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 <more>
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.
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 <more>
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.
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>
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?
Hard to digest for hoi polloi, but true to history and Greek epic and tragedy (by WChewIII)
Oliver Stone consulted Robin Lane Foxe, Oxford historian and the premier Alexander expert, before making this film. It shows. The film certainly ranks as one of the closest-to-the-real-story Hollywood historical mega-films. To viewers with any background in Aristotelian drama and the Greek epic, it will immediately become clear that Stone has tried hard to emulate the epic form while integrating the culture of the Greek tragedy into his film. There is plenty of fear and pity here and there are plenty of tragic elements. The aging Ptolemy as narrator even takes on some of the functions of the <more>
chorus/choir. Tragic destiny in a larger-than-life man plagued by doubts over his own decisions, his consuming passions, is the universal here; the gripping story of Alexander the historical incidental, as it were. Not surprisingly, characterization and character interaction must loom large. Which explains the numerous and lengthy monologues and dialogues. Bravo, Mr Stone. Those who can appreciate will. But I fear that hoi polloi will not appreciate. They will simply fail to understand. Postscript: If there were any episodes in Alexander's life I missed and would have liked included at the risk of making this film even longer it would have been the Gordian Knot and the Oasis of Siwa.
I liked this movie a lot. In fact I am still thinking about it after watching it for the second time last night. So, in analyzing why I really liked this movie that all the critics seems to be bashing I've come to these conclusions:The acting was spot-on. Colin Farrell did a good job. He looked great! He is one sexy man with a sexy voice. He is my new favorite male actor. He should at least get an Oscar nomination. I was impressed with his skills as an actor. He portrayed a man of history that accomplished many feats. Needless to say, I'm convinced Alexander was a conflicted <more>
macedonian. Angelina Jolie was gorgeous in this movie. She did a good job despite the strange slavic sounding accent. I would like to see her in a more villainous role. Mr. Kilmer had an interesting role that he did well in. He did a good job portraying a 3 dimensional character.I caught all the symbolism the second time around and appreciated the angles in which we saw the battle scenes, the lighting variances, etc. I was impressed with Babylon. The scenery in Babylon has shifted my view of wicked biblical Babylon from dirty, haggard, open space image to splendid sprawling city with tall buildings, which made more sense when the Bible always referred to Babylon as a city. The eye candy was splendid. The array of accents used by Alexander's generals, mom, dad, wife was interesting to hear but then that also makes sense since everyone represented more than one race. Perhaps it is far fetched to hear all the macedons and greeks sounding UK, but does that mean they couldn't find enough arabs or greeks to play critical roles? Probably yeah. I don't understand all the bad reviews this movie is getting. Oliver Stone's perception and representation of Alexander as the man and understanding the horrible, cruel and wonderful things he did is interesting, intelligent - something I can relate to. Boycott critics. Watch for yourself. I give this movie 3 out of 3 stars. I'll probably buy it on DVD.
Don't let the critics keep you from seeing it! (by videoclerk)
It definitely deserves to be seen on the big screen. While there have been a lot of harsh reviews of this movie, it is more than worth the price of admission. This is far from a perfect film. But what a fantastic story. The movie is like 2hours and 50 minutes long, and yeah probably 15 of thost minutes sucked. The opening and the closing are boring. Anthony Hopkins narrating a history story special. I didn't know that much about Alexander the Great. Just what I remembered from school millions of years ago. I also didn't care. I think the movie tells a great story all on it's own. <more>
I understood enough about what was going on. This is NOT a history channel biography of Alexander the Great, but rather an artistic telling of a historic story. I just hate to see it get so ripped apart. 60,000,000,000 people loved the incredibles. that's great, but this movie is so much more. Please go see this film, because flaws and all it was highly entertaining.
Alexander proves too smart for dumb American critics (by cliveowensucks)
The US reviews have been really terrible and the IMDb user rating is lower than KING ARTHUR, so I'm wondering if Europe has got a different cut, because the film I saw was excellent. Problems, yes, like Anthony Hopkins and Val Kilmer hamming away and Angeline doing a very odd accent. Farrell's not bad even though he doesn't have enough small moments to work with to shade the role: after Clive Owen's disgracefully bad performance in KING ARTHUR it's amazing that it's Farrell the critics are laughing at.You don't get involved in the characters as much as you should, <more>
but its an amazing flick, a real movie. It feels like it's been done for real not by a computer by someone as mad and vainglorious as Alexander himself. Not a total success, but the 80% that hits the target is really intelligent and ambitious and is worth more than a lot of pictures that work better, if you know what I mean. I think the reason Hollywood is so dumbed down now is when someone tries to do something different on a big scale like Alexander, HEAVEN'S GATE, REDS, ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, THE RIGHT STUFF or films like that is that the American critics who are always complaining about dumb audiences and filmmakers can't get them and tear them a new *beep*hole killing them off at the box-office. Certainly seems to be the case with Alexander. Not the most successful flick I've seen this year but easily one of the best.
I believe this beautiful, exotic film will become a collectible much like "Satyricon." (by andros12)
This film presents an intense psychological investigation of the character of Alexander of Macedon. It is thoroughly immersed in the moral, political and philosophical climate of Grecian antiquity, In many ways it bears somewhat of a resemblance to Fellini's "Satyricon" of thirty-five years earlier. There is the similar re-appearance of the Cyclops-like characters, the shrew-like "luna" characters with their sensual but corresponding dark sides, a "token" love garden, the tinted filter/lens effect on specific scenes and the stunning "pagan" beauty <more>
evident in the set design. It also features male leads who share a code of honour and love between them. A love which in its "highest" spiritual form was representative as a means of transcendent personal growth and valor; ideas passed down from Plato to Aristotle. Chronological occurrences of Alexander's campaigns and political successes take a back seat as a result, disappointing many more intent on an all-inclusive rendering from this perspective. The variety of spoken accents form a type of "primordial soup" much like Fellini used in "Satyricon" as well; a curiosity thought by some to be symbolic of Jung and his theories of a "collective unconscious" wherein all language is simply an outward babbling to personify the universally shared life experience of all people. There were some cosmetic concerns, most notably Alexander's badly tinted hair and eyebrows. The excessive black eyeliner worn by Hephaestion is a look that does appear periodically on vases and frescoes. However, underneath all of the controversy lies the character of a deeply passionate man with his seemingly many strengths and weaknesses, attempting to grow and to love without limitation in accordance with his own perspective and level of understanding. Kudos to Colin for possessing the maturity and depth to present Alexander's complex personality and feelings with so much intensity and dignity.
I don't know why a lot of people against this movie. I'm surprise when saw its rating is 5.5. It's better than King Arthur, which rating is 5.9, 100 times. How about Troy? Alexander has a great battle. Troy's battle is just a big CG scene look like we watch the Troy animation . Of course, Alexander is not great as I hope and u too, right? . I really disappoint with Ptomely Anthony Hopkins , who talks too much, talk and talk and talk, seem like Oliver Stone afraid that the audiences can't understand what he wants to show. But, Colin Farrell is great. He shows a weak side <more>
of Alexander so well and heroic side also. Maybe, when making a movie about a great hero, and that hero has weakness, like homosexual, cry so much and love so much, people think "Man, it's suck". I don't know. I think this movie is great. I know more about a life of someone who conquered the world. Someone loved and died for love. Someone that lonely...In the end, when Alexander died, his last vision haunted me. When i come back home, i still saw what he saw... This epic is the best epic of this year, to me!