Alexander

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. (13/01/2005)

It is not a flawless film, but Stone's effort to break away from the boring descriptive narrative mode by attempting a thoughtful probe into Alexander's soul, to approach his Oedipus complex with his mother (a great Angelina Jolie), to show his desire to discover and overcome the glories of the ancient heroes of old, to bring closer his dream of uniting the peoples of the then known world under the influence of ancient learning, all while being misunderstood by those closest to him, is very appealing. Alexander is no boring boilerplate narrative with "good guys" and "bad guys" and it is free from screenwriting the shallowness and pseudo-historical insight of Gladiator or Troy. Sure, the film has its weak spots, and they are not few, for example, the bed scene with Roxana, however effective, is completely unnecessary for the development of the plot; or the scene of Alexander's taming of Bucephalos has quite a lot of room, while an event of such fundamental symbolic significance as the cutting of the Gordian knot is not even mentioned by Stone. Despite all that, the three hours passed like water and I wasn't bored for a moment. Alexander is a thought-provoking historical film, wrapped in an attractive package in the form of spectacular production design. The negative critical response from the overseas journalistic community is not at all surprising to me, given Stone's tarnished reputation as a man labeled an enemy and pariah of America. Praising Stone's films just isn't in vogue lately, and a certain effect of "sheepishness" certainly plays a role. (31/01/2005)

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. (14/01/2005)

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. (21/06/2007)

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%. (29/08/2019)