Metascore

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 42 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 177 Ratings

  • Director: Oliver Stone
  • Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Biography, Drama, History, Romance, War
  • Rating: Unrated
  • Runtime: 175 min
  • More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 42
  2. Negative: 18 out of 42
  1. Vast, riveting, madly audacious movie biography.
  2. Reviewed by: Ian Nathan
    80
    Unwieldy and flawed, but Stone remains a tornado in an era of airless formula and -- to paraphrase our Ptolemy -- its failings are greater than most films’ successes.
  3. Since the movie lacks a vision of what Alexander was really about as a man and a figure in history, it falls back all too frequently on movie spectacle.
  4. 38
    As huge a travesty and a bore as 1956's "Alexander the Great," in which Richard Burton looked equally uncomfortable as a blond.

See all 42 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 47 out of 124
  2. Negative: 67 out of 124
  1. This is an amazing video. Colin F makes a great job at portraying Alexander. This is how a historical movie should be made. Accuracy neatly balanced with entertainment value.

    Also an answer to the reviewer called "Christo": For someone who supposedly studied Alexander for 2 years, you have very little knowledge of Alexander and the times he lived in. This is a laugh: "You must understand that during those times, a person who loved men and women was respected greatly because he/she loved each and every single one of God's children.". God's children? Since neither Christianity or Islam had been even founded, I suppose you are either claiming that all Greeks including Alexander were, what...? Jewish? Polytheism ruled back then. There would be no "God's children". You are either very ignorant to the times of Alexander or simply trying to apply your beliefs on a time and place where that belief didn't even exist.
    Expand
  2. The film had a pretty decent start. It was somewhat intriging, the relationship between Alexander and his father was interesting and being a huge history fanatic myself I learnt some new things. The battle of Guagamela was also really nice to look at but no where as epic as other battles like Troy, Lord of the Rings etc. After the first hour it really started to drag on but I did watch the whole and I don't think I'll ever watch it again the second time due to its long running time.
    I think the reason why the film was so boring was because there was not much memorable moments that refreshed the experience and I found the character of Alexander's mother difficult to understand. So I guess you could say the characters aren't really defined so its boring to watch after the 1st hour but I thought it was a solid film when I first and only watched it. Slightly above average.
    Expand
  3. TonyB
    4
    Though not nearly as bad as had been anticipated, the film is not nearly as good as it might have been. Its major asset is an awesome production design, with cinematography (when it's not pretentious) costumes and scoring right behind. The acting is, for the most part, over the top, with Farrell, Jolie and Kilmer seeming to be in another film, but Hopkins and Plummer are fine. Alexander's worst flaw is that it is one of the worst edited major films to come down the pike in a long time; some sequences have no apparent connection to what precedes or follows them. Expand
  4. Alexander, which fails in almost every way possible, bores its viewers to death and attempts to educate them through nullified narrative more than it does to entertain them. Expand

See all 124 User Reviews

Trailers