|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 244)
|
|
 |
Wasn't as bad as I had heard, some parts were interesting... but it was long and a bit bland for the most part. Not Stone's best work but a rental at least.
5/10
20.10.2008 -
flickdude75@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Too long, boring and extremely historically inaccurate! Babylon did belong to the Persian Empire for almost 300 years out of almost 3000 years of it's life, BUT... the capital of Persia at the time of Alexander was Persepolis which Alexander went to directly from Macedonia and set fire on (and did not reside in) Darious iii was a King of the Achaemenid dynasty and therefore a Zoroastrian who had only one wife, ruled as a queen (not a harem of half naked wives dancing to modern Arabic music!) Polygamy entered Iran after Islam while the story happens 330 years before the birth of Christ and 950 years before the birth of Muhammad! There was no desert on the way from Macedonia to Persepolis or even on his way to India. Although Alexander DID die in Babylon (which again was NOT the capital of Persia, but a colony) and it is also discussed that he had also had a male lover (an adolescent boy) At least the makers were decent enough to admit that they did not do much historical research for the movie, and tried to focus on the dramatic side of it. Besides, what was with the accents?!!!
3/10
9.8.2008 -
shiva,kashi@ - age: 26-35
The movie was very good and a great tribute to the worlds greatist conqorer. Unfortunatly anyone with a simple mind or a weak mind would dislike this movie ( no offence to the above.
8/10
13.3.2008 -
thegodzillaking@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
To be perfectly honest my favortie historical character is Alexander the Great and that for many reasons. That is why I could be biased when giving this rating because I could not, not like this movie. It actually is my favorite ever since I saw it. Oliver Stone did something amazing and that is to show that in a world filled with discrimination where you have slaves and where each race think they are more and better than the other... here is Alexander who even to quote him "... what makes you so much better than them casander..." wanted to unify them, make them all get along like a big family. Although historically it did happen like that. It was enjoyable. I did not expect to see so much gay stuff, but I guess there was a reason for it so I still try to figure it out, but I guess time will tell. I definitely recommend it, but don't waste your time unless you are going to watch. One of the all time best, that was, simply misunderstood. Daniel. G.
10/10
13.9.2007 -
daniel1812@ - age: 18-25
This movie wasn't the worst I've ever seen, but WOW did they do a horrible job. If you compare this to Troy, the acting is unbelievably bad!! How could they cast such a loser like Colin Farrell? He isn't manly enough to play this part for one. And ALL movie I couldn't stop staring at his dye job, because they didn't even lighten his eyebrows to match it and make it look more natural. Do you think they bleached their hair back then!?! This movie had SO MUCH potential and it flopped.
5/10
18.6.2007 -
miss__brittany@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Colin Farrel you were Great! I am Greek... but does it take a Greek to appreciate this movie? Alexander the Great is not a myth... he is a living legend that will never be repeated. At 21 he set out to conquer the world and he would have, had he not been cut-off short of his life so prematurely. With an army of 40, 000 he defeated "Darius" and his 250, 000 men! It takes more than a man to accomplish this, especially in those times without amunition, tanks or planes! 'Someone' mentioned that Colin Farell was not suitable for the role and that a more mature actor should have been used for the role. WHY? What was wrong with Colin? We are not simply discussing 'a movie' we are referring to HISTORY and whoever doesn't like history or doesn't know a thing about what the film he's about to see is about, should simply not go and see it! The life of Alexander undoubtedly could not be covered in 3 hrs, but Oliver Stone managed to include the most part of what reflected Alexander's life; bravery, wittyness, a great general, a great king, strength, tyrancy, egotistsm, ambitiousness, and even his sensitivity and fears. The battles were profound especially that at Gaugamela... the dust and the aerial view of Alexander's strategic fuse was remarkable. However, I do believe that the events at Thebes and the burning of Persepolis are two very important bookmarks in Alexander's conquests that should never have been left out, as they are accounted for some of his later actions. I agree on the views of "carthous" (in this streamline of reviews) that "Alexander was not only made Great on account of his military conquests alone", there was a great deal more in this heroic man than anyone can imagine! What a shame he was deprived of the fullfilment of this vision!
9/10
7.8.2006 -
soulmate@ - age: 36-49
Missed t he threater seen it on dvd at home. One thing was why why why did you spilit this movies at two dvd. Dvd is suposed to be bettter than vhs no spiting of movies please it is like this movie is old and could not have do or to be bother with the dvd purchacers just like the gang of new york dvd. It is dvd not vhs if you do not know what you are doing hire a grade school student to get the dvd movies on one, one, one dvd. Exta feture on a second is good although I may watch the special feature only once maybe, not all that interesting as the movie that I would becide get at the video store and take home. I never think wow look at all the feature, I would just like to see the movie in one par not two.
5/10
14.1.2006 -
cecilchestnut@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
A movie about power, integrity, greed, and betryale, the story line at times moves a little to slowly, but the battle scenes make up for it with gut wrenching violence leaveing you hungry for more, Troy was much better however.
7/10
7.9.2005 -
cfh_trendkill@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This movie was so boring I left in the middle of it.
2/10
31.8.2005 -
soccerstar005@ - age: 18-25
Big budget movie without much substance... a good rental.
6/10
19.8.2005 -
sikandar_aftab@ - age: 18-25
As a history buff and I am interested in Alexander the Great. So, good to see the story make it to the big screen. Yeah, lots of inaccuracies, but thatÂ’s common for Hollywood to rewrite history. I found the war scenes especially well done. They recreate the confusion and hard to view action that brings you closer to what itÂ’s like as a foot soldier in the middle of the battle.
9/10
19.5.2005 -
cliffa@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I loved the movie. There were a few quirks here and there, but they served a greater purpose. If anyone actually spent the time to look him up, they'd realize that Alexander was everything and more than what the movie portrayed his as. Also, the title, "Alexander" did not mean "Alexander the Great." This movie was about Alexander as a person, with "the Great" being an added subtext.
10/10
15.5.2005 -
charsama@ - age: 13-17
I am a professor in Classics and I loved Troy. Yes, because it changes the myth but shows respect towards Homer's scenery and atmosphere. I expected something like that from Stone's movie. But it was a terrible disappointment. Everything is wrong: Alex's characterization, the horrible décor, the annoying attempt to psychoanalyze the great conqueror... and so on. And besides, the historical facts are reduced to only a small part of all what Alex really did in his fascinating life. If you don't know anythimg of Alexander's history, you can give the movie a glance. If you have an idea of what Alexander really was, avoid the movie.
3/10
5.3.2005 -
nicola1969@ - age: 36-49
Of course, no one could fully succeed in pulling off a film about Alexander the Great. He is too distant, the classical world too remote, his achievement stunning to bring it all together into a dramatic whole. This aside Oliver Stone has done a good job with forgiveable flaws. Above all it got away mostly from Hollywood formula. This is really an European film. Character development is subordinate to heroic legend. In any case who could get into the mind of an ancient?
7/10
9.2.2005 -
pebharcourt@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I see many reviewers glorify the movie as an accurate life portrayal... Do your research and you'll find Alexander is not such a tragic hero that's sooo misunderstood. Movie doesn't show Alexander at 16 ruthlessly crushing a local rebellion on King Dad's behalf. Nor in the impressive first battle does it show the culmination where thousands of greek mercenaries serving with the Persians are cold-bloodedly near anhillated... after victory! Nor strangely does it show the masterful siege victories at Tyre and Gaza---why, because he slaughtered tens of thousands of male civilians/prisoners in the aftermath and took away women and children as slaves... wouldn't fit the tragic hero image well. Typically it exemplifies how a culture glosses over their 'heroes' darker deeds ( like Napoleon's massacre of 3000 arab prisoners in Egypt, or Churchill's reaction to V1 bombings of London with an initial proposal to retaliate on German cities with poison gas! ) I'll stick with Troy as the better of the movies, at least Achilles though 'likeable' was shown as a thug even if nothing else much was accurate about that tale. The worst part of Alexander (besides the abundance of gaellic accents) was the Hopkins/Ptolemy dictation flashbacks/forwards/sideways ---how annoying!.. and the scrollboy/secretary following Ptolemy about, fiendeshly scribbling shorthand with qu'ill on papyrus was acting worthy of a B-movie--- quite laughable. Movie was awful... and I suggest to all feeling sorry for Alexander being misunderstood, to take in a dose of balance too and read up on what wasn't so nice while spreading his Glory and idol-Achilles like fame across the continents. One thing you can say about Troy is that it made its money back at least. Alexander covered Farrell's salary for the role-just about.
2/10
8.2.2005 -
arzac101@ - age: 36-49
The rating says it all "Worst ever, avoid at all costs". I never say this about any movie, but it was just awful - left out all the interesting bits and manipulated the rest beyond recognition. If you are a classicist, you'll have a heart attack. Three hours of my life I will NEVER get back. The only positive thing I can say about it was tat Jared Leto was quite impressive as Hephaestion.
1/10
8.2.2005 -
wildchild@ - age: 18-25
[...] Quite honestly I sat there staring at my watch and hoping that the power would go out and we could leave. If you do decide to see this movie bring a gameboy or something to that nature so you can keep yourself occupied after the first 5 minutes. What a waste of my time..
2/10
7.2.2005 -
alexcardo301@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Blah blah blah... talking and talking and talking... uninteresting... Alexander [...] he just frenched his mother... how ordinary... blah blah blah... by the time it got to the action scenes I was sleeping... blah blah blah... Anthony Hopkins blah blah blah...
4/10
3.2.2005 -
troy_k_@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
It's a good story... it always keeps moving, plenty of action... many culture to discover in the movie... [...]
8/10
30.1.2005 -
jimmy_waii@ - age: 18-25
Well it's good, but they complicate things... um... I think that this movie could be a little bit more clear and that they shoudln't have made it so long... there could be a few improvement.
6/10
30.1.2005 -
azn_colap@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
It could of been better. It's good to see once. Not much action, more talking.
6/10
27.1.2005 -
isabelle_derry@ - age: 18-25
Well they did manage to sqeeze in one or two war scences, but hardly worth it.
2/10
26.1.2005 -
nial_mccracken@ - age: 18-25
I am an University Professor in Classics. It is not that important... but maybe it is surprising that I liked The Gladiator and literally LOVED Troy. I don'care if Petersen and Benioff changed the story, there were good reasons to do so. But Alexander is really an offence to Classical Culture. Everything is misunderstood and misguised. Alexander's horse watching the elephant is pitiful, and the battle scenery turning to red is an insult to my intelligence. Bad acting, horrible production design, crippled and boring drama and dialogues.
1/10
24.1.2005 -
leontion@ - age: 36-49
Hello, im a generous benofactor, I decided not to give it a 1 because I didnt leave the theater but there were so many points when the movie could have just stopped there and it would have been alright, instead it gets dragged out and it was a bloody shamble.
2/10
24.1.2005 -
flyingalive2000@ - age: 18-25
As I heard the movie had pretty bad reviews, I lowered my expectations considerably before watching, but I still wanted to see what the all the fuss was about and why it was so bad. It wasn't THAT bad, but I can see why many probably didn't like it!
6/10
23.1.2005 -
angela_ign@ - age: 18-25
A very well made movie that has all our religious leaders up in uproar. Historically researched and very well made with a strange dynamic between the characters. Pre Christian rituals and customs offended some people in the theatre but I found it to be the best movie of 2004.
10/10
22.1.2005 -
t@ - age: 26-35
This is a great movie, the actors are all WOW!!! You don't have to miss any second of the movie or you will lost all the story.
9/10
17.1.2005 -
rle_1981@ - age: 18-25
I saw Alexander last Sunday and I found it quite good. Never you will find a movie that respects the historical reality, the facts, because film-makers often want to make powerful movie with blood and gigantic scenes. But to me, Alexander is one of the best if you stick to History because it does not tell a fictitious story using History, and changing it like Gladiator. When you see it, you can say, "well now I know some things about History", and very few "Historical" movies can do that effect to you. Some people says : "We don't see enough battles, that's a shame, Alexander was a General, not a lover". That's not true, Alexander was a dreamer. War was for him the way he could express his feelings, not killing ennemies, but expanding his ideas and creating a new world. He was a great man and this movie shows it very well.
10/10
11.1.2005 -
funnydescendent@ - age: 18-25
Terrible casting. No explanation of what moved Alexander. Battles as blurs: military genius of Alexander not shown.
3/10
11.1.2005 -
dave_munoz@ - age: 50+
Liked the relationships they portrayed between the men. Much more realastic then Troy.
7/10
9.1.2005 -
t155y@ - age: 18-25
LET'S BE HONEST, this movie could have been much better if Oliver Stone had presented a scenario that was more historically objective and had understood the difference between male friendship and homosexual attraction! His personal reinterpretation of greek history [...] Too bad for Colin Farrel and Angelina Jolie who deserved much better. Some scenes were breathtaking but some, like the trip to India was disappointing. I think Oliver Stone is really getting old!
6/10
6.1.2005 -
jaclar@ - age: 50+
Totally amazingly wickedly awesomely, funky chicken style cool. Go see it... Angelina Jolie makes the movie that much [...] good.
10/10
5.1.2005 -
dumplinggirl4ever@ - age: 18-25
Magnificent and powerful.
10/10
4.1.2005 -
sopgomez2001@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This is truly a masterpiece. A man who made Nixon, J. F. K., Platoon, The Doors, also showed a pure humanity and glory of one more special character-Alexander. I can't believe those critics. Hey, people - too much homosexual scenes? I mean, the guy lived in ancient times when there was nothing wrong in expressing our feelings to both men and women. The film shows that well. Too long? Maybe in some parts but it still can be watched if you understand it. The real point here is how Aleksander was influenced by his parents and close friends, how he desperately wanted to accomplish something that his father could only dream of. Maybe there are only 2 battle scenes, but this is sufficient because Aleksander's motives are still there, you can experience them yourself. So, the film is not trying to be an onscreen bloodbath, but only a director's answer to: why Alexander was Aleksander the Great? When you've seen the film, you know it's not because he had bigger sword or because he managed to outsmart his enemies and conquer the world. It's because he was a man with all his vices and virtues, a man who cried, killed, walked tall, a noble man, ambitious man, selfish man... Rambo? NO! [...] Alexander will simply live forever.
9/10
29.12.2004 -
bulovic@ - age: 18-25
When me and my friends decided to go see it, one of them said it looked lame, however during the trailers it looked pretty good so we went anyway. I have never been so wrong. This movie is lame, annoying, and boring. It's bassically just a bunch of generals and a king sitting around and talking. That being said it's not an action movie and it's not a drama (as there was nothing to be dramatic about), and it's deffinately not a comedy. That leaves this movie in the only other category left, SUCKY! As well our wonderfully horrible Canadian rating system, couldn't protect younger children from anything, as this film was only written A14, when it had content equivalent of a pornographic movie. After that me and my friends just left the theatre, it was a very lame, bad, and tasteless movie. In fact the only reason why I am writing this is because I feel no one else should have to sit through or spend money on such a bad movie.
1/10
28.12.2004 -
giga_crash@ - age: 13-17
I think they wanted to be like king arthur but not even close! An alright movie. A bit long with some boring parts in it. Alright to watch to pass the time!
6/10
27.12.2004 -
shaz4love@ - age: 18-25
Well, I would like to say something When sanley Kubrick's space odessy 2001 released, after 10 years people like me and you guys found it a masterpiece, and you dare now to say such a thing and try to vote in such nasty words on this great picture You don't know yet the vision of the movie so you have to wait 10 years to vote again when your personality being more immature and for the one who talk about the effects... at last I saw a battle scenes that breaks the legend of peter Jackson (return of the king) 4-10 shots good directed = 100 shot crowded direction.
10/10
26.12.2004 -
marwan,yassen@ - age: 26-35
This movie is just amazing. Some people hated the movie because alexandre(Colin Farrell)was a bi_sexual... I have one thing to say to them.."you want to know the story of alexandre the great, know it like it is! " Some people did not appreciate this movie because it contained violence, nudity and sexuality The acting was A+ the Visuals we're A+ too... Oliver stone did an outsanding job. The acters as well as Oliver showed you along the movie how Alexandre the great was an overachiever... he had a cruel and selfish heart... that may seem... but they also show you how his heart was tendre, sentimental and loving. I give you one piece of advice... WATCH THIS MOVIE... it might be long... but it is wroth it... ! [...]
10/10
25.12.2004 -
baby_devil002@ - age: 13-17
[...] this movie was way too long.
2/10
25.12.2004 -
wolflovercdv@ - age: 13-17
The story of Alexander is told better by my grade 3 greek school teacher. This movie was frustratingly horrible, and a poor representation of one of the most important historic figures in ancient Greek history. The accents were also ridiculous and the movie could have done without them. Troy was a million times better!
1/10
24.12.2004 -
eurodisney2002@ - age: 18-25
Too long, the battle scenes are badly done [...] Some beautiful landscapes but all in all I recommend you wait until your friend rents it out on video or better yet when it comes on television.
2/10
22.12.2004 -
drd_03@ - age: 26-35
Oliver Stone could have made a film about Alexander, his strengths and weaknesses (he had plenty of both), his accomplshments and his character as a person and still remain true to historical record and do justice to both Alexander and his times. Instead, he decided to trivialize the whole thing and to focus on Alexander's homosexuality (unfounded by facts but true to a sick Hollywood subculture) while presenting Philip as a complete barbarian out of control. Historical responsibility gets a score of 0/10 and even as entertainment it barely deserves a 2/10.
2/10
21.12.2004 -
infidel77@ - age: 50+
Do not see this movie, even if it is forcibly brought upon you. The dialogue is childish and the acting is overdone. Oliver Stone has dropped the ball. [...]
4/10
21.12.2004 -
alison@ - age: 18-25
After watching this movie, I wonder why Alexander was called GREAT! [...] The story is also not realistic, I dont know where they based the movie from.
3/10
18.12.2004 -
phoebi75@ - age: 26-35
If you have some time to kill... a lot of time... maybe this one... if everything else is gone...
5/10
16.12.2004 -
ltnovak2000@ - age: 50+
This movie depicts Alexanders life very well. You really get a feeling of the time he lived in. Good acting well. The bisexual overtones were disturbing, but Oliver Stone had the good sence not going overboard with such disgusting filth so most kids could see it. Over all well done.
9/10
15.12.2004 -
tarekrifaat@ - age: 26-35
This had so much hype but it was not great nor accurate.
5/10
15.12.2004 -
rzatser@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
[...] Not enough Battle scene... too bad Stone spend way too much time on Alexander's behaviour back then... it was accepted back then to be married and have affairs with other of the same sex [...]! The real thing here shouldv't been about is genius in Battle, espacially when he and a small portion of is Elite army (5000 foot soldiers with their famous Phalanges plus 4000 Horse Cavaliers)managed to cross a large body river in only ONE NIGHT ALONE, a task that even modern engineers can't figure out how He did it!? Then the next morning, face the charge of over two hundreds War Elephants back by 30, 000 indian warriors and 6000 Indian Cavaliers... get wounded and finaly after a bloody carnage fight that lasted more than 8 hours, win over King Poros (and is Elephants)of an eastern Indian province... give this same defeated King is Kingdom back in exchange for is support allied against other ruthless Indian King from other province of India! Victorious with wisdom! Bravo Alexander, Boo to you Oliver Stone!
6/10
14.12.2004 -
esher45@ - age: 36-49
I saw this movie for free, but I still want my money back. Simply put, it started slow, then it ended. People who say that it is good because of historic value, etc. Are forgetting why movies are created - for entertainment value. Some of the most intense moments ended up being hilarious, not by design, but because they were awkward or poorly done. The movie had one redeeming quality - Rosario Dawson. Yeah, I said it. And frankly, there wasn't enough of her to make up for those 3 hours of my life that I can never have back.
3/10
14.12.2004 -
abogutz@ - age: 18-25
I would have removed about 1/2 hr to the movie. Even that the movie tries to give you the complete Alexander campaings, some could have been omitted..
6/10
14.12.2004 -
cgarzak@ - age: 36-49
|
