Metascore
39

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 42
  2. Negative: 18 out of 42
  1. 38
    As huge a travesty and a bore as 1956's "Alexander the Great," in which Richard Burton looked equally uncomfortable as a blond.
  2. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    38
    A movie that has neither dramatic focus nor a single memorable performance, aside from one or two that are memorable for the wrong reasons?
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    38
    An ambitious disaster, Alexander is the rare historical portrait that leaves you feeling as though you know less about its subject than you did upon entering the theater.
  4. 33
    A dreary, overlong and occasionally laughable classical epic about the great Macedonian world conqueror, it's guilty of a sin that no Stone film has ever committed: It's boring.
  5. 30
    A movie celebrating the life of the greatest military conqueror the world has ever known should feature a bit more conquering.
  6. 30
    Stone has made an excruciating disaster for the ages.
  7. Although inexplicable brogues and burrs appear and disappear, and although Stone post-produces the dickens of his movie trying to generate the maximum spit-fog of sound and fury, Alexander manages to be as dull as the Victor Mature films of the 1950s, which barely moved at all.
  8. This is the costliest, most logistically complex feature of the filmmaker's career, and it appears that the effort to wrangle so many beasts, from elephants to movie stars and money men, along with the headaches that come with sweeping period films, got the better of him.
  9. There's no zest to the general depravity, no coherence to the script or the spectacle -- clarity is missing in some of the camera work -- and, most important, no character to give a Greek fig about.
  10. Like every other second of more than 10,000 seconds in Alexander, it doesn't engage in the least.
  11. After the three hours--though it seemed longer--I was still bewildered. Stone is a unique and fiery talent. Why did he make this film?
  12. 25
    Alexander breaks the key rule that makes movies move: Show, don't tell.
  13. It's astounding that the ingenious creator of "JFK" and "Wall Street" could make an epic on war and empire that's so utterly simplistic and unreflective.
  14. Both the sex and the battle sequences here look like football plays drawn by an NFL coach and shot by the wide receiver's mother. Usually, even when I don't like a Stone film I admire its frenzied energy, but the editing here is as lethargic as the compositions are perfunctory.
  15. Stone tries to make us like Alexander because he's good, when he should have made us want to watch Alexander because he's amazing.
  16. 25
    The movie is a monument to egomania - and I don't mean Alexander's.
  17. This movie is an act of hubris so huge that, in Alexander's time, it would draw lightning bolts from contemptuous gods. Today it will get sniggers from stunned critics and a collective yawn from a public unlikely to share Stone's egomania.
  18. 11
    It is, in a word, boring, and that's the most un-Oliver Stone adjective I can think of.
User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 202 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 127
  2. Negative: 69 out of 127
  1. Apr 1, 2014
    10
    One of the greatest movies i have ever seen! I can't udnerstand why some many people disliked this film. It was masterpiece! I think people just don't understand the full meaning of this film. They just care about the action **** Full Review »
  2. Oct 3, 2013
    3
    Intriguing cast! However it's interesting to see how much can go wrong with an interesting part of history if the storytelling doesn't work. Sadly IMO this is one of Oliver Stones weakest movies. Really boring and it takes ages to get to a point. Full Review »
  3. Jun 8, 2013
    3
    I wish I could say I was able to overlook the film's many flaws and say that it's a half decent film, but that would be a lie. Is this film really that bad? Sadly, and unfortunately, yes. This is a bad film; the pacing is horrible, the editing is atrocious, the performances are overly dramatic, the battle sequences are mostly mindless, it's unnecessarily gory, the story itself is unengaging, the direction is confused, and as far as historical biopics go this isn't one that all that accurate. All of these things combined with ambition could not save this film which is very sad and disappointing. The reason this film was so disappointing is because I believe this ensemble could have created THE biopic of Alexander the Great, instead we are left with this mess that makes us question the minds of those involved. Full Review »