The audience is not being able to understand the difference between ancient and modern morals, but to be honest I don't care about the wider audience. Why should Oliver have to sugarcoat and alter his work simply because the 'MTV generation' and mass TV watchers of the United States don't know their history? I say he shouldn't. Their ignorance is *their* problem, not Oliver's. In a long shot, Oliver Stone chose to create a historically accurate film around the life of a man, both fact and fiction, who created the gateway for humanity's future path. Many will not appreciate this film, because their minds are too stuffed with current calamity to realize where their freedoms and dreams of equality originated from.

This is a brilliant film, which was portrayed correctly, from a personable point of view, to create the character of Alexander in the manner in which he lived; uninhibited by other influences save those whom he loved and knew were trustworthy. This movie is about the origins not only of the Western mind and intellect, but also plan larger into the scheme of the man who saw and dreamt of the future- a world which accepted each other and lived together in diversity in harmony. This man was Alexander-- our Western father. Like it, hate it; it doesn't really matter.

The fact is, Oliver Stone brought to his team of experts internationally respected historians to make this film as accurate historically as possible. This should not go without notice. Colin Farrell, a known Irish- now Hollywood loverboy, does indeed display the heart and integrity of a natural born leader. He has lead this cast in an epic performance, well past his personal years and experience. He is worthy of praise in his portrayal of Alexander. The movie is fantastic; Well done, Olivier, Colin, etc... Well done.

There is a small book in explaining how wrong this assumption is. It'd write it, but it would involve watching the movie again. But the rather liberal interpretation of the available information is a side issue in explaining why this is a strong contender for worst movie ever made.The script is dreadful. Mind-bendingly dreadful. It's deficiencies take several forms. I shall enumerate them;

1) The dialogue is actually a series of monologues. Every-one is apparently reciting excerpts from their autobiographies, or treatises on whatever is at hand, letters to whomever they are talking to, letters to the editor, political speeches, self-help manuals... It's certainly not conversation.

2) It's portentous. I sometimes like portentousness, it can lend atmosphere. Here, it lends to the tedium. The tedium doesn't need adding to, it's already oversubscribed.

3) It never knows when to stop. Anthony Hopkins has a monologue at the end that goes on for several minutes. You keep thinking it'll end, hoping, praying it will end (this Anthony Hopkins! He could probably read the ingredients of soap and make it sound interesting), and it does, eventually, but by then you slipped even further into a coma and are in no fit condition to cheer. Colin Farrell seems to spend half the movie looking off into space and holding forth at length on, oh, whatever, but always passionately.

4) It's badly written. It's a bad series of portentous monologues that never know when to stop.

Aside from the script (perhaps) the film features other flaws that inhibit it from greatness. Such as?

Pointless time jumps. I have nothing against time jumps. Highlander, Once upon a time in America, Godfather part two, Once upon a time in the West, For a few dollars more, and probably other films that weren't by Sergio Leone... Many great films feature them. But usually they follow a rationale. Usually they aren't apparently random and unconnected. Here, it's like they put a couple of reels in the wrong order.

Sins of omission. While I said that the lack of adherence to historical accuracy was a side issue, not mentioning almost any episode that might actually have been exciting or interesting seems a dubious policy. Alexander, as the posters implied, was the stuff of legend made real. (I make no moral judgement here). Does it mention the phalanx? Any the innovative ways that he overcame apparently unassailable fortresses by looking at the problems from another angle? The political methodology whereby he kept a grip on all of the peoples behind him? The Gordian Knot? Does it hell.

It does feature a couple of battle scenes, the second of which is shot in a vivid and pretty colour scheme, and both of which illustrate that he fought at forefront of his army. So that's something.The most laughable sex scene ever committed to film. Alexander wins over his bride by making kitty-cat claws gestures and noises. There's more, but that's definitely the stand-out feature.I could go on, but this film has already eaten enough of my life. The only thing epic here is the ineptitude. It actually made me feel nauseous.

Author: thunderzephyr
27 November 2004

Last night I saw the movie a second time, with my 20 year old son. The audience was of an entirely different demographic than the first viewing (which was an advance screening). The average age of the audience was about 35-45, with not too many teens in there. And guess what? Besides the fact that the entire theatre was PACKED, there was absolutely not a sound from the audience...like they were breathless. No snickering at blond hair, eyeliner, sultry looks from Bagoas, or any of the things that drew slight laughs when I saw it for the first time. It bolstered my hope that as time goes on and more people see it, there will be a more favorable opinion of it.

I myself liked the movie a whole lot more the second time around. I watched different things this time...paid more attention to the sets and the other characters behind and around whoever was the primary action of the moment. I listened to the narration more closely, and enjoyed the film much more this time.Response from my 20 year old son, who wasn't just trying to be nice to his old mom, was very positive. He even thought that the assassination scene was fine where it was because it related better to what was going on in Alexander's head at the time.
*

I highly recommend a second (at least) viewing at a theatre with a very good sound system. I realized I had missed some of the dialogue and narration because the 1st theatre's sound system was horrible.P.S. Kudos to Mr. Stone for his lifetime achievement award in Sweden. They don't give those out to just anyone, you know?

I'm giving this film one star for the reason that it has absolutely no excuse whatsoever for its wretchedness. With a cast like it has, a budget ample enough for three good films, and a legend-centered plot sure to pique the viewer's interest well before the movie is even seen, it delivers a seriously despicable, laughable fiasco.

Of course it's set in ancient Greece. What's interesting is that Alexander sounds straight out of Dublin. And his mother? Why, it's Angelina Jolie, and she's...straight out of Prince Vlad of Tepes' castle in Transylvania. That's right, Vlad of the Dracul. I suppose miss Jolie spent some time watching Gary Oldman deliver his line, "Leesten to Dem! Di tcheeldren ov da nyyaat; vhat sveet muzik dai mike..." or "Alexander, Oi know vat veemen vi-ll do in yore loif..." Yes, it is that bad. So far no good.

As for Alexander's supposedly legendary tactical genius and indomitable character, here instead the viewer gets to watch the boy from Dublin with painfully obvious bleached streaks in his hair and freshly tinted eyebrows look at Jared Leto countless times with a facial expression that's half "Mommy can I have another cookie?" and half irritable bowel syndrome. Leto reciprocates, and captivates movie-goers with a luxurious dark mane of Paul Mitchell's finest work and eyes that make Dakota Fanning look Chinese.

Kilmer is wasted here, as is Hopkins. I didn't give a damn about either of their characters. Watch it yourself to see if you do.As a boy I was fascinated by Greek mythology, Greek Tragedy and Comedy. I jump at any chance I can get to tack on extra elements of wonder to my understanding of these subjects. At least I learned something new by watching Alexander. His mother was a vampire wanna-be snake temptress and Alexander's horse had more charisma than he did. Yup, Alexander's horse gets my nomination for best actor.

JD

If there have been five films in my life that left the most indelible impression on me, holding me immobilized on my chair watching until the last credit has disappeared while everybody else is already leaving, talking to myself while going home, three of them were connected to Oliver Stone one way or another (Midnight Express being the first). Alexander is the latest one. Why Alexander is Great? Because it was made by a visionary about another visionary, because it is true to itself, to the legacy, to history, because it doesn't sell off, because it is not your typical popcorn blockbuster, and most of all because, steering away from creating a cartoon-like, hollow and fake "Super-Man" (Troy's Achilles) it focuses on the Man Alexander.

The Hu-Man Alexander. Without concessions to what's popular, what's expected, what's commercial, what's understandable. This is a director that doesn't mince words or films. You can tell I am still under the spell. People mention the sexual orientation thing, either to complain about too much or too little. Don't judge the Ancient World by today's or yesterday's standards. Men in Ancient Greece had Friendships (albeit not necessarily platonic ones), not Relationships.

People mention the accents. Alexander was born in Ancient Macedonia (not to be confused with today's Balcan state of the same name, please) and therefore would have spoken heavily-accented Greek, Olympias was born from Epirus, Roxanne could muster very little Greek since she was a "barbarian" (meaning non-Greek back then) and Alexander's soldiers came from all over Southern Balkan, Minor Asia etc. I found the choice of Irish over British or American (reserved to Athenians for instance) accent, and the use in the film of many different accents a particularly clever one. People dismiss the eagle's overflight. Read about omens from the gods, they were very important for the Ancients.

People want full visibility during the battles (why don't you see a John Wayne film then, all the dead are hidden from view and the heroes are never afraid or confused), people want more battles or events (and yet complain about how long the film is), people want their money back. I could go on and on here but there is no use. See the film again. Read a book. Open your eyes. Ask questions. Undefeated yet mortal, great yet flawed, larger-than-life yet human, Alexander has left a mark in the histories of so many peoples for a reason, and yet, the film has no more chances to be understood by his viewers than the king himself from his soldiers and childhood friends. Typical and sad.

Alexander is essentially about this Russian sounding babe (played by Ms. Jolie) who marries into this big Oirish family, is driven to preferring snakes because her husband only has one eye, and begins dying her little boy's hair blonde. Then it all kicks off, Colin Farrell gets his eyebrows bleached and goes off in a flouncy tantrum to conquer the world. Meanwhile Jared Leto stands around with a twisty Cher hairdo, gazing longingly at bottle-blondie Colin, who every now and then gazes back with tears in his eyes and whispers 'Oy cahnt live if livin' is without you...'

So anyway, about half way through that really handsome guy from The Book Group (the one in the wheelchair) and those porridge commercials shows up, but he has a different hairdresser... he stands around a lot, proving that sensible haircuts WERE possible in ancient times. I think he loses his razor at one point, but finds it again eventually... later Tim Piggott-Smith has to smush his hands around inside a dead animal, but they cut all his lines, so of course it all makes PERFECT sense.Then the elephants come...

(I am here talking about the movie, not history.)

In Babylon, Hephaestion asked Alexander:"Sometimes I wondered if you are just running away from your mother?"I find this one of the many interesting issues this movie has to offer us.In the movie, Alexander was far-most a dreamer chaser. He was in a dream nobody can understand. (I am not sure even Hephaestion did.) Great or not, it is left for the history and time to judge or mis-judge. Alexander's family didn't offer him a lot of comforts. His father was not particularly loving and his mother ever so manipulative and demanding. So I understand very well that the life of reality for Alexander at home had little meaning, so he set out to chase his dreams.

Alexander loved his father greatly and so did he love his mother. But this puts him into such great conflict that finally, when his father was murdered and his mother seemingly involved in the crime, he collapsed. So he left, for his conquest of the known world and shut himself into his own dream. What is this dream: to Conquer the world, to bring freedom to people, or just to be away as far as he could from home. We do not and can not understand his dream because we are not him. But in the movie, it is strongly portrayed that he was a man devoted to his dream and he was a lonely man. A sad lonely man that nobody understood. Hephaestion was probably catching a bit understanding of Alexander's dream but by far sharing it.

Yet Hephaestion was by far more understanding than all the rest. So it is normal for Alexander to feel for Hephaestion. Imagine ourselves, when we are lonely and weary, what will we feel for the friend who comes to us and comforts us. It is love, it is friendship and they are the same thing. (Sorry, no sex involved here and that's why again it shows how great Mr. Stone did the job by showing the strong bond in between Alexander and Hephaestion, but emphasizing no sex involved, just purity.) Alexander did feel for his wife as well, but was it a mere reflection of his mother, we will never know. Yet again, this possibility is implied in the movie. Great job. Who doesn't have a little dream of certain kind within the deepest heart of each and every of us.

But Alexander was great because he can bring his dream chasing to such an extreme. No matter how much land he conquered, no matter how many people he killed, he did it at no cost to chase his dream. That's what I think, in a deep level, Mr. Stone wants to imply in his movie. The movie is not Alexander the Great (or the Wars of Alexander), but Alexander, as a person, but a unique person. He was strong and was weak, he was divine and he made mistakes. And that's why I like the movie. The movie left a lot of thoughts after watching, on a lot of levels and aspects. In exploration of the world, Alexander was exploring himself. In chasing the phantom of perfection in his way, Alexander conquered the world and the history.

I am very grateful that Mr. Stone offered us a different angle to view a well celebrated historical Hero (or not, up to you). An angle that was not expected and anticipated by the waiting audience, that's why it flopped. But it is an excellent movie for me. Every bits and pieces has a reason to be there. (It is up to us to interpret.) It is by far not a boring movie. Mr. Stone delivered so many messages and there are so many things to pick up. I would have found it boring if it just repeats what these biographic writing does and no way a movie can match books in terms of biography. The is a story of Alexander told by Oliver Stone, and it is told with great beauty, visually and emotionally. I hope by time, people will realize the value in this movie than just great battle scenes or heroic speeches (and aren't these battles and speeches enough by now in cinema).

After all let's be more moderate to a movie as an audience. After all, we sit comfortably and watch while hundreds worked very hard to deliver us movies. There is never a really bad movie if the crew has been devoted to the making. The pre-requisite of art is devotion (then comes talent and skills). One audience like ourselves can only say, Yes I like it, No I don't. It is the least one can say that Mr. Stone and all his actors and crews have been very devoted to the movie. And for me, I really enjoyed every minute of Alexander.
PS. Yesterday I watched again, and I actually heard some people applause at the end and I happily joined them.

By Zeus, this movie is awful! The movie is not just scripted poorly, it is directed pathetically! Mr.Stone completely loses grip on story telling... and by at the end of the movie, is clueless about what he wanted to say.What put me off was neither the director's *obsession* to prove Alexander's sexual orientation, nor the plethora of inaccuracies/biased opinions through out the movie. It was the complete lack of representing why Alexander was "Alexander The Great". I would have endured it better if it were a documentary, with its purposes stated upfront.

Great men are so few; and when somebody goes ahead and downplays such a great person with their frivolous 'research' and story writing, it is outright annoying. I strongly believe that our next generation should learn from the great souls of the past. And if a director, when has such an opportunity, makes a bum of himself/herself, it is very, very irritating.

I am from India, where Alexander appears in our history text books at various grades at school. The fervor that the name Alexander brought to me when I was in school, which is nearly forty years ago, is simply indescribable. We Asians love him, adore him. We call him Sikandar, and the word stands for 'the heroic', 'the majestic', 'the king'. Rather than making the movie focus on his greatness - valor, ambition, respect for a fellow human being, and ultimately success in so many aspects of life, the movie was made about the most unimportant aspects of his life.

And for the records, Alexander won against the Indian kings, the last one being Porus. Alexander gave back the kingdom to Porus, for the courage shown by him after Alexander captured and 'interrogated' him. After this last war, Alexander's army was tired, and did not want to take on the army of Magadha, and Alexander returned home. The movie from this point on, does not even deserve comments.

Alexander supposedly asked his hands to placed in display after his death, showing the people "the one who conquered the world, after death, left empty handed". Instead of the ending of the movie being something to that effect, it was the Ptolemy's soliloquy at the end, which was... AARGH! absolutely absurd.

Alexander is probably going to be one of the more controversial movies of the year, in that most people will either hate it or love it. It's all a matter of taste. As a drama/historical documentary sort of film, it's almost unparalleled. It's one of the first times I have ever seen a Hollywood film that is unafraid to show the "TRUE" elements of that time period. Anyone who is a fan of historical accuracy and is well-versed on the culture and relationships of that period will recognise that love between men was acceptable and is recorded in some of the most famous writings of those times; well, the uncensored versions anyway.I ventured into the film actually expecting another one of Hollywoods over-the-top exaggerations (ie, Troy...) but I was pleasantly surprised to find that this film actually seemed to portray the way things likely were with out major alterations on well-known facts. Yes, there were parts that were slow in the film, but the development of the characters and their motivations were thorough and precise. I for one enjoyed it.

However, my friends didn't feel the same. I saw the film with five others. One walked out halfway through because he thought it was boring. One thought the film was generally okay, but a bit slow. The other three were some what icked out by the somewhat "demonstrative" homosexual aspects in the film. They didn't personally have anything against it, but I think they were ill-prepared for how blatant it is throughout, even though you never really see anything besides kissing, a few slaps on the butt, and hints of more. I doubt a Hollywood movie has EVER shown male-love quite in this way. I think many people will find it shocking to say the least. But again, if one is well-versed on that period, enjoys historical accuracy, and is fairly open-minded... I think that this can be overlooked.I'm fairly sure this movie will be a love it-or- hate it one. I personally loved it, and if you enjoy historically accurate films and are fairly open-minded, then I recommend at least watching this to know whether you enjoy it or not. Three hours of your time (and probably a bathroom break) and you might find yourself pleasantly surprised... or not. **shrugs** It's all a matter of opinion, now isn't it.

i laughed out loud while watching this movie. i haven't enjoyed all of Oliver Stone's films so i'll give him this one. this movie left me wondering several things: 1) was Alexander's mother born before, or at the same time as her son?(and why did she go to a transylvanian voice coach?) 2) how much hydrogen peroxide was in the bleach Colin used? 3) did Val use plasticine on his face in the hopes of being unrecognizable? 4) did anyone go to the library to help with the pacing of this film? you know, those buildings with books in them? 5) was Bucephalous black, or white? did anyone care? (he was the best actor anyways) 6) if i had 9 figures to spend making a movie, would it have been this bad? (more proof that throwing money at a film doesn't do the trick)

 7) did the people making this film know it was about Alexander the GREAT? did they know he was an extraordinary leader? or did someone tell them he was an angst-filled whiner? (see question #4) this film has my vote at the razzies this year for worst film. as i said i found myself laughing out loud. other leads turned the film down. if Alexander had been played by David Spade or Paulie Shore, i may have been more charitable of this mess of a film. please please, no more director's cuts or added footage...and by the way, i am a fan of most of the actors in this movie. what happened? but i stand by my statement about bucephalous. this animal didn't over-act, had a legitimate accent, and stood his ground with that poor elephant, who also gets a nod of approval from me. as far as i can tell, these are two characters who had no choice about being in this movie.

*arguabley "not bad" aspects of Alexander: 1)the desert/battle scenes, aka THE MUMMY 2)the blood looked real 3)employed a LOT of costumers for those thousands of outfits 4)the men looked better than the women (except Eva green) 5)mass carcass scenes post-battle, aka GONE WITH THE WIND, but not nearly as good. 6)not bad historical narrative by sir Anthony. otherwise, "huh"? 7)by all accounts, Alexander was a progressive and compassionate ruler, compared to his brutal times. much like Alfred the Great was ahead of his time in this aspect. 8)many "boys will be boys" scenes, aka BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but not nearly in the same league..nor universe, come to think of it... 9)some great busts, murals, statues and other art scattered around in the back ground 10)a zebra!! 11)one can forgive the globally conscious and compassionate Jolie for just about anything...you may want to give it a watch, if you can get past the first few minutes. i only gave it a one based on the economy-busting amount of money that Mr Stone had to work with...perhaps i should upgrade my rating to, 1.01.