The most underrated movie I know... Val Kilmer´s performance nominated for Razzie **** as worst supporting actor? Are you **** kidding me? His talks with young Alexander, especially in the cave were some of the best father talks of heritage and legacy in cinema. The movie is for the most part historically accurate, the battles are epic, the visuals are great, Vangelis soundtrack is transcendental work of art... Boohoo Farrel had an accent, who gives a **** If you call his performance "bad acting", you are delusional. He got the essence and legend of Alexander right. Alexander was more than a man, his ambition made him distant a alone, even among his men and Farrel captured that beautifully. His speech to his men to march to India, pleading for one more month, seeing the difference of mindsets between mortals and a man with endless ambition... Anthony Hopkins as old Ptolemy, Christopher Plummer as Aristotle giving lecture to young Alexander and his future generals and friends who would change the course of the world forever... This movie has some of the most epic and impactful scenes in cinematography... Honestly all I can say is **** the critics and **** the sheep that cant think for themselves, I don´t believe a man with three digit iq and healthy levels of testosterone can watch this masterpiece and not be left with awe and respect for both the man Alexander was and the movie that portrayed his story so beautifully.
Alexander is perplexingly a Love-it or Hate-it movie, perhaps depending on whether you have an interest in the period or not !? Much of the visual imagery of the film is breathtaking, such as the stunning battles of Gaugamela and Hydaspes, but also the beautifully filmed crowded cityscapes of ancient Babylon, and the dramatic scenery along the route of Alexanders conquests. Some reviewers have complained about the flashback structure, and use of Irish & British accents to differentiate the Macedonian and Greek characters. Neither device bothered me once I realised their function ... I dont think I'd have been able to tell a Macedonian accent from a Greek one otherwise ! But these are minor digressions. The strength of the film is its epic portrayal of the experiences of Alexander and his men. The Battle of Gaugamela in particular is possibly the best reconstruction of an ancient battle committed to film, seamlessly guiding the viewer from an ingenious strategic battlefield overview, down to the tactical manouvers of the opposing forces, and the brutal reality of the bloody hand to hand combat. I was shaking with adrenalin from reliving this brilliantly choreographed confrontation. More poetic and still relevant is the clash of cultures illustrated by Alexander on his beloved horse Bucephalus and the terrifying War Elephants of the Punjabi King Porus. Alexanders dream of uniting the diverse peoples of the world under one unified culture is one we're still wrestling with, and is reflected in microcosm in his own relationships with his parents and lovers ! Its such an epic story that perhaps there was an inevitable tightrope to be walked by the films central characters as they try to carry sufficient gravitas for the themes involved, whilst keeping them real, which has led to accusations of hammy acting. I didnt share this feeling though, these real titans of human history are surely entitled to some Shakespearian hyperbole ... and it was probably a genuine requirement for charismatic leaders inspiring their followers ! I WAS inspired !
The happy couple (Farrell/Dawson) do enjoy one great scene together, and it's the high point of the movie-a naked tussle, in which she puts a knife to his throat. The whole sequence is quick, funny, and arousing, in sharp contrast to the rest of Alexander, which is sluggish, unsmiling.
Although inexplicable brogues and burrs appear and disappear, and although Stone post-produces the dickens of his movie trying to generate the maximum spit-fog of sound and fury, Alexander manages to be as dull as the Victor Mature films of the 1950s, which barely moved at all.
Probably the only history movie I've taken seriously for the last 15+ years.
Other movies like 300 or it's sequel are just action blockbusters with zero realism. A Disneyland for adolescents.
This movie looks as if it was made for history class teachers. That's why on my list it gets clean 10. Very well executed, no superhero **** no cheep humor in fight scenes. It's a serious movie, factual and realistic. Certainly not for an average Joe.
The film had a pretty decent start. It was somewhat intriging, the relationship between Alexander and his father was interesting and being a huge history fanatic myself I learnt some new things. The battle of Guagamela was also really nice to look at but no where as epic as other battles like Troy, Lord of the Rings etc. After the first hour it really started to drag on but I did watch the whole and I don't think I'll ever watch it again the second time due to its long running time.
I think the reason why the film was so boring was because there was not much memorable moments that refreshed the experience and I found the character of Alexander's mother difficult to understand. So I guess you could say the characters aren't really defined so its boring to watch after the 1st hour but I thought it was a solid film when I first and only watched it. Slightly above average.
There was a lot of raw material to make a film from, after all Alexander was one of history's stand out individuals. The film starts out in sometime B.C. and for 3 hours it switches between 10 years earlier, 3 months later, 15 years earlier etc, etc. All very confusing and all very unnecessary, after all he is an historical figure.
I thought the mother's role was over done. Let's face it, if a son moves overseas for the best part of a decade it's a good bet he's not to closely tied/reliant on his mother. The whole thing with snakes and the mother was just crass.
Alexander's motive for world domination is passable addressed but the multiple other aspects of his life are largely ignored and though facts are scarce as this happened such a long time ago some risk could have been taken via poetic licence for the reasons he did what he did.
Un sujet difficile que celui de cette légende antique, un sujet casse-gueule et pourtant, ça ne devrait pas forcément l'être... la preuve en est avec ce vieux briscard de Petersen qui a réussi avec Troie, ce vieux mythe usé (sorti la même année je crois) à en sortir quelque chose de probant, puissant, satisfaisant. Simple.
Pourquoi avec Alexandre, cela ne serait-il pas aussi simple, efficace et grandiose ? peut-être parce qu'on a oublié "grand" dans le titre ? peut-être parce que la musique de Vangelis est bien pâlotte et pauvrette, aphone... minable. Presque méconnaissable.
Peut-être parce qu'Oliver Stone a mal choisi sa distribution : Farrell pédale (sans jeu de mots, je vous prie...) dans la choucroute du début à la fin et même Angelina a l'air bonne en face de lui. Elle reste bonne tout de même (pour son âge) mais ce n'est pas la question. Et que dire de Val Kilmer en Philippe de Macédoine ? serait-ce une mauvaise blague ? (très mauvaise en effet).
Et que penser de Rosario Dawson la métis porto-ricaine, elle qui est censée incarner une petite princesse asiatique, égérie fugace et involontaire du conquérant insatiable...? non, rien en effet.
Cela étant, ces 3 heures ne sont pas toujours désagréables avec une mise en scène maîtrisée la plupart du temps et quelques belles scènes... sauf vers la fin où ça **** dans le "grand" n'importe quoi : la dernière bataille n'est en vérité pas regardable, car surdécoupée, tremblotante, épileptique et affublée de filtres roses et violets (?!... allons, allons, pas de remarques déplacées je vous prie).
Si l'ensemble de la distribution n'était pas soit foncièrement à la masse, soit engluée dans l'emphase grotesque, le film serait presque intéressant, car on ne s'y ennuie presque pas. Mais on ne voit pas trop ce que Stone a essayé de montrer d'Alexandre : un névrosé oedipien ? un **** ? un illuminé ? est-ce que tout cela suffit à monter ou démonter le mythe ?
Que de questions... Oui, Monsieur Stone, il aurait fallu faire simple, plutôt que cette longue psychanalyse plus ou moins historique qui n'ennuie pas, non, mais qui ne fait pas rêver et qui divertit encore moins...
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.
Egmond Film & Television,
France 3 Cinéma,
IMF Internationale Medien und Film GmbH & Co. 3. Produktions KG,
Pathé Renn Productions,
WR Universal Group