Alexander Reviews

Page 2 of 406
Super Reviewer
October 30, 2007
Considering the talent involved, the level of amateurish ineptitude is staggering.
August 6, 2015
How can so much time and effort and money go into such a bad loooooong arse trip into boredom.
½ July 5, 2015
Greece done again but in the new Hollywood mould of gang America. This time by a bunch of Jackeens, Dublin ireland, and with the most unGreek ever! A knobble kneed Mick with the face of an Asutralian pickpocket. What a croc! The idea of doing themes movies by gang affiliation is a disaster. HEY Wallyhood have you ever heard of Greek people? How about make a movie about the Greeks but use Greek people instead of Jocks, The 300, or Micks!
½ June 9, 2015
At nearly 3 hours, Alexander is a painful, unbearable experience replete with over-the-top acting, boring conversations, and lots and lots and LOTS of scenes where characters yell and cry at other characters. This never ends. It is literally ENDLESS.

It's a terrible movie, but it may be one of the best worst movies ever made. Despite the overacting and the length, the sheer spectacle of it is very well-done. I try to review movies on Rotten Tomatoes like I'm a real critic, though, and so I truly can't recommend a movie this egregious. Oliver Stone has made much better movies in his day. Let's all just pretend that he never made this one. It's a cold, repulsive turkey.
March 24, 2015
This is an interesting film to talk about for a number of reasons. Part of it is quite honestly, because after viewing it I was not sure whether or not I had seen something good or bad.

This film came in the wake of several other historical epics. Kick-started by the success of "GLADIATOR", itself paved the way for by "BRAVEHEART", and released amidst other such films. Particularly within that year alone Wolfgang Petersen's "TROY", Antoine Fuqua's "KING ARTHUR", and Ridley Scott's "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN". And regardless of whatever one may think of it's overall quality, it should be noted that the film is probably the most historically accurate of them for what it's worth. Which from a certain perspective can be seen as both its greatest strength and it's greatest weakness. In all the ground the film tries to cover concerning his life it could be said that the films reach exceeds its grasp.

Seeking to cover his early childhood, to his schooling, to his ascension to the throne, to his conquests, to the political strife among his ranks, to all f his romantic relationship, and into his death. However I do think there are some truly great scenes here. Such as Alexander's rousing speech to his men before the Battle of Guagamela and Philip's talk to his son about the Gods and Titans. This especially came to be a problem for those who came into it for the action, as there are really only two battle sequences. One towards the beginning, and the other towards the end. Given all the other story it had to cover, it's not hard to understand why but can be seen as disappointing to some.

In recent years the swords and sandals epic is all but dead again as it were before the all to brief early 2000's revival. This film's failure playing a big part in that. But we have been hearing of similar project. Already begun is an intended trilogy of films about Genghis Khan directed by Sergei Bodrov and Vin Diesel keeps talking up an intended and from the sounds of it quite ambitious trilogy about Hannial the Conqueror he's hoping to make. Both of which are rather unprecedented in this genre. Whilst film series' are very commonplace with Hollywood it's never been done in the Historical Epic/Swords-and-sandals genre. The one exception I can think of being 1954's "DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS", the sequel to "THE ROBE". Though several attempts to figure out a sequel to "GLADIATOR" it never happened, and if you choose to count it the book sequel to "DANCES WITH WOLVES" entitled "THE HOLY ROAD" has been discussed, but that's about it as far as I'm aware of. And it all really depends on how big the story is. The two most popular of the modern historical epics, "BRAVEHEART" and "GLADIATOR", are structured in such a way that they feel like they each fit perfectly in one film.
½ May 20, 2012
Horrible, horrible, horrible. Proves that Farrell is a rubbish leading actor and Oliver Stone a rubbish director.
February 1, 2015
make sure to get the director's cut of this historical bio epic
½ January 8, 2015
Talky and boring, Alexander robs its talented cast of any chance to shine using a poor screenplay and an awful direction from the usually talented Oliver Stone. Using a rotten screenplay and even worse cinematography, Alexander is a film that should have been good but failed to reach its own expectations (it truly needed some rewrites).
December 28, 2014
Who was doing what? And why? Terrible. Random accents, inconsistent characters, uninteresting, poorly executed fight scenes, bloated, and hardly a competent story about Alexander the Great.
December 8, 2010
A Brilliant, Gracious, Fascinating and Haunting portrait of the Macedonian King who conquered 90% of the known world! A fantastic and near flawless script combined with Oliver Stone's expert direction and a great cast make this one a must-see classic all the way! Should have won Best Film Of The Year because, it was! A+
November 27, 2014
Fabulous epic film with an amazing performance by Colin Farrell
½ June 28, 2011
Oliver Stone presents his epic masterpiece in Alexander. This is what I would have loved to have said, but unfortunately length and just the pacing of this movie keeps it from being great. The movie has excellent sets and costumes, but really just has boring sections, and I was not a fan of the way the battle scenes were shot. Its a shame this movie wasn't better given the scope, but this movie winds up being more of an epic failure.
½ August 12, 2014
Oh my god, this movie is so boring. Problems? It's long, poorly-acted, poorly-directed, glacially paced, and completely unfocused.
½ July 18, 2014
Alexander offers solid visuals, action sequences and costumes, but its characters feel hollow and synthetic.
½ February 12, 2010
The cool opening credits lead us to believe that we are in for something special, but everything soon falls apart. This is a terrible movie with particularly bad acting. I especially couldn't stand Angelina Jolie. I tried giving it a second chance after ten years, and it is even worse this time around. (First viewing - December 2004 in theaters)
October 16, 2014
The 4 hours version was not completely accurate, but shed light on the most important parts of Alexander's life. Of course it was made to sell, but it does not verge from the reality of this warlord's life.
October 13, 2014
Horrible in every way.
September 30, 2014
I love this movie. Oliver stone made an ambitious, epic film that most directors could never pull off. Props to Stone and crew.
½ September 17, 2014
easily the worst oliver stone movie ever made i watched this junk 2 the end what garbage guys kissing guys and a story that goes nowhere and gets to be a waste of 3 hours u could be on the internet. unfortunately oliver stone made it the same director whos masterpeices include the doors platoon and wall street 1 why did he make this crap?
½ October 24, 2007
El épico de Oliver Stone sobre la vida de "Alejandro Magno" está mal enfocado: una obsesión sobre los devaneos sexuales del conquistador, sobre-actuaciones al por mayor, una narración en off innecesaria y mucha misoginia que brotan de la bilis del director hacen que esta sea una pésima cinta.
Page 2 of 406