Alexander

We live in a strange world when even many serious periodicals do not forget to mention in the first lines of their review of Alexander that the most scandalous facts of the film are two things: Colin Farrell showing his bare behind and yes, his character is bisexual. How surprised I was when this tabloidization fell on infertile ground and the film turned out to be a beautiful and contemplative spectacle. There is not a hint of scandal in the relationship with Hephaestion; on the contrary, it is an honest relationship and I am sorry that contemporary society, behind its supposedly tolerant face, hides so much mockery. I could understand complaints that Oliver Stone is no longer what he used to be, but here it is more about the fact that he no longer wants to provoke or poke at the political and social hornet's nest at all costs. He made a historical film according to his own standards and he has succeeded in my eyes. He let the story and the emotions prevail over the visual aspect, giving enough space to the intense love triangle and especially the fateful relationship with the mother. Moreover, he managed to write a meandering, yet excellently escalating story, the climax of which brought me to my knees. Paradoxically, this film, which brought an end to historical epics in Hollywood, belongs among the excellent ones. (06/21/2007)

I’m not going to mince words, I’ve never been a fan of Stone’s film (the only one that I’ve liked is Any Given Sunday). As a historical account of the life of the greatest warlord in history, whose journey was not only filled with glory, victories and friendship, but also with a lot of intrigue and hatred, this film works really well in places. The battle scenes are worth the price, likewise the music, but watching it is still terribly tiring and not everyone can stand it. Instead of entertaining the viewer, Stone gives them a thorough history lesson and introduces them in detail to all the characters. This may not be to the liking of even someone who has been a history buff all his life, let alone an ordinary fan who goes to the cinema primarily to be entertained, as in the case of Petersen's Troy. As I’ve said, it wasn’t bad, I watched it without any problems and got an idea of what Alexander was like, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again. (02/02/2012)

A massive disappointment. Even Oliver Stone, someone who has created incredible masterpieces in his career, managed to produce something I didn’t like. With Alexander, I was expecting a grand, adventurous piece full of intense and realistic battles, an exploration of his personal life and those closest to him, and emotional moments. Well, the film didn’t quite deliver those things. Instead, I got a psychological narrative about his transformation into a ruler, with each of his subsequent actions leaving me baffled. Colin Farrell portrayed him in a very understated way; I didn’t buy into his performance and mostly found him to be an arrogant brat. Kilmer was probably the most surprising; although he wasn’t on screen much, he made the most of his time and delivered a commendable performance. Overall, the digital effects were glaringly obvious, and I immediately recognized that nothing was real. The costumes were great, but characters were always moving or standing in front of a green screen, which was very distracting. The battles were edited so chaotically that it was definitely displeasing (the only somewhat decent battle was at the end with the elephants, which is a sad fact). Such a waste of potential. Troy was a hundred times better. I give it 54%. (08/29/2019)

With the passage of time and after a second viewing, I must say that it is truly amazing. There is a difference between seeing it in a packed cinema with tons of popcorn everywhere and seeing it in a home theater, in a calm and pleasant setting. The production design is stunning and the battle at Gaugamela is truly an awesome spectacle. Additionally, the characters' psychology is excellent and they had a very unconventional approach to the concept of epic historical blockbuster; it’s different, original and good. (01/14/2005)

A bittersweet three-hour history lesson. Without a muscular and masculine historical hero, without action and, in the first two hours, without emotions or clear motivations for the characters’ actions (everything changes in a flashback). But even the historical atmosphere that so pleasantly radiated from the simplistic Troy has been replaced here with a bisexual erotic sultriness reminiscent of the “famous” Caligula. I appreciate the fact that Oliver Stone didn’t simplify anything and is faithful to history. As a psychological profile of a great conqueror with an aching soul, Alexander is a success. However, I expect something more from a three-hour epic. And I mainly don’t understand the investors, or rather how they could invest $150 million in a film based on a screenplay that utterly defies commercial formulas. (01/13/2005)