Alexander

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: November 24, 2004

6.0	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 214 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

TonyBAug 25, 2005

Though not nearly as bad as had been anticipated, the film is not nearly as good as it might have been. Its major asset is an awesome production design, with cinematography (when it's not pretentious) costumes and scoring right behind. Though not nearly as bad as had been anticipated, the film is not nearly as good as it might have been. Its major asset is an awesome production design, with cinematography (when it's not pretentious) costumes and scoring right behind. The acting is, for the most part, over the top, with Farrell, Jolie and Kilmer seeming to be in another film, but Hopkins and Plummer are fine. Alexander's worst flaw is that it is one of the worst edited major films to come down the pike in a long time; some sequences have no apparent connection to what precedes or follows them.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

asylumspadezNov 26, 2011

It wasnt a bad film but it was just so confusing where they were trying to go with this that it ruins the film completely. The script was pretty bad but the acting was great and the action was good as well.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

LordOFlibertYJan 9, 2012

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 toThe 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

shag00Sep 6, 2022

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 earlierThere 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoSep 1, 2018

As a historian, I believe that Alexander III of Macedonia (whom we know as Alexander the Great) was so essential for the course of human history that he achieved, by his own merit, a permanent place in the list of ten or fifteen most decisiveAs a historian, I believe that Alexander III of Macedonia (whom we know as Alexander the Great) was so essential for the course of human history that he achieved, by his own merit, a permanent place in the list of ten or fifteen most decisive personalities always. A very exclusive list of personalities who, for good or bad reasons, have forever changed our world's history. Personalities like Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Cleopatra, Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Galileo Galilei, Darwin, Napoleon, George Washington or Picasso... heroes or villains in an always subjective list, but it's impossible to think what the world would look like without them, isn't it? So it is with Alexander. But I'm not here to talk about this historical personality, just the movie. An intense epic that seeks to be faithful to the known facts of the life of this conquering, narcissistic, megalomaniac, homosexual and deeply complex king. This story begins at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) and follows, recounting childhood, youth and ascension to the throne through flashbacks.

Overall, I found the film interesting and enjoyable, even though it wasn't good. The script is historically accurate, at least in general. Of course there are exaggerated or buzzing scenes for dramatic purposes. The problem is that, even so, its a vague script and doesn't justify three and a half hours lenght. It would have been better if the post-production and editing work had cut about forty-five minutes. Another problem I felt was excessive grandeur. I know it's an epic movie, but it's possible to be epic without being presumptuous and this movie was a show of self-importance. This can be seen in the actors' theatrical and affected manners, a bunch of peacocks displaying their feathers all the time. This heroic spirit impregnated also Vangelis soundtrack, probably one of the worst he already made. I still felt difficulties with all those flashbacks. A narrative so loaded with advances and retreats seems more like a tango. They are useful, no one doubts, but sometimes it took a long time for me to realize that I was watching a flashback, and it makes everything more tiresome and confusing.

The film is loaded with great actors but none of them shone for lack of a competent script and director. Colin Farrell was boringly heroic and should have kept his hair dark because the real Alexander would NEVER have been blonde. The way this actor behaved was erratic and dialogues were theatrical and full of pompous sentences. Angelina Jolie is a casting error, she was too young for the character and seemed constantly younger than her own son. Val Kilmer was OK as Phillip, with a generous dose of make-up for making him older and scarred. Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Plummer were both well, but there wasn't much for them here. Jared Leto was terribly bad, and his effeminate character was already boring enough. Rosario Dawson, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, John Kavanagh and other actors were OK as supporting but had no individual brilliance.

On a technical level, the film is flawless. CGI is excellent and gives us some truly beautiful scenes, such Babylon or several battle scenes. Battles are spectacular and full of action, steroids, adrenaline and epic spirit. Cinematography is loaded with warm, intense yellow and red colors, and this sometimes tires our eyes a little, but it's beautiful. Costumes are very detailed and well made. Oliver Stone worked hard on these points and succeeded, but it was the bad script, the actors wooden performances, the erratic narrative and an unpleasant presumption that defeated this film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

geewahApr 25, 2021

At 3 hours this talk-a-thon is one tedious slog.
Oliver Stone's ambitious movie stumbles in it's dialogue, pacing and casting.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews