Alexander

User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 223 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 84 out of 223
  2. Negative: 98 out of 223

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Ren
    May 6, 2005
    10
    This movie is taking a lot of heavy hits because it isn't just like "Gladiator" and "Braveheart". Well, it wasn't intended to be a film of that type (despite spectacular battle sequences, the best I've ever seen). It is more in the style of "My Dinner With Andre", and I'm sure if I read the user reviews of that movie, I wouldn't find many that said "Talk! Talk! This movie is taking a lot of heavy hits because it isn't just like "Gladiator" and "Braveheart". Well, it wasn't intended to be a film of that type (despite spectacular battle sequences, the best I've ever seen). It is more in the style of "My Dinner With Andre", and I'm sure if I read the user reviews of that movie, I wouldn't find many that said "Talk! Talk! Talk! Talk! Where are all the battle scenes?" "Alexander" is a meditative movie, dominated by monologue and dialogue, punctuated with scenes of tremendous natural beauty, sexual passion, extravagant opulence and decadence, and battle scenes of unparalleled intensity. I am convinced that the two battles in "Alexander" have such a compelling dream/nightmare character because of Oliver Stone's experiences in Vietnam. There is absolutely no similarity between these battles and the fairly orderly battle between the Romans and the Germans in "Gladiator". Many reviewers wrote that the battle scenes are very confusing. That's the whole point ! They are nightmares, because war is literally hell. I have addressed the bi-sexual issue in my previous review of "Alexander". But of course one will not find accurate history in this movie. The real Philip, Alexander's father, could speak as eloquently and in as learned a manner as any of the philosophers of his day, so the ancient Greek historian Plutarch wrote, although you'd never know that from Val Kilmer's portrayal of him. There was absolutely no incestuous relationship between the real Olympias and her son. As for Alexander himself, the movie does not present him as he really was most of the time: very restrained and disciplined, even ascetic with regard to the pleasures of the flesh. Plutrch wrote: "He had no desire to inherit a kingdom which offered him riches, luxuries and the pleasures of the senses: his choice was a life of struggle, of wars, and of unrelenting ambition...At any rate Alexander, so it seems, thought it more worthy of a king to subdue his own passions than to conquer his enemies, and so he never came near these women (female relatives of Darius whom Alexander the Great had captured and then cared for and protected with great chivalry), nor did he associate with any other before marriage, with the exception only of Barsine... As for the other prisoners, when Alexander saw their handsome and stately appearance, he took no more notice of them than to say jokingly, 'These Persian women are a torment for our eyes' (because they incite the body to rebel against the discipline of the will)." Olympias (Angelina Jolie) and snakes..... Here Oliver Stone took one detail of the real Olympias' life and magnified it to fill her entire life in the film. Plutarch wrote: "At another time a serpent was seen stretched out at Olympias' side as she slept...It appears that from very ancient times all women of this region have been initiates of the Orphic religion and the orgiastic rites of Dionysus...extravagant and superstitious ceremonies. It was Olympias' habit to enter into these states of possession and surrender herself to the inspiration of the god with even wilder abandon than the others, and she would introduce into the festal procession numbers of large snakes, hand-tamed, which terrified the male spectators..." That's it. That's all there was to it. It wasn't anything sexual or Freudian. It was just part of her occasional religious observances. If Stone had made a film about, say, Winston Churchill, and he showed Churchill's wife constantly singing religious hymns and bowing her head in prayer and kneeling and reciting religious sermons and sprinkling holy water and incense everywhere and at all hours of the day and night, just because in real life she attended church services every Sunday, you can see how ridiculous it was for Stone to portray Olympias constantly covered with snakes even while relaxing in her own home ! The eagle symbol has come in for unjust critical bashing, because modern audiences have no idea what a mighty significance most ancient Greeks attached to "bird signs". (Not all Greeks; Euripides called it "sheer folly" to pay attention to them). The ancient Greek mind was enthralled by mighty birds of prey, and attached a mystical significance to them. In Homer's Iliad there is a famous scene where two warriors are on a dangerous mission. Suddenly an eagle appears above them, and they know then that Zeus had approved their mission. The Greek army at Troy actually contained men whose sole function was to interpret "bird signs" ! Of course it would be very odd and humorous if a young man or woman walked into a modern American Army recruitment office and announced that he or she wanted to specialize in computers, medical technology, and "bird signs". The modern mind cannot appreciate what this meant to the Greeks. So keep that in mind as you read all the mocking comments like "What's up with that eagle ???". As I said, this is a thinking person's film, like "My Dinner With Andre", combined with certain other elements. It is not really an action flick. Lastly, accents.... You hear this strange criticism again and again and again. "Why did they have Irish accents or English accents or Scottish accents ? They should have had Greek accents..." This is a very foolish criticism. The Greeks and Macedonians of that day did not speak "Greek-accented English". They spoke Greek. Unless you want the actors in this film to speak in the Greek language (and Colin Farrell would still have an Irish accent if he did !!), with distracting subtitles popping up on the screen, just suspend disbelief about the accents, as you suspend disbelief that the Battle of Gaugamela only lasted 10 minutes and that Alexander conquered the known world in three hours. In short, this movie is much better than the reviews generally indicate. See it with an open mind. Expand
  2. MuhammadK.
    Dec 1, 2004
    10
    A movie not for the dumb. Its precarious approach is nothing but original and authentic. I mean its not known so why should Oliver Stone make it obvious otherwise. This film is not for your nerve like some want it to be. Its for your brain.
  3. ManuE.
    Jan 12, 2005
    10
    Una de las mejores biografias que he visto.Retratando con sinceridad y con realismo la grandeza y la decadencia de uno de los personajes historicos más importantes que como esta pelicula se adelanta a su tiempo.La gente cree que va a ver batallas y a comer palomitas pero no entienden que aun asi una pelicula sea epica.No menosprecio las batallas que son espectaculares, en las que Una de las mejores biografias que he visto.Retratando con sinceridad y con realismo la grandeza y la decadencia de uno de los personajes historicos más importantes que como esta pelicula se adelanta a su tiempo.La gente cree que va a ver batallas y a comer palomitas pero no entienden que aun asi una pelicula sea epica.No menosprecio las batallas que son espectaculares, en las que se demuestra que se gana con la inteligencia y no con la superioridad, que cada uno ocupa su posicion y no se lanzan como borregos, pero que la batalla que libra el propio Alejandro por creer en si mismo y en sus sueños es mucho más epica que el ejercito más grande.Un repato muy acertado con un Filipo II sobervio y una Olimpia solida y madura en cuanto a Alejandro cuesta en un primer momento aceptarlo pero Collin lo va mejorando hasta el final.Si acaso Jared Leto no logra sacarle partido al personaje de Hefestion.Con la música(para mi importante) Vangelis hace un trabajo muy calculado y perfectamente desarrollado dando el aire de clasico, exotico, romantico y brutal cuando debe darlo.Una recreacion historica muy cuidada(¡que Babilonia!) la fotografia mejora de forma sobresaliente cada plano con unos exteriores de lujo, es tambien uno de los puntos fuertes de la pelicua.De lo que puede pecar el film es de su larga duracion parece que a Stone le cuesta dar razones para meter pasajes de la vida de Alejandro, las cosas se ponen si hay que ponerlas. Yo por mi parte le doy un 10 para que la gente sepa que suspendiendo esta gran obra demuestran su irremediable ignorancia. Expand
  4. AkhilK
    Aug 11, 2005
    10
    A taut, realistic and amazing film, Alexander is a fitting film for a man fit for being a legend of all ages. There has been a lot of negative views around whether the film should have shown of his sexual nature or his tandem acts of selfless violence but i think this film really captured the essence of the man and explaining why he carried on the conquer the world.
  5. JimM.
    Dec 5, 2004
    10
    One of the BEST movies of the year! I don't understand all the absolutely stupid reviews, but the homophobic comments of some explain a lot...Alexander the Great, one of the greatest warriors/leaders of all time, loved another man. Get used to it. While some gay activist were upset that the movie did not show enough of the sexual side of the real love in Alexanders Life, I think it One of the BEST movies of the year! I don't understand all the absolutely stupid reviews, but the homophobic comments of some explain a lot...Alexander the Great, one of the greatest warriors/leaders of all time, loved another man. Get used to it. While some gay activist were upset that the movie did not show enough of the sexual side of the real love in Alexanders Life, I think it was better not to. The most explicit sex seen was with Alexanders wife (chosen simply for sexual and political reasons), whereas the relationship with his real lover was on a much higher level. This movie was more historically accurate than Troy, which totally erased Achilles' homosexual relationships. Bravo to Oliver Stone for making not only a good movie (certainly better than any other movie in the theatres), but the best big motion picture presentation of gay love. Expand
  6. WestH.
    Jun 22, 2005
    10
    If you know nothing about ancient Greek history, this movie will be very, very boring (I believe this explains the majority of the poor reviews Alexander has gotten).
  7. Oct 4, 2011
    9
    I found this movie to have great costume and action. I enjoyed watching the battle scene's the most. Very entertaining. I didn't like Colin Farrell in this movie and Angelina is just a terrible actress but I still liked the movie overall.
  8. Sep 12, 2014
    8
    This review is based on Alexander Revisited, which is a longer, differently cut version, but still has just about the same stuff in it.

    Before this movie, I knew practically nothing about Alexander the Great (what little I had learned in school was long forgotten). After seeing this, the loving bond was inevitable: not only did it have actors I enjoyed watching, but characters to fall
    This review is based on Alexander Revisited, which is a longer, differently cut version, but still has just about the same stuff in it.

    Before this movie, I knew practically nothing about Alexander the Great (what little I had learned in school was long forgotten). After seeing this, the loving bond was inevitable: not only did it have actors I enjoyed watching, but characters to fall in love with as well. This is the single most interesting piece of history I would ever want to study.

    People have a lot of different kind of opinions about this movie, and I understand that. For me, loving this movie comes from somewhere other than objectively judging its quality, and I have no way to actually defend my opinion (watching Colin Farrell make out with Jared Leto, just a bit, definitely would have won me over no matter what the content).

    The movie seems a bit dragged out, the battle scenes are too chaotic and long (not to mention the final battle in India which is always the one I hate most), but outside those, there are many good elements. A journey of a man with a vision, yet those who follow him eventually grow tired of chasing after something they do not want. And yet, Alexander the Great was loved by many, and he conquered more than anyone probably thought possible. This movie shows just that - and perhaps a bit more.

    The soundtrack of this movie is wonderful, within or without the movie. Vangelis did an amazing job on that.
    Expand
  9. julienc.
    Sep 7, 2005
    3
    Bad movie, boring, flat.
  10. LeoC
    Aug 6, 2005
    0
    Bad dialogue ad infinitum + horrible over acting + homo-erotic interludes every 5 min + bad dialogue + never-ending speeches + breaking of 'show, don't tell' rule + acting out infantile 'army men' fantasies + celtic greeks + russian queen + excessive face grabbing = most pathetic and worst movie I have seen in some time, maybe ever. I suspect the studio execs were Bad dialogue ad infinitum + horrible over acting + homo-erotic interludes every 5 min + bad dialogue + never-ending speeches + breaking of 'show, don't tell' rule + acting out infantile 'army men' fantasies + celtic greeks + russian queen + excessive face grabbing = most pathetic and worst movie I have seen in some time, maybe ever. I suspect the studio execs were all having cardiac arrests during the screening and that the catering was cancelled for the after party. If I could give it a -10, I would. See this movie if you want to learn how not to make a movie. Expand
  11. Christo
    Jan 24, 2005
    10
    I just cannot understand why people are saying that Alexander is a terrible movie! I have studied Alexander The Great for about 2 years now, and i have written numerous essays about him. This movie depicts the EXACT history of his wonderful and great life. I think that people were expecting to see a bloodfest. If you want to see a stupid gory movie, go and rent freddy vs. jason. Alexander I just cannot understand why people are saying that Alexander is a terrible movie! I have studied Alexander The Great for about 2 years now, and i have written numerous essays about him. This movie depicts the EXACT history of his wonderful and great life. I think that people were expecting to see a bloodfest. If you want to see a stupid gory movie, go and rent freddy vs. jason. Alexander is an historical epic about the greatest warrior to ever live. I think that people were taken aback by Alexanders bisexuality. 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. You cant think of it as modern times. The mentality back then was VERY different. So when you watch this movie, judge Alexander as a loving, yet strong person. I would like to say that the acting in this movie was riveting. No one overacted. Anglina Jolie betrayed Olmypia perfectly, passionate yet overpowering over her son. She had a perfect Greek accent, and i would know this since i am greek and lived there for sometime! So everyone who say's their accents are stupid are wrong! You have no fricken idea about how they are suppose to sound! Colin Farrel is a wonderful actor, he captured Alexander's passion and his pain. Also, i wanted to add that Anthony Hopkins was not given the props he should be given. He narrated the movie with such fatigue and (here it is again, lol) passion. So please, disregard all of the stupid and idiotic bad comments made by some of these people! Go and watch Alexander with an open mind and expect an epic with just enough battle, history, and love to make it a spectacular film. (please email me if this article made any difference to you @ ctaoushiani656@comcast.net) Expand
  12. JohnCB
    Aug 4, 2005
    2
    Oliver Stone decided to make a movie about a famous character and then for some reason tells us little about what he is famous for. Alexander is known by history because he was a brilliant military strategist - not because he was bisexual, had a Romanian-sounding mother or a drunken father. It's kind of like making a movie about Winston Churchill and focusing on whether he preferred Oliver Stone decided to make a movie about a famous character and then for some reason tells us little about what he is famous for. Alexander is known by history because he was a brilliant military strategist - not because he was bisexual, had a Romanian-sounding mother or a drunken father. It's kind of like making a movie about Winston Churchill and focusing on whether he preferred cats or dogs. I wanted to see Alexander conquor! I wanted to know how he was able to do what he did. Instead I'm supposed to believe that the whiney, emotional basketcase of a man depicted by Farell was able to command the loyalty of his troops and conqour the known world? Expand
  13. Christo
    Jan 24, 2005
    10
    I just cannot understand why people are saying that Alexander is a terrible movie! I have studied Alexander The Great for about 2 years now, and i have written numerous essays about him. This movie depicts the EXACT history of his wonderful and great life. I think that people were expecting to see a bloodfest. If you want to see a stupid gory movie, go and rent freddy vs. jason. Alexander I just cannot understand why people are saying that Alexander is a terrible movie! I have studied Alexander The Great for about 2 years now, and i have written numerous essays about him. This movie depicts the EXACT history of his wonderful and great life. I think that people were expecting to see a bloodfest. If you want to see a stupid gory movie, go and rent freddy vs. jason. Alexander is an historical epic about the greatest warrior to ever live. I think that people were taken aback by Alexanders bisexuality. 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. You cant think of it as modern times. The mentality back then was VERY different. So when you watch this movie, judge Alexander as a loving, yet strong person. I would like to say that the acting in this movie was riveting. No one overacted. Anglina Jolie betrayed Olmypia perfectly, passionate yet overpowering over her son. She had a perfect Greek accent, and i would know this since i am greek and lived there for sometime! So everyone who say's their accents are stupid are wrong! You have no fricken idea about how they are suppose to sound! Colin Farrel is a wonderful actor, he captured Alexander's passion and his pain. Also, i wanted to add that Anthony Hopkins was not given the props he should be given. He narrated the movie with such fatigue and (here it is again, lol) passion. So please, disregard all of the stupid and idiotic bad comments made by some of these people! Go and watch Alexander with an open mind and expect an epic with just enough battle, history, and love to make it a spectacular film. (please email me if this article made any difference to you @ ctaoushiani656@comcast.net) Expand
  14. DavidB.
    Aug 9, 2005
    0
    Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I tried to fall asleep, but I wasnt tired. Horrible movie.
  15. BillyM.
    Sep 12, 2005
    0
    I haven't even seen this movie and i hate it already! jeepers it sucks! that's how bad it is; now ol oli stone can be a pretty big gangster, but not when he's making bad movies! thug life!
  16. DemiurgeD.
    Sep 9, 2005
    0
    I dont understand how anyone could even BEGIN to give this anything resembling a high rating. We all know that Alexander "batted for both teams", so to speak... and frankly nobody cares. Oliver Stone obviously felt like using this aspect would be more compelling to audiences than the greatness that Alexander was revered for. I suppose the only aspect of this movie that is worth I dont understand how anyone could even BEGIN to give this anything resembling a high rating. We all know that Alexander "batted for both teams", so to speak... and frankly nobody cares. Oliver Stone obviously felt like using this aspect would be more compelling to audiences than the greatness that Alexander was revered for. I suppose the only aspect of this movie that is worth mentioning, is the effort put into the photography and scenery... it was beautifully shot in some instances, but that is about all it had going for it. It was a pain to sit through, to be perfectly honest. I have never been to a movie theatre, where a movie was actually BOOed at the end. I just think it was so terrible to take a story as great as that of Alexanders conquest, and turn it into some sort of 'suprise' tactic using his bisexuality as the main pull for the movie. Rediculous - poor acting, poor storyline - it was so annoying to even want to pay attention to the plot, that you just want to get up and leave. A huge waste of time, dont even bother renting it - the special on Alexander the Great featured on the Discovery channel was 10X as entertaining, and I am not just saying that... There is so much to say about how bad it was, I am now at a loss of words. Expand
  17. MacM.
    Nov 25, 2004
    10
    A 10 just because its a film about the greatest story ever and the greatest man ever. Alexandar deserves a 10.
  18. EduardoR.
    Nov 8, 2005
    10
    A brilliant film. Epic and well made.
  19. Jason
    Aug 11, 2005
    0
    Extremely boring, run of the mill action, and very forgetful performances. Unless you can tolerate an Irish Alexander, you won't find Colin's performance too convincing. As always with Oliver Stone, his movies are hit or miss...this one's definitely a big miss.
  20. AndersH.
    Sep 16, 2005
    0
    A small baby could have played Alexanders just as good as Colin Farrel. Angelina Jolie's looks is the only positive thing about this movie.
  21. Jun 12, 2011
    10
    Wonderful movie that describes perfectly the different faces of Alexander's personality. No important fact is left aside, but still you have the time to think and elaborate your own interpretation about what happens. I think this is the best solution for a hystorical movie, because hystorically speaking there are lots of different traditions and you can't choose one over the other that easily.
  22. MKha
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Worst ever. I haven't seen any demonstration of Alexander's "greatness"!! Talking about conquering Tyre and Egypt? Did I miss Part I of the movie or am I supposed to take it for granted that he's great by acting like a foolish drunk 99% of the time!
  23. Krish.T
    Jan 16, 2005
    4
    Failed to impress, for all the talk that it created. Its a blend of exotic locations,beautifully crafted lens,horrible choice of characters and rather a flimsy portrayal of alexander the greats personality. He is portrayed as egoistic,short tempered and confused,none of the qualities of a person who conquered 90% of the world when he was 22.
  24. EricS
    Feb 13, 2005
    2
    I have absolutely no doubt that "Alexander" was conceived by Oliver Stone as a movie to himself, with shots he understood, dialogue he savered, and effects that make sense to him in a weird, visceral way. That's fine. I have no problem with directors who make movies for themselves; reportedly, "Alexander" was Stone's 20-year long labor of love. I honestly hope he's proud of I have absolutely no doubt that "Alexander" was conceived by Oliver Stone as a movie to himself, with shots he understood, dialogue he savered, and effects that make sense to him in a weird, visceral way. That's fine. I have no problem with directors who make movies for themselves; reportedly, "Alexander" was Stone's 20-year long labor of love. I honestly hope he's proud of the film he made, and knowing the craft Stone puts into his movies, I'm sure he is. But for the first time, the genius' mind, with all its fetishes and intricisies, has been bared, unfiltered, for all the world to see, and to put it frankly, we don't get it. I Nothing I saw convinced me that it wasn't a horrible, horrible motion picture. But I hope we've all missed a really big boat here. Expand
  25. steevo
    Aug 20, 2005
    9
    This was the best movie I saw last year.
  26. JK
    Sep 6, 2005
    0
    It's absolutely dredful. Actors, dialogues, sets, this film is a shame. Oliver Stone is no Riddle Scott.
  27. lizp.
    Sep 7, 2005
    0
    Glorification of nationalism and genocide. It sickened me, and I squirmed in my chair the entire time, wishing it would just end.
  28. AlexW.
    Nov 26, 2004
    9
    Movies that are controversial are the ones that are usually good and "special" in some sense. First and foremost, "Alexander" is good for the great performances in it, especially Angelina Jolie who, with her brilliant and mesmerizingly performance as an awful vampirish Olympias, should be a major Acedemy contender. Farrell does a well job, better are Rosario Dawson and Val Kilmer. Second, Movies that are controversial are the ones that are usually good and "special" in some sense. First and foremost, "Alexander" is good for the great performances in it, especially Angelina Jolie who, with her brilliant and mesmerizingly performance as an awful vampirish Olympias, should be a major Acedemy contender. Farrell does a well job, better are Rosario Dawson and Val Kilmer. Second, there are the wide and opulent visuel impressions; being huge and always faszinating. Third, the psychological moment is used to explain characters - too obvious here and there, but, man, compared to "Troy" that's deep and profound character study!!! The narrative element presented through Sir Anthony Hopkins is sometimes a little spoiling and overdone. The plot should have been more clearly and, here and there, more dramatic in order to keep the movie fully faszinating and interesting from its beginning to the end. BUT, dear friends of good movies (I don't mean those who rated the movie with 0 or 1, because they got aversions against Stone, homosexuals, Angelina Jolie or simply have a short attention span.), PLEASE be fair with this one. It's by far better than "Troy" and it should be critizised more factual (I dare say 3 - 3,5 stars out of four - that's a fair and true voting for this epic movie). Expand
  29. JayS.
    Nov 30, 2004
    2
    How can Jolie look like Farrell's mother? Wasn't that her part? Did she deserve to be in this at all? It STINKS!
  30. AlvaroC.
    Dec 20, 2004
    10
    People who claim this movie is a disappointment are probably expecting a superficial cartoon-like epic such as Troy or Gladiator. This movie on the other hand does not have a simple story. It presents a new take on plausible events in the life of Alexander the great, conveying his dreams and ideas. The style of Oliver Stone is recognizable in the visions and flashbacks, something that People who claim this movie is a disappointment are probably expecting a superficial cartoon-like epic such as Troy or Gladiator. This movie on the other hand does not have a simple story. It presents a new take on plausible events in the life of Alexander the great, conveying his dreams and ideas. The style of Oliver Stone is recognizable in the visions and flashbacks, something that might put down Troy fans, but that certainly adds character to the movie. The visuals of the movie are absolutely amazing. The Battle scenes with Darius are very well done and the battle in India conveys so much power. I would have liked to get a little bit more insight into the Persian Empire. To know better the allies Alexander made among them. But to go into this other dimension in an already 3-hour long film would be asking for too much. Hopefully the DVD version will include these extra scenes :) In summary I found this movie the best I have seen among the movies based on Ancient Greece or Rome. A definitively must see for Oliver Stone fans and for history enthusiasts. P.S. Reviewers should get over the "Alexander being gay is an insult". Besides, the movie has so many other dimensions that people only focusing on that depiction for giving a low score to the movie are already so narrow-minded that their score shouldn't be taken seriously. Expand
  31. Larry
    Dec 6, 2004
    0
    Let me sum it up by the name it should have been Christened: Alexander The Loser.
  32. DeniE.F.
    Jan 20, 2005
    10
    A great movie that will shock some people. Good on you Oliver Stone. After watching this movie, I left the cinema respecting much more your work and values. Some other director would have preferred to get easy $ from the American market instead of respecting his/her beliefs. People can complain about the acting, but at least Oliver Stone did not put Hephaistion as Alexander's cousin A great movie that will shock some people. Good on you Oliver Stone. After watching this movie, I left the cinema respecting much more your work and values. Some other director would have preferred to get easy $ from the American market instead of respecting his/her beliefs. People can complain about the acting, but at least Oliver Stone did not put Hephaistion as Alexander's cousin :-) Troy was a joke. I hope the movie will be more well received in Europe. Expand
  33. Ja
    Jan 23, 2005
    5
    Average. Great visual effects, art direction, cinematoraphy, sound and costume desigh. The scrip is a desaster by portraing an Alexander like a homosexual really drunk. Olimpia was this weird medusa-kind-of enchantres full of snakes.
  34. BrockM.
    Jan 30, 2005
    1
    Alexander is the worst movie ever made on a dollar for dollar basis.
  35. CliffR.
    Jan 3, 2005
    0
    Awful. Just awful.
  36. JonD
    Jan 5, 2005
    0
    Historically inaccurate, and generally not fun. While some might champion it for its representation of homsexuality in a neutral to positive light, the fact remains that the movie is simply not gay ENOUGH. Alexander's life has had his true love edited almost completely out, and replaced with... some woman. The screenwriters were apparently unfamiliar with the Greek reason for men Historically inaccurate, and generally not fun. While some might champion it for its representation of homsexuality in a neutral to positive light, the fact remains that the movie is simply not gay ENOUGH. Alexander's life has had his true love edited almost completely out, and replaced with... some woman. The screenwriters were apparently unfamiliar with the Greek reason for men like Alexander taking a wife: "Men are for loving, women are for babies." Several other things were flamingly inaccurate, but none of them pissed me off as much as this inaccuracy did. Try again, and this time, be accurate. Or better yet, don't' try at all. Expand
  37. SebB.
    Jan 6, 2005
    0
    It's a rip-off of Troy, and troy was a bad movie! What a horrible movie!!
  38. AshS.
    Jan 8, 2005
    10
    it was a very nice movie depicting the true life of alex. fighting sequences were awesome.
  39. [Anonymous]
    Aug 15, 2005
    4
    (Theatrical version) Majorly dissapointing. It leaves you completely uninvolved witht he charactersz, forcing you to take or leave the mess you see on the screen. Stone made a movie only he could love, and he seemed to forget about his audience. Battles, though decently staged, pale compared to Troy, and i couldn't stand the cliched lines about greatness that popped up every ten (Theatrical version) Majorly dissapointing. It leaves you completely uninvolved witht he charactersz, forcing you to take or leave the mess you see on the screen. Stone made a movie only he could love, and he seemed to forget about his audience. Battles, though decently staged, pale compared to Troy, and i couldn't stand the cliched lines about greatness that popped up every ten seconds. If you wanna show the world how much you admire Alexander the Great, Oliver Stone, you gotta prove it with more than just meaningless greatness blather and mediocre battles. Also, if you're trying to prove his greatness, I think his sexuality is something best left out of the picture, and yo9u should focus more in his character viewpoint: why does he feel the need to conquer the world? what does he really gain from it? what does it give him? what's he really trying to fight? Yes, you've proven how much YOU like ALexander the Great, Mr. Stone. Now tell us why WE should agree. Cinematography and Vangelis's score were good, though. Expand
  40. CodyK.
    Aug 3, 2005
    1
    If you have a short attention span, like me, you
  41. BillyH.
    Aug 4, 2005
    9
    Very Good. Slow at times. Gross at times but very well done. That's what I think.
  42. ArraQ.
    Aug 4, 2005
    8
    Oh the DVD is still painfully slow but I do understand what Stone was trying for and because of this I tend to want to view this amazing effort more favorably. I
  43. JanB.
    Aug 4, 2005
    1
    Oliver Stone somehow manages to take the life of a legendary military leader and turns it into a bore-fest. There seem to be about a dozen different accents at work among the "Macedonian" characters, there are only two battle scenes in three-plus hours and no mention at all of Egypt! Did Alexander just talk his enemies to death? You'd think so after watching this turkey. To cap it Oliver Stone somehow manages to take the life of a legendary military leader and turns it into a bore-fest. There seem to be about a dozen different accents at work among the "Macedonian" characters, there are only two battle scenes in three-plus hours and no mention at all of Egypt! Did Alexander just talk his enemies to death? You'd think so after watching this turkey. To cap it all off, Stone seems to think that the problem with Alexander was its "gay" elements (which I barely even noticed). Sorry Mr. Stone - it just plain sucked! Expand
  44. Tonydannie
    Aug 7, 2005
    9
    I did not get to see the theatrical cut. And maybe thats a good thing. I picked up the Director's cut dvd and I have to say The film works for me. The cast is great and the visuals are amazing. This film is an example of how Conan The Barberian would have looked like if Oliver Stone directed it. And when you have Anthony Hopkins Narrating, it gets no better then that. give it a I did not get to see the theatrical cut. And maybe thats a good thing. I picked up the Director's cut dvd and I have to say The film works for me. The cast is great and the visuals are amazing. This film is an example of how Conan The Barberian would have looked like if Oliver Stone directed it. And when you have Anthony Hopkins Narrating, it gets no better then that. give it a whirl. That is my opinion. Expand
  45. TomI.
    Jul 23, 2006
    0
    Very disappointing film. Tried to be an epic but was confusing. Poor acting, the battle scenes were awful. The narration was poor and confused. The 8 year flash back scene was in the wrong place.The camera shots while in a battle scene were too close to actors and you lost all perspective. The story lingered too long on the homosexual side of his life. The fighters were not plausible as Very disappointing film. Tried to be an epic but was confusing. Poor acting, the battle scenes were awful. The narration was poor and confused. The 8 year flash back scene was in the wrong place.The camera shots while in a battle scene were too close to actors and you lost all perspective. The story lingered too long on the homosexual side of his life. The fighters were not plausible as they were generally slim boys with makeup and would not have stood up in a battle. See Gladiator if you wish to see how battle scenes should be shot. Don't waste your money by going to see would be my advice. Expand
  46. SteveC.
    Jun 18, 2008
    0
    Don't gimme any of this "you have to pay attention" or "you have to enjoy history" garbage. I love history, but even if I overdosed on adderall, I could not offer my attention to this movie. This marked the first time I could not finish a movie. I tried on two separate occasions and both times it took less than an hour before I realized there are so many better things I could be Don't gimme any of this "you have to pay attention" or "you have to enjoy history" garbage. I love history, but even if I overdosed on adderall, I could not offer my attention to this movie. This marked the first time I could not finish a movie. I tried on two separate occasions and both times it took less than an hour before I realized there are so many better things I could be doing and shut it off. Expand
  47. SteveM.
    Nov 23, 2004
    0
    Colin Farrel, no words can describe his "dislikability factor." He destroys Alexander's image and really gayed up the film.
  48. JoshF.
    Nov 23, 2004
    0
    It's sad that Stone chose a story in which gay love played a significant part, but only showed this timeless love consummated with a hug. The sex Alexander has with Rosario's character completely shows off her body all over the place, for awhile. If you're going to touch the material, Oliver, you can't not show a kiss, or at least something more real, albeit It's sad that Stone chose a story in which gay love played a significant part, but only showed this timeless love consummated with a hug. The sex Alexander has with Rosario's character completely shows off her body all over the place, for awhile. If you're going to touch the material, Oliver, you can't not show a kiss, or at least something more real, albeit controversial in this Puritanical country we're living these day. Boobs, impalements galore, gorey violence--that's totally fine. Expand
  49. JohnQ.
    Nov 25, 2004
    7
    This Movie was one of the most visually spectacular flicks ive scene in a while, and that alone ALMOST make it worth the millions of dollars it cost to make it. Farrell is out of place trying to play one of the most abmitious and headstrong leaders in history, and although Stone sticks to the true history of Alexander pretty well, but he makes better films when he does controversial This Movie was one of the most visually spectacular flicks ive scene in a while, and that alone ALMOST make it worth the millions of dollars it cost to make it. Farrell is out of place trying to play one of the most abmitious and headstrong leaders in history, and although Stone sticks to the true history of Alexander pretty well, but he makes better films when he does controversial plots: SEE JFK! Expand
  50. WendellB.
    Nov 26, 2004
    2
    Oliver Stone should have learned from the 1956 film with Richard Burton. This film needed a powerful and focused Alexander. All the emotion needed for that to happen was presented, in a mysterious and terribly muted style. A bad film about about one of history's most legendary warriors.
  51. TheCameron
    Nov 27, 2004
    2
    ?Alexander? is an epic of stunning badness. It?s endlessly painful dialogue, theatrically campy acting, franticly arduous self-indulgence, unexciting battles, and lack of complete drama, besmirched photography, and NyQuillesque pacing. It has the ability to utterly repulse the senses. Eyes, ears, and taste are challenged and defeated. It?s a film of endless problems no re-editing or ?Alexander? is an epic of stunning badness. It?s endlessly painful dialogue, theatrically campy acting, franticly arduous self-indulgence, unexciting battles, and lack of complete drama, besmirched photography, and NyQuillesque pacing. It has the ability to utterly repulse the senses. Eyes, ears, and taste are challenged and defeated. It?s a film of endless problems no re-editing or re-shoots could have fixed. It?s an egomaniacal miscalculation on the behalf of director-writer Oliver Stone, who seems to view Alexander the Great?s life with ordinary tepidity. If fortune favors the bold, then this movie is coy. The colors are often faded, dusty, or gloom. It seems like it had been filmed with the idea that portraying the landscape in the most raggedy way possible would bring depth to it, when really it induces images of vomit. We open with Ptolemy, the oft and ever narrating Sir Anthony Hopkins, telling us about the great life of Alexander. This style persists throughout with the recognizable voice of Anthony Hopkins telling the story instead of Oliver Stone showing it. He describes Alexander as a tyrant and a God, but we never get to see him as either. Early on, with most of the chronology intact, Alexander is in his childhood with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie), telling him the story of Troy and befriending him with snakes. Angelina Jolie as Olympias is part of the long laundry list of problems. Her accent sounds like the Romanian one so many American and English actresses use in Dracula movies. Jolie?s accent gets the most cringes and should guarantee her a Razzie nomination, which seems like it was her intention. He grows with ever so peculiar increments to be training in to become a warrior king. He meets Hephaistion (Jared Leto), who will grow up to be Alexander?s bisexual life mate and gives him lots of hugs but never really fully commits to being his lover. Performance-wise, Leto?s is the least intolerable. As far as the elements of Alexander?s gayness, trust me, it?s not gay enough. A little spicy gay scene would have made the film less tedious for at least a moment which is what the current sex scene in the movie does with the beautiful Rosario Dawson playing Alexander?s barbarian bride. At fist the scene starts out very uncomfortably, but when all of her clothes come off and the aggression switches sides, it becomes bearable. By the time Alexander reaches the age that Colin Farrell can play him, he?s in full moody rebellion mode, despising his father Philip (Val Kilmer, more drunk than ever). After insulting his father, he flashes forward to the battle of Gaugamela, where his 40,000 Macedonians defeated the 200,000 strong Persians. The battle is some sort of bad amalgamation of the video-game graphics seen on the vastly more entertaining History Channel and the never-ending boredom that was ?Gods and Generals?. Epic shots with thousands of extras and tens of thousands more special effects soldiers battle in carnal violence that lacks even a miniscule amount of entertainment. It?s constructed with jarring camera movements and cut without the thought of clarity, but with only malicious austerity. The seventeen-minutes of excruciating boredom proves that this is Oliver Stone?s vanity project. As it seems this would never end, I was remind of the hedonism done in ?The Doors?, only Stone made that one interesting by making Jim Morrison into something symbolic and convincing instead of just a leader who doesn?t do much leading. At the two-hour mark, I was hoping Alexander would just die already. But instead, we get a nonsensical flashback to the death of Philip, which involves all the more Globe Theater type of endless dialogue, where nobody takes a breath for something to happen. ?Alexander? is a reminder that for every ?Sideways?, there are two epics made with much more money but without a breath of gravity. A film that you can immediately compare this to is ?Troy?, which in retrospect is much worse than I gave it credit for and much better in comparison to ?Alexander?. You have one that suffers from clichés of old and another that has problems only its creator could make. The core problem with ?Alexander? is one completely different from that of ?Troy?. Alexander is never seen or understood as great, only spoken of being extraordinary. Expand
  52. KenB.
    Nov 29, 2004
    1
    I was very disappointed with this film. It seemed fitting for teenage boys except for the nudity that some parents would object to. Who else but a young boy would believe the episode about young Alexander riding a wild horse when the best of men could not? Who else would be interested in the blood and guts of the battle scenes? As an adult viewer, I would have liked to know more about I was very disappointed with this film. It seemed fitting for teenage boys except for the nudity that some parents would object to. Who else but a young boy would believe the episode about young Alexander riding a wild horse when the best of men could not? Who else would be interested in the blood and guts of the battle scenes? As an adult viewer, I would have liked to know more about Alexander. Was he given the accolade ?great? simply because he led a hundred thousand-man army in an adventurous romp through the Middle-east killing thousands in the process? I found the film very unfulfilling. And from the comments I heard leaving the theater, I was not the only one disappointed. Expand
  53. AshB.
    Nov 29, 2004
    8
    I enjoyed this movie there were parts that I just don't know what to say about this. I feel that this could have been better, but I was not dissapointed for paying $8.75 to see it.
  54. HL
    Nov 29, 2004
    0
    Too bad we don't get an option of voting a "minus ten". What a bomb! Don't waste your time!
  55. JoeB.
    Nov 29, 2004
    2
    I would rather poke my eye out with a shrimp fork, than relive this celuloid drudgery. Every actor had a diferent accent. No one looked greek. all the wailing and nashing of teeth. God it was painful
  56. Jared
    Dec 12, 2004
    2
    Very big dissappointment for Oliver Stone. Has some intersting scenes, but overall drags on and on for 3 hours. Hopeefully the next Alexander the Great movie with Leonardo Dicaprio and Nicole Kidman will be be better. Big dissappointment even though I usually like epic historical movies, although none of them up to date have been as good as Braveheart.
  57. GeorgeH
    Dec 14, 2004
    8
    Not at all as bad as critics and homophobes are saying! Sure, it's a bit long (others are longer) but I was never bored. Oliver Stone has always pushed buttons with movie audiences and we're forgetting that's what he's about! This is the first main stream action movie in history that has dared to show us the realities of sexual life in Ancient Greece without condemning Not at all as bad as critics and homophobes are saying! Sure, it's a bit long (others are longer) but I was never bored. Oliver Stone has always pushed buttons with movie audiences and we're forgetting that's what he's about! This is the first main stream action movie in history that has dared to show us the realities of sexual life in Ancient Greece without condemning it is abhorant and pagan. It was a different time and folks, if that's what's bothering you about the movie - read your history! The movie is far from perfect, but strong acting and a bold telling of the life of Alexander should be commended. Expand
  58. IlzeS.
    Dec 18, 2004
    0
    Boring, too long and very bloody. ?King Arthur? is 100 times better than this s**t, if I called this movie. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The actors are bad, only Angelina Jolie. I really don?t like this movie.This movie is stupid and really bad. Collin Farrell was really bad and acting was so worst, this is a nightmare, not a movie.Troy and Gladiator is better.I hope Boring, too long and very bloody. ?King Arthur? is 100 times better than this s**t, if I called this movie. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The actors are bad, only Angelina Jolie. I really don?t like this movie.This movie is stupid and really bad. Collin Farrell was really bad and acting was so worst, this is a nightmare, not a movie.Troy and Gladiator is better.I hope that ?Kingdom of Heaven? will be much better. Awful! Expand
  59. MiyamotoM.
    Dec 2, 2004
    1
    Should be called "Alexander the Gay". Why Stone had to gay up the story is a mystery. Angelina Jolie has a Dracula accent; everyone else has an Irish accent. This movie is a crashing bore and a total disaster.
  60. Kabir
    Dec 2, 2004
    0
    The gayest movie ever. Jared Leto is a great actor but whats he doing here. More importantly, why is Colin Farrell even in this film. He is not an actor.
  61. ben
    Dec 3, 2004
    0
    The worst movie I've ever seen in my life by far. There should've been some kind of warning before the movie about the extreme homo scenes shown every 5 minutes. Even without the gayness this movie was bad and more bad. I'm ashamed to have seen this movie.
  62. MarcD.
    Dec 4, 2004
    3
    Is anyone else out there wondering about the sudden onslaught of 'Epic' movies depicting history and legend's fave sons? That said...I loved Troy. I hate this pile of horse s... Colin Farrell is totally out of place. If he bcomes Bond...please cover Ian Fleming's eyes. Dead...or not.
  63. AsaelI.
    Dec 8, 2004
    10
    This movie was HOT!!!
  64. JoanS.
    Jan 11, 2005
    10
    Its a great movie, fantastic!!! by the way, this is not a pop corn film or for people who things that Aristoteles is a player of the Chicago bulls.
  65. DamianP.
    Jan 12, 2005
    7
    Okay, so some people couldn't get over the Irish accents and gay scenes (which were VERY tame) and gave this perfectly good movie some undeservedly bad ratings. Alexander was on the way to getting 10/10 up until they left Babylon in persuit of the Persian king. After that, there was too much meaningless stuff which told us nothing about what made the great man great. Makes you wonder Okay, so some people couldn't get over the Irish accents and gay scenes (which were VERY tame) and gave this perfectly good movie some undeservedly bad ratings. Alexander was on the way to getting 10/10 up until they left Babylon in persuit of the Persian king. After that, there was too much meaningless stuff which told us nothing about what made the great man great. Makes you wonder why they completely skipped over his pre-Babylonian conquests! I was surprised how little passion there was amongst the gay lovers. Expand
  66. MerA.
    Jan 12, 2005
    10
    adoro su musica y sus maravillosas panoramicas.
  67. JessiH.
    Dec 29, 2005
    9
    I loved it. To fully appreciate this, you need to enjoy history, have an open mind, and actually be able to *pay* *attention* to what the 'characters' are saying. Alexander did a *lot,* and Stone is trying to include as much as he can, coherently, to give us the best picture all around of who Alexander really was. And I think that for the most part he did a really good job of I loved it. To fully appreciate this, you need to enjoy history, have an open mind, and actually be able to *pay* *attention* to what the 'characters' are saying. Alexander did a *lot,* and Stone is trying to include as much as he can, coherently, to give us the best picture all around of who Alexander really was. And I think that for the most part he did a really good job of acheiving this. I don't care how they marketed the film. I do, however, think that they should have gotten linguistic coaches for their actors in major roles - you cannot have what sounds like a Scottish Crateros, an Irish Alexander, etc. - it takes the viewers out of the movie enough for them to have to tell themselves to ignore that element (and can annoy many people throughout). I really enjoyed this; but I also happen to be the kind of person that loves long movies, enjoys history, has an open mind, and pays attention to what's being said and not said by the characters. Expand
  68. NicolasE.
    Jan 26, 2005
    7
    I just saw this movie, here in France. Unfortunately, the ratings given to Alexander seem to depend on how people have liked the way bisexuality is depicted. This question has more or less crystallized all the answers, consciously or not... Concerning the movie in itself, as George H said, it is really good until the conquest of Babylon. Afterwards, the progressive entanglement of the I just saw this movie, here in France. Unfortunately, the ratings given to Alexander seem to depend on how people have liked the way bisexuality is depicted. This question has more or less crystallized all the answers, consciously or not... Concerning the movie in itself, as George H said, it is really good until the conquest of Babylon. Afterwards, the progressive entanglement of the hero spreads on the construction of the movie, and one gets lost, not so convinced as Stone and Farrell would have liked. A good movie, which "gives to see". Not more. Expand
  69. neddieh.
    Feb 7, 2005
    0
    This movie was horrible and it was Based on the true story of one of history's most luminous and influential leaders, Alexander takes a bold, honest look at Alexander's life and his relationships. as it was made out to be it was based on a piece of doggy doo, collin farrel's days are over he's had his 10 years of fame!
  70. TylerM.
    Aug 16, 2005
    0
    All i can say is "Terrible!"
  71. TonyB
    Aug 25, 2005
    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. 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
  72. DerekL.
    Aug 3, 2005
    3
    Awful. A lot of really long dialogues that do no where, most exciting wars and battles are narrated or glossed over, and pretty much everyone has either an Irish or English accent - except for Angelina Jolie, who has a weird Russian accent.
  73. TelyS
    Aug 3, 2005
    7
    Unfortunately for Mr. Stone, Alexander is a film that became
  74. TomV.
    Jul 3, 2006
    1
    Unmitigated dreck. Audience, what was left after the first 2 hours, had to be put on suicide watch.
  75. AlexS.
    Nov 22, 2004
    10
    The best epic movie ever. Goog story telling, acting, cimatography, and excellent action. Defenetely the Best Picture of the year. An A+
  76. DR
    Nov 23, 2004
    10
    Masterpiece of an epic. Ignorants will hate it, the tolerants and nostalgics will love it.
  77. JasonO.
    Nov 24, 2004
    3
    Troy and Alexander were greenlighted after the success of Gladiator. What these two more recent "swords and sandals" lacked was a genuinely charismatic, believeable lead (Crowe) and a director (Scott) who can manage being faithful to the period while unwrapping the plot/theme.
  78. MarkM.
    Nov 24, 2004
    2
    I gave this movie a 2 due to the Rosaria Dawson Factor and the action scenes. The rest of the movie was slow and painful. Even the action scenes were hard to follow.
  79. NeilC.
    Nov 24, 2004
    1
    This movie is terrible. Too long, too boring, lacks focus, narrative is confusing, acting is nothing great. Avoid!
  80. LJ
    Nov 24, 2004
    1
    This picture is a complete mess. Stone has made some great films in the past, but here he has managed to completely fumble the ball. It is apparently an epic that has no idea what wants to be: a biopic or an action movie. The movie is unevenly paced and poorly acted with a script and plot that would dumbfound Aristotle. The writing is so bad that by the time the movie was half way through This picture is a complete mess. Stone has made some great films in the past, but here he has managed to completely fumble the ball. It is apparently an epic that has no idea what wants to be: a biopic or an action movie. The movie is unevenly paced and poorly acted with a script and plot that would dumbfound Aristotle. The writing is so bad that by the time the movie was half way through I was uttering bad jokes to myself (it was crying out for them, for example: after the narrator informs us that Alexander has founded several cities of Alexandria on the campaign, a character declares that he will settle in Alexandria when the campaign is over (which one?)). The script is riddled with problems even worse than this and I started laughing rather than caring: maybe the movie is a comedy, a joke on the innocent public who just paid for this insult. The framing device, that soon leads to intrusive voice-overs, is NOT what good cinema is about. This device moves the narrative along, but so did Stone's montages in his better efforts. There are a myriad of two dimensional characters that litter the secondary cast whose accents belong in Rob Roy. Alexander himself is portrayed as so confused that he becomes indecisive about the minutest details while being urged towards some unknown end by his mother, played by an all too young Jolie (especially in the latter sequences where she really hasn't aged). I have great respect for the historical figure of Alexander, but this picture left me caring more about where I was going to eat after this marathon was over than the portrayals on the screen. I hope that this and the other epic failures this year (Troy and King Arthur) do not put a nail in the coffin of what Ridley Scott managed to do so successfully with Gladiator. We shall see if he can pull it off again next spring, before George Lucas forces us to see his next digital disaster. Expand
  81. EricS.
    Nov 24, 2004
    6
    Intermittingly brilliant and yet oddly unfocused. This is, to be sure, one of Oliver Stone's weakest films. At the very least, it will make the audience really appreciate the rest of his body of work that much more. Many of the dialog scenes take the long way around, as if the screenplay was paid for by each word that was written. These scenes stand in stark contrast to similar ones Intermittingly brilliant and yet oddly unfocused. This is, to be sure, one of Oliver Stone's weakest films. At the very least, it will make the audience really appreciate the rest of his body of work that much more. Many of the dialog scenes take the long way around, as if the screenplay was paid for by each word that was written. These scenes stand in stark contrast to similar ones done much more direct, concise, and immeasurably better in Stone's "Nixon". The acting is above-average, with the exception of Jolie and Kilmer who are really able to embody their roles, mostly through their physicality, since the screenplay is of little help. The strong points are the overall look and feel of the production. This is one of the 4 or 5 most expensive films ever made and it looks as if every cent went up on the screen. The first battle scene is well handled from a strategic point-of-view. The cinematography is great, of course, with Rodrigo Prieto behind the lens. But there is some disappointment in the failure to get Stone & Richarson to re-team one more time. The Vangelis score is surprisingly well suited and very effective. The sets, costumes, and locales are all first rate. But the movie is just too darn long for its overall lack of depth. And when the movie forces you to think that Anthony Hopkins' narration is running too long, it must really be running too long. The most fundamental problem with the film is that it never emerges as a coherent whole. Other than narration, there is nothing to hold all of the set-pieces together. There is a huge narrative mistake made when a first act scene isn't revealed until the third act, in what is otherwise a chronological film. Perhaps the scope and breadth of the material was simply too much to create a coherent narrative and human characters in which to populate it. Stone definatley swung for the fences with this film and although he failed to connect, there is still a lot here to admire. Expand
  82. LeslieR
    Nov 25, 2004
    8
    Don?t be dissuaded by much of the negative press surrounding this film. Stone has remained true to the historical source and brought some interesting aspects to the fore, such as Alexander?s sexuality. It is a bold movie from a director who always takes risks whenever he approaches any of the broad range of subject matter he has filmed over the years. Yes, the run time is long and yes the Don?t be dissuaded by much of the negative press surrounding this film. Stone has remained true to the historical source and brought some interesting aspects to the fore, such as Alexander?s sexuality. It is a bold movie from a director who always takes risks whenever he approaches any of the broad range of subject matter he has filmed over the years. Yes, the run time is long and yes the narrative does seem to lag at times, but the film is grandiose and visually inventive. All of the leads give respectable performances, with Jolie stealing every scene she is in. Expand
  83. JeanF.
    Nov 25, 2004
    1
    My family attended opening day of this film with very high expectations. unfortunately, we were as eager to exit the theater as we were to enter. this was an extremely big disappointment to us all. we kept waiting for that special "something" to engage and captive our interest. i believe the history channel had a much better take on this part of history and you could watch it for three My family attended opening day of this film with very high expectations. unfortunately, we were as eager to exit the theater as we were to enter. this was an extremely big disappointment to us all. we kept waiting for that special "something" to engage and captive our interest. i believe the history channel had a much better take on this part of history and you could watch it for three hours, also. Expand
  84. XenaDog
    Nov 25, 2004
    10
    The BEST MOVE EVER!!!
  85. ChrisH
    Nov 26, 2004
    4
    It was at least 1 hour too long. I looked at my watch and realized there was still an agonizing hour to go. Also, the sexuality seemed too contrived?I can?t speak to its accuracy or lack thereof. Although I?m sure the ?enlightened? will appreciate the Freudian psycho-sexual smorgasbord offered by this colossal waste of time, the rest of us might rather be served more substance less It was at least 1 hour too long. I looked at my watch and realized there was still an agonizing hour to go. Also, the sexuality seemed too contrived?I can?t speak to its accuracy or lack thereof. Although I?m sure the ?enlightened? will appreciate the Freudian psycho-sexual smorgasbord offered by this colossal waste of time, the rest of us might rather be served more substance less beefcake. However, I will give Mr. Stone credit for some stunning cinematography, hence the 4; but overall the experience was painful. Expand
  86. KerryD.
    Nov 26, 2004
    5
    Coming out of the film I felt disappointed a word I have never used to describe an Oliver Stone film. The camera technics starting battles were combat cam & too shakey; once into the battle it worked wonderfully. The narrative was dull, boring & the scribe wasn't even writing half the time.The rose colored battle in India when Alexander was almost mortally wounded was pure Arthouse & Coming out of the film I felt disappointed a word I have never used to describe an Oliver Stone film. The camera technics starting battles were combat cam & too shakey; once into the battle it worked wonderfully. The narrative was dull, boring & the scribe wasn't even writing half the time.The rose colored battle in India when Alexander was almost mortally wounded was pure Arthouse & out of place. The soundtrack was distracting & consistently pulled my focus out of the story. The acting was uneven by Colin Farrell but he definitely had Oscar worthy scenes with his generals & troops. He went to the wall with Jared Leto in the emotionally intimate scenes; I cannot say I saw the same from Leto, he seemed to be holding back & not totally in the moment. Angelina Jolie hit the mark playing a survival driven Mother dependent on her son as heir. Rosario Dawson was good as the contempt filled discarded first wife of Alexander, I wish I could have seen more between them. Val Kilmer was twisted as Phillip manipulating his son from whatever mood he was in to make himself feel more in control & I'm King not you. Stone worked very hard to get the history correct & for the most part succeeded. He also did his famous Conpiracy Theory at the end. Expand
  87. JeremyM.
    Nov 26, 2004
    2
    Bad editing, directing, acting, screenwriting, cinematography, and score. What could have been a fantastic Oliver Stone movie about a great man who was corrupted by the weight of his own accomplishments becomes instead an amateurish, embarrassing hack job that lacks any coherent message and replaces a gripping historical record with dreadful invented material that appears designed solely Bad editing, directing, acting, screenwriting, cinematography, and score. What could have been a fantastic Oliver Stone movie about a great man who was corrupted by the weight of his own accomplishments becomes instead an amateurish, embarrassing hack job that lacks any coherent message and replaces a gripping historical record with dreadful invented material that appears designed solely to provoke controversy for its own sake. The only redeeming factor in this movie is an occasional good visual. Otherwise, no one prominently billed escapes unscathed. Finally, I should note that the homosexuality issue regarding this movie should not be used as a smokescreen for the fact that it is simply an abysmal film. The only gratuitous sex scene in the movie is heterosexual in nature, and only a very insecure person could find the portrayal of Alexander's affections for men offensive. While I disagree with Stone's decision to portray Alexander as more taken with men than women on a historical level, I understand he's free to take some liberties to make a point. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have one. Expand
  88. Triniman
    Nov 26, 2004
    8
    Alexander 4/5 Yet another sword and sandal film, and one which references the hero Achilles several times. Troy and Gladiator seem succinct in comparison to this three hour story about Alexander the Great, a well-known historical figure who is famous but whose story is not as well known as his fame would suggest. But, at the same time, those two films seem almost pedestrian compared to Alexander 4/5 Yet another sword and sandal film, and one which references the hero Achilles several times. Troy and Gladiator seem succinct in comparison to this three hour story about Alexander the Great, a well-known historical figure who is famous but whose story is not as well known as his fame would suggest. But, at the same time, those two films seem almost pedestrian compared to the complexities of Alexander. Such subtleties either resonate with viewers or they don?t. They did for me. The child of a broken marriage, that Alexander (Colin Farell) amounted to anything is a bit of a surprise, according to how the film portrays his father, King Phillip (Val Kilmer)and his mother, Olypias (Angelina Jolie). Phillip, king of the Macedonians, is a crude, womanizing drunkard, while Olympias is a creepy, snake-loving follower of Dionysous. She actually initiates the young Alexander into holding snakes so as to lose his fear, and teach the lesson of fearing nothing. Phillip teaches Alexander not to trust women, while his mother so hated Phillip that she was suspected as playing a role in his assignation. Phillip did insist on his son learning from the finest mind in the land. Aristotle, played by Christopher Plummer, explains how the far reaches of the known earth were unnavigated, but promised a water route encompassed all of the land. Whoever could take advantage of such a route would surely be a great ruler. In one of the first battles, Alexander plans a way to defeat a much larger army, who were gathering in the area. It?s risky, but he?s completely convinced that it will work. It?s also one of the most intelligent battles on film. I?m actually watching a documentary right now on the Discovery channel that is discussing this one particular battle. Battle after battle, they press on towards the east. It?s a grueling, multi-year campaign. Along the way, they topple tyrant kings and gain the affection of the people. Look for the spectacular scenes in Babylon. In one scene, he goes into a fit with his key advisors, not because they disagree with his perspective, but because he?s angry that they refuse to try understand a world unknown to them. You can?t watch this film and not comment on the scenes that either hint at or overtly portray his homosexuality and his love for one of his childhood companions. He and a man-servant character are very doe-eyed, having not scrimped on the eye liner. His affection for these characters is never done in a gratuitous fashion. You?ll wonder if his upbringing contributed to his disinterest in females. The acting is fine throughout. The costumes and sets are a tribute to detail. Oliver Stone?s direction is without grave error. Alexander is a spectacular film. It doesn?t tell a story that can be as easily fit into a neat little package, like most films of this ilk. For that reason, it?s receiving bad reviews. I would say that if you are at all interested in seeing this film, see it and you be the judge. And it didn?t seem overly long to me and I would be happy to see it again. Expand
  89. nassosz
    Nov 27, 2004
    10
    I loved it!
  90. DaveT.
    Nov 27, 2004
    2
    This movie is incoherent and boring and the way the story is presented just plain sucks. It's hard to stay awake -- really. I'm shocked nobody around Stone told the guy this film is a turkey. He must be surrounded by a bunch of "yes" people. This is no borderline bomb. And Farrell "the Blonde" is not "Alexander" material. I'm at a loss as to what Stone must have been thinking.
  91. PamK.
    Nov 28, 2004
    1
    Oliver Stone's Alexander is a poorly scored montage of head shots and close ups, perhaps intended to extend the epic into the art genre with its bizarre camera angles and images. The movie could have been shot in a well lit barn, for all the 'epic' it showed. I left the theater annoyed at the direction and editing, but mostly at having had to sit through the absolutely Oliver Stone's Alexander is a poorly scored montage of head shots and close ups, perhaps intended to extend the epic into the art genre with its bizarre camera angles and images. The movie could have been shot in a well lit barn, for all the 'epic' it showed. I left the theater annoyed at the direction and editing, but mostly at having had to sit through the absolutely irritating musical score. Angelina Jolie's portrayal of Alexander's mother was the movies only redeeming quality. This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Expand
  92. MarcL
    Dec 10, 2004
    0
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen. The wimpering baby portrayed in this movie would not have lasted 10 minutes as a boy scout leader before being eaten alive by the troops. I'll be real careful before I ever see another Oliver Stone film.
  93. NickC.
    Dec 15, 2004
    4
    Valiant effort, but just too flawed.
  94. JackM.
    Dec 2, 2004
    8
    Like Alexander, Stone tries to conquer too much in this film. There is the personal story, the conquest of the known world, the story of life in 300 BC, and a subtle comparison of those times with the present. It's amazing how much Stone covers in three hours. The love of detail, the contrast of East and West, and the bold presentation of Alexander's homoerotic feelings earn Like Alexander, Stone tries to conquer too much in this film. There is the personal story, the conquest of the known world, the story of life in 300 BC, and a subtle comparison of those times with the present. It's amazing how much Stone covers in three hours. The love of detail, the contrast of East and West, and the bold presentation of Alexander's homoerotic feelings earn Stone high marks. Curiously, the odd accents and the campy festivals work. Expand
  95. Fantasy
    Dec 2, 2004
    0
    Can you spell T-U-R-K-E-Y? What a disaster. Avoid at all costs.
  96. KimC
    Dec 29, 2004
    0
    Truly this movie did not deserve even the few good reviews that it got. It was a film about Alexander the Great, conquerer of the known world and then some and it had approximately 20 minutes of battle footage. Beyond that, it was horrendously overplayed, with such dramatic pauses to make even William Shatner proud. True, the man suffered from some major mental illness (bipolar disorder Truly this movie did not deserve even the few good reviews that it got. It was a film about Alexander the Great, conquerer of the known world and then some and it had approximately 20 minutes of battle footage. Beyond that, it was horrendously overplayed, with such dramatic pauses to make even William Shatner proud. True, the man suffered from some major mental illness (bipolar disorder they think), but that doesn't make him a simpering whiny child. This was honestly the only movie that I have ever considered walking out on, and normally I can take bad movies in stride and enjoy them for the good parts that they had. And as to the comment that it is a history buff's movie, not true, I'm a history buff, and while the movie was, overall, historically accurate, it in no way made up for the rest of the movie. Expand
  97. ThomM.
    Dec 31, 2004
    10
    I enjoyed it! It was fun.
  98. tt
    Dec 3, 2004
    9
    Summary: This is a great movie Good action scenes and photography. The problem is that one has to follow all the dialogues since the story is quite complex. I wish someone like Russel Crowe had acted instead of Collin Farell.
  99. PrestonF.
    Dec 6, 2004
    4
    Uniformly bad!
  100. BarbieB.
    Dec 9, 2004
    3
    Colin weeps!! Colin lets his balls hang out! Colin weeps some more over his black roots and beard! Jolie sounds like Nastasha! Ollie weeps cause his film tanks! Seriously... there were a few cool set pieces in this film, like the elephant vs the magnificent Bucephalus [are horses eligible for Oscar nominations? He was the best thing in this messy overblown attempt at telling the amazing Colin weeps!! Colin lets his balls hang out! Colin weeps some more over his black roots and beard! Jolie sounds like Nastasha! Ollie weeps cause his film tanks! Seriously... there were a few cool set pieces in this film, like the elephant vs the magnificent Bucephalus [are horses eligible for Oscar nominations? He was the best thing in this messy overblown attempt at telling the amazing story of Alexander. Expand
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. 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.
  2. 25
    Alexander breaks the key rule that makes movies move: Show, don't tell.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    At best an honorable failure, an intelligent and ambitious picture that crucially lacks dramatic flair and emotional involvement.