Alexander

User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 216 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 216
  2. Negative: 97 out of 216
Watch 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
  1. julienc.
    Sep 7, 2005
    3
    Bad movie, boring, flat.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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
  11. JK
    Sep 6, 2005
    0
    It's absolutely dredful. Actors, dialogues, sets, this film is a shame. Oliver Stone is no Riddle Scott.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  14. Larry
    Dec 6, 2004
    0
    Let me sum it up by the name it should have been Christened: Alexander The Loser.
  15. BrockM.
    Jan 30, 2005
    1
    Alexander is the worst movie ever made on a dollar for dollar basis.
  16. CliffR.
    Jan 3, 2005
    0
    Awful. Just awful.
  17. 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
  18. SebB.
    Jan 6, 2005
    0
    It's a rip-off of Troy, and troy was a bad movie! What a horrible movie!!
  19. CodyK.
    Aug 3, 2005
    1
    If you have a short attention span, like me, you
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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!
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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!
  37. TylerM.
    Aug 16, 2005
    0
    All i can say is "Terrible!"
  38. 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.
  39. TomV.
    Jul 3, 2006
    1
    Unmitigated dreck. Audience, what was left after the first 2 hours, had to be put on suicide watch.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. NeilC.
    Nov 24, 2004
    1
    This movie is terrible. Too long, too boring, lacks focus, narrative is confusing, acting is nothing great. Avoid!
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. Fantasy
    Dec 2, 2004
    0
    Can you spell T-U-R-K-E-Y? What a disaster. Avoid at all costs.
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. GenaroS.
    Jan 19, 2005
    1
    Unbelieable bore. Why did you do this Oliver? Why?? Why???
  53. LucianoM.
    Jan 24, 2005
    0
    If you just change the name of the characters and places this could be a good epic story (placed in Mars maybe). But this solely personal free version is closer to the desire of the director than the reality
  54. ChadS.
    Jan 27, 2005
    3
    When Alexander incites his men to fight with bravery and valor at the precipice of war, I wondered, "What would Mel do?" Russell Crowe unleashed hell. Colin Farrell, on the other hand, seems to unleash heck. What should be the pivotal scene that will demonstrate how Alexander was great, passes by without gripping the audience. Action ensues. We yawn. And what about Rosario Dawson? Getting When Alexander incites his men to fight with bravery and valor at the precipice of war, I wondered, "What would Mel do?" Russell Crowe unleashed hell. Colin Farrell, on the other hand, seems to unleash heck. What should be the pivotal scene that will demonstrate how Alexander was great, passes by without gripping the audience. Action ensues. We yawn. And what about Rosario Dawson? Getting naked in "JFK" or "Natural Born Killers"? Sure, no problem. Those were important films. But here, it smacks of exploitation, as if director Oliver Stone sensed he had to wake up his audience. It woke me up. Expand
  55. JeffL.
    Feb 11, 2005
    3
    For those of you who didn't find Wolfgang Peterson's Troy long enough or sucky enough, here's Oliver Stone's even longer, suckier take on the life of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king who led his armies to conquer most of the known world by the age of 25. With his Irish brogue and shaggy blonde 'do, Colin Farrell seems to be playing Alexander as kind of a For those of you who didn't find Wolfgang Peterson's Troy long enough or sucky enough, here's Oliver Stone's even longer, suckier take on the life of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king who led his armies to conquer most of the known world by the age of 25. With his Irish brogue and shaggy blonde 'do, Colin Farrell seems to be playing Alexander as kind of a gay version of Bono's U2, his real-life bisexuality mostly suggested by longing glances from his Fabio-like lifelong companion, Hephaistion (Jared Leto). Angelina Jolie (sounding to my ear a bit like Natasha Fatale) as Alexander's conniving, possibly incestuous mother actually appears to be younger than her own son. Anthony Hopkins, as the aged Ptolemy, appears from time to time to pompously read reams of narration that futilely attempt to tie all the story threads together, a device which suggests a much longer film that's been cut down to size (though I won't be first in line to rent out the inevitable DVD director's cut.) There are a couple of impressively massive, bloody battles along the way, but mostly this is one stultifying, butt-numbing, fatally miscast dud. Expand
  56. MovieFan
    Nov 21, 2004
    1
    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!
  57. JayK.
    Nov 23, 2004
    1
    Incredibly slow and plodding. Most disappointing movie of the year. Doesn't hold a candle to real epics such as Braveheart.
  58. BrianS.
    Nov 23, 2004
    0
    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."
  59. MikeB.
    Nov 24, 2004
    2
    THREE hours too long. The real pain was endured by the audience , not the actors. Even Angelina couln't save this movie.
  60. [Anonymous]
    Nov 24, 2004
    0
    This is the most dumb movie in the world. Troy was so much bette than this, and Gladiator was better than Troy.
  61. GK
    Nov 24, 2004
    0
    Alexander the gay? Give me a break. This movie is a looser!
  62. Sun
    Nov 25, 2004
    2
    A big-budgeted, big-named debacle.
  63. dean
    Nov 29, 2004
    1
    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 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
  64. Dec 16, 2010
    2
    A few things stopped this from a zero ... Anthony hopkins voice, special effects, and a few character actors.

    Colin Farrel is horrible, Angelina Jolie was horrible and miscast, and the directing/dialog was horrible One more saving grace... the budget was big enough to stop this from being worse.... watching that is but it might give Ishtar a run for most ridiculous $ spent for such a
    A few things stopped this from a zero ... Anthony hopkins voice, special effects, and a few character actors.

    Colin Farrel is horrible, Angelina Jolie was horrible and miscast, and the directing/dialog was horrible

    One more saving grace... the budget was big enough to stop this from being worse.... watching that is but it might give Ishtar a run for most ridiculous $ spent for such a poor end product I want those hours back I wasted!!!!!!!!!
    Expand
  65. Oct 14, 2011
    3
    This is 1 of only 2 movies that I have started and refused to finish. The plot is dull, boring, and it drags, and by the time I hit 80% of the way through I realized that the only reason the Alexander character in this movie survived at all is because everybody else dies for him, including his horse. Alexander the Great my ass. More like Alexander the Mediocre.
  66. Jul 23, 2015
    2
    Oliver Stone is the king of all controversial directors, but Alexander is by far the weakest in his career. I don't know if the re-cut of the film is any good, but boy how wrong is Hollywood. Updating an ancient historical figure just make me watch another 3 minutes of Hamlet. Everything in this piece of crap is horrible. Choosing a whiney bastard Colin Farrell, Marlon Brando, HannibalOliver Stone is the king of all controversial directors, but Alexander is by far the weakest in his career. I don't know if the re-cut of the film is any good, but boy how wrong is Hollywood. Updating an ancient historical figure just make me watch another 3 minutes of Hamlet. Everything in this piece of crap is horrible. Choosing a whiney bastard Colin Farrell, Marlon Brando, Hannibal Lector, and Angelina Jolie was a 'Meh,' the story is confusing, overblown action battle scenes, and Stone just lost his balance on why Alexander should've been a great movie to begin with. But I've have just seen enough of Colin Farrell and his offensive Greek accent. Some may think this is a big misunderstanding, but PLEASE do not watch this movie. Either on Netflix or Starz, Hell No. It's just too painful to watch as much as The Last Airbender. If it ain't broke, don't fix it even if Stone tried to be at his very best. Expand
  67. Nov 18, 2012
    3
    Alexander, which fails in almost every way possible, bores its viewers to death and attempts to educate them through nullified narrative more than it does to entertain them.
  68. Jun 8, 2013
    3
    I wish I could say I was able to overlook the film's many flaws and say that it's a half decent film, but that would be a lie. Is this film really that bad? Sadly, and unfortunately, yes. This is a bad film; the pacing is horrible, the editing is atrocious, the performances are overly dramatic, the battle sequences are mostly mindless, it's unnecessarily gory, the story itself isI wish I could say I was able to overlook the film's many flaws and say that it's a half decent film, but that would be a lie. Is this film really that bad? Sadly, and unfortunately, yes. This is a bad film; the pacing is horrible, the editing is atrocious, the performances are overly dramatic, the battle sequences are mostly mindless, it's unnecessarily gory, the story itself is unengaging, the direction is confused, and as far as historical biopics go this isn't one that all that accurate. All of these things combined with ambition could not save this film which is very sad and disappointing. The reason this film was so disappointing is because I believe this ensemble could have created THE biopic of Alexander the Great, instead we are left with this mess that makes us question the minds of those involved. Expand
  69. Mar 9, 2013
    0
    Stone obviously didn't spend any time on this sh*t as Alexander goes down in history as the Alexander the Never Will Be Great Film. One of the worsts of the worsts.
  70. Oct 3, 2013
    3
    Intriguing cast! However it's interesting to see how much can go wrong with an interesting part of history if the storytelling doesn't work. Sadly IMO this is one of Oliver Stones weakest movies. Really boring and it takes ages to get to a point.
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.