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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

If you have a short attention span, like me, you’ll…

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.

Unfortunately for Mr. Stone, Alexander is a film that became “cool” to hate. It’s that fear of thinking different than what you believe the majority thinks that made it the critical disaster it is among both audiences and critics. Don’t get me wrong; the film is flawed, deeply even, but Alexander’s strengths are a passion, heart and sincerity that elevate it miles ahead of 95% of typical Hollywood dreck. The bold, beautiful score by Vangelis was also unfairly snubbed.… Expand

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

Very Good. Slow at times. Gross at times but very well done. That's what I think.

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’ve often wondered if perhaps a lecture by Fox giving us the history of Alexander should have been required viewing before looking at the film. That way Stone could have done away with a lot of the ‘I’m going to put this into perspective’ material. Farrell's performance really is very good and I’m always surprised that his reviews are so condemnatory --- He's still not the Alexander I wanted to see (and that is due to the script), but over all the best that has ever been shown us.… Expand

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

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

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

Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I tried to fall asleep, but I wasnt tired. Horrible movie.

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.

(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

You have to give this movie A for effort. It was an epic. (An epic is a movie that has tens of thousands of extras and many elaborate sets and costs a S**tload of money). It was interesting from the historical perspective. (Who really knew anything about Alexander before this?) The sets of Babylon and the battle scenes were impressive. Angelina Jolie was purty fer a girl as always and did her Russian accent voluptuous mother trip well and Colin Farrell was his usual exuberant and handsome Irish self, acting out whatever he is told to act out. Colin F. is a very capable actor. He has played many diverse roles over the past several years and handles them all well and to the best of his ability. He may be more capable than his Directors. The history behind Alexander the Great may be skewed in this movie - Alexander had 3 wives, not just the Roxanna portrayed in this movie and he had his male lover, Hephaistion, elevated to some sort of cult hero abd demi-god, after Hephaistion's death. Alexander also had several thousand young enemy men crucified after one of his victories and also sold tens of thousands of people into slavery. So... Alexander was not all that. He was a bit of a tyrant and an egotist. But then again in Middle America it is never beneficial to a movie producer to alienate a prospective hero from the mainsteam audience by being too historidcally accurate. We really do not want to see that these heros have warts.… Expand

All i can say is "Terrible!"

This was the best movie I saw last year.

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

It's absolutely dredful. Actors, dialogues, sets, this film is a shame. Oliver Stone is no Riddle Scott.

Glorification of nationalism and genocide. It sickened me, and I squirmed in my chair the entire time, wishing it would just end.

Bad movie, boring, flat.

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

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!

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.

A brilliant film. Epic and well made.

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

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!

Unmitigated dreck. Audience, what was left after the first 2 hours, had to be put on suicide watch.

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

Colin Farrel, no words can describe his "dislikability factor." He destroys Alexander's image and really gayed up the film.

This movie was awful. Ferrell needs to go back to doing commercials. You cant cover 8 years of war in a single movie. Also, you shouldnt try to. The movie was about an hour too long. Those that say this movie is Epic are correct, its painfully long. Those that say its movie of the year are obviously new to this thing I refer to as "enjoyable."

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.

This is the most dumb movie in the world. Troy was so much bette than this, and Gladiator was better than Troy.

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

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

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

The BEST MOVE EVER!!!

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

Let me sum it up by the name it should have been Christened: Alexander The Loser.

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

Too bad we don't get an option of voting a "minus ten". What a bomb! Don't waste your time!

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

This movie was HOT!!!

The best epic movie ever. Goog story telling, acting, cimatography, and excellent action. Defenetely the Best Picture of the year. An A+

Oliver stone takes too many liberties. Some of his films he has bastarised the subject, Namely JFK, Nixon, The doors etc. Alexander is another film that he is hack to piece. I would like him to make a picture about a living person instead of a dead person who can't fight back. I can see why the Greeks are up in arms because he does it Greek (homo). All his movies should have a trailer. "This is a big piece of fiction I use a famous name to create my own fatasty."… Expand

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.

Valiant effort, but just too flawed.

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

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.

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

I'm left scratching my head, asking myself 'What the hell was that?!?'. Some epically proportioned sets and scenes, dramatic battles, but too many unended mini-plots to keep track of. And for the un-homo-educated among us, just get the two to kiss right off the bat so we understand what all the longing looks are about...

Masterpiece of an epic. Ignorants will hate it, the tolerants and nostalgics will love it.

THREE hours too long. The real pain was endured by the audience , not the actors. Even Angelina couln't save this movie.

I'm always surprised that all the user comments are so polarized, either 10's or 0's and 1's. Alexander is neither that great nor that horrible. Its principal virtue is the sheer beauty of the scenery. The set and costume designers did an amazing job. Babylon looks breathtaking, as do many other cities and scenes. The film also has interesting ideas about the nature of 'great men,' whether they are truly driven by high-minded principles that their lesser followers cannot understand or whether they are simply far more self-obsessed than these 'lesser' men, whose ambitions are on a much more human scale. Thus, for example, we are constantly teetering between thinking that Alexander's generals are simply not up the challenge posed by his grand vision of a idealistic total civilization and thinking that he is a crazed maniac taking them on an inhuman quest with no end in sight. Finally, we are left with the possibility, somewhere between these two, that he is merely collecting beautiful images to remember in the moment before he dies. This majestic vision of the film is heavily compromised by truly atrocious acting. Angelina Jolie may look gorgeous as Alexander's mother, but her performance is a depressing cross between Zsa Zsa Gabor and Count Dracula. Rosario Dawson is similarly awful. Colin Farrell himself is very uneven, with some nice moments but other moments of extreme overacting. If these actors were only up to the demands of their parts, this film would have been far closer to the masterpiece Stone must have envisioned. His direction also leaves something to be desired. Subtlety has never been his strong suit, and well...that remains the case. All in all, however, this is an interesting take on Alexander the Great, and those who mock Farrell or Stone for how self-obsessed or whiny the character seems are locked in a great-man vision of history that refused to reckon with Alexander's unremarkable bi-sexuality and his all-too-human faults.… Expand

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Uniformly bad!

It's uneven. It has it ups and it has its downs and then it has a few more downs. The drama is sometimes affecting but too often bubbles over into empty histrionics. On the other hand, Rosario Dawson's breasts... I don't mean to be uncouth but they're magnificent. Babylon was somehow less than striking. This movie was poorly structured. Much like my comments. The actions scenes were pretty intense. The movie is not horrible, but overall something falls far short. And I have no idea what. Oh but big ups to Farrel for not looking completely ridiculous in such a short dress.… Expand

A 10 just because its a film about the greatest story ever and the greatest man ever. Alexandar deserves a 10.

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

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.

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.

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.

How can Jolie look like Farrell's mother? Wasn't that her part? Did she deserve to be in this at all? It STINKS!

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

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.

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

A big-budgeted, big-named debacle.

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

Can you spell T-U-R-K-E-Y? What a disaster. Avoid at all costs.

Incredibly slow and plodding. Most disappointing movie of the year. Doesn't hold a candle to real epics such as Braveheart.

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

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.

This movie is terrible. Too long, too boring, lacks focus, narrative is confusing, acting is nothing great. Avoid!

Alexander the gay? Give me a break. This movie is a looser!

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

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

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.

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

This movie starts out slow, gets worse, and when it finally ends your left wondering what the plot was supposed to be. Worst movie of the year!

?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

I loved it!

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

I enjoyed it! It was fun.

Awful. Just awful.

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

It's a rip-off of Troy, and troy was a bad movie! What a horrible movie!!

it was a very nice movie depicting the true life of alex. fighting sequences were awesome.

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.

adoro su musica y sus maravillosas panoramicas.