Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Alexander » User review


A movie directed by Oliver Stone

< read all 6 reviews

Wow.........I mean seriously Wow

  • Jan 15, 2006
  • by
I caught this on HBO last night and the movie wasn't that bad. Reviewers and critics made it seem as though this movie had the plaque. I must admit Oliver Stone did not sugar-coat the story or makes Alexander too heroic. Believe me; you may never see a major motion picture that tells the story like it is like this again. Oliver Stone took a different approach with this historic figure and he really didn't capture the real spirit of Alexander the Great the way it was written in history books.

Anthony Hopkin's as Ptolemy is one of his weakest and least interesting roles he's ever played and would have been better left out of the movie. I think the film would have been better had Stone told Alexander's life straight out, ditching the narrator and focusing on the life of an amazing warrior. Stone leads the viewer to believe that Alexander, though married three times, also enjoyed the (sexual) company of men----Hephaestion, his long time best friend (played by Jared Leto) and Bagoas, a Persian eunuch. The scenes are vague and leave a great deal to the viewer's imagination. If he was going to include this point of view about Alexander's life, he should have not been afraid to explore these relationships. The sexual tension between Alexander and Hephaestion was much more interesting than the relationship between Alexander and his first wife, Roxane (played by Rosario Dawson). Their violent first night of love making was unbelievable and completely void of any chemistry. As for Colin Farrell I thought he did fairly well with the poorly directed role he was given. By far, the most interesting was Angelina Jolie's (minus the accent) scheming Olympias, a woman determined to see her son become king, at any cost.

It's obvious much of the film's budget went into the sets, costumes, and their authenticity which was great. I wouldn't mind viewing the uncut version to this. My theory is that people should not be reprimanded for telling a true story in its raw form. Oliver Stone and Mel Gibson are among those people. I don't recommend it to everyone, but if what I've written above strikes a chord with you, or you truly love history and would like see what the world circa 326 BC might have looked like don't pass on Alexander. It might not be `Alexander the Great,' but it truly is Alexander the Colossus. One should just approach it for what it is and not what one would expect a historical epic to be.

What did you think of this review?

Fun to Read
Post a Comment
More Alexander reviews
review by . December 04, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
I never did understand how Oliver Stone came to direct Alexander, Revisited. Somebody like David McLean (Lawrence of Arabia) or Ridley Scott (Gladiator) seems more appropriate. Stone's vision of Alexander is an attempt at epic, but never quite reaches the grandeur of these other films.     First of all, the casting seems all wrong. The Hollywood cast isn't really a great fit for an epic film like [ASIN:B000UPGQIU Alexander]]. Colin Farrell (Alexander) is decent, but not great. …
review by . April 23, 2009
Alexander is a near perfect dramatic recreation of the life Alexander the Great of Macedonia. Oliver Stone spent a lot of time, money and effort to bring a somewhat accurate depiction of the life and times of one of the greatest military minds of all time. This is no GLADITOR or TROY so please keep this in mind. People have slammed this movie for wasting money and not making it back when it was released in the United States. Obviously the money was well spent. The scenery, sets and costumes reflect …
review by . November 09, 2008
Alexander - Director's Cut
Where to begin this review? I almost feel like I have to defend my position on actually liking the film, which is hard for me to do because my liking of it is sensory and I am usually a more factual person.     What's wrong with Alexander? Well, it's difficult to be historically accurate even while studying a practically mythological figure, but if you are making a Hollywood film it is next to impossible. So Alexander the movie only follows the historical aspects of Alexander …
review by . August 03, 2005
posted in Movie Hype
Few films have garnered the criticism as the theatrical release of the much maligned ALEXANDER and that fact always stirs the curiosity cauldron - in this case, so much so that Oliver Stone decided to re-edit and re-compose the original version into this Director's Cut DVD. Now the film can be viewed in the relatively inexpensive milieu of the home and perhaps more folks will give another (or, as in my case, a first) look at what the grumbling is all about.    ALEXANDER is a …
review by . November 24, 2004
Pros: Good Sets.     Cons: Terrible lines, bad voice work, and awful camera work.     The Bottom Line: Stone does what no army on Earth could do, defeat Alexander.     Director Oliver Stone has never been one to shy away from controversial films and his new film "Alexander" is no exception. The film stars Colin Farrell as the Macedonian king who would become known to history as Alexander the Great, the greatest military tactician ever who …
About the reviewer
Jen-Jay AKA:JJI ()
Ranked #82
Married into the military for over a decade and it does has itpros andcons. The lifestyle is great and Ido enjoy it. I'm able to do things and see things that I thought I wouldn't dream of. My kids loves … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie


For better or worse (and in this case, it's mostly for better), Oliver Stone'sAlexander Revisitedshould stand as the definitive version of Stone's much-maligned epic about the great Asian conqueror. Following the DVD release of his previousDirector's Cut, Stone offers a video introduction here, explaining why he felt athirdand final attempt at refining his film was necessary. Essentially, he's using this opportunity to re-create the "road show" format of the Biblical epics of the 1950s and '60s, with a three-and-a-half-hour running time (with an intermission at the two-hour mark) including 45 minutes of previously unseen footage. Stone has also significantly restructured the film, resulting in substantial (if not exactly redemptive) improvements in its narrative flow. Alexander (played in a torrent of emotions by Colin Farrell) is dying as the film opens, his final moments serving to bookend the film's epic story, which incorporates flashback sequences to flesh out the Macedonian king's back-story involving the turbulent battle of fate between his father, King Philip (Val Kilmer) and his scheming sorceress mother Olympia (Angelina Jolie, ridiculous accent and all), who insists that Alexander is literally a child of the gods.
view wiki
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since