connery's in "The Hunt for Red October". At least Sean Connery can act.

Why was this movie so long? I thought the movie was nearly over when they took Babylon, what a mistake. It was like waking up on Monday and thinking it was Sunday. Alexander didn't age at all, his hair just got longer. I wish I could say the same for myself. By the end of the film, I needed to buy incontinence underpants and cash in my superannuation.

And why did we need to see a fat one eyed Val Kilmer sodomising a young boy? If I wanted to see that, I would have gone to the local Scout hall. It was simply unnecessary, like most scenes in this movie it seems like it was added at random.

"I'm trying to unite the people of Asia and Europe" what a load of spunk. Alexander was a conquerer and old-school ancient times conquerer, who conquered for the sake of conquering.

I could go on for ever about this movie but reliving the experience is becoming too painful. I think i need to take a dump.

THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE EVER.