A terrible movie about nothing.
There are films such as Gladiator and Braveheart, when watching which, you are imbued with the spirit of the times and experience the characters. And there is Alexander, in which you do not care about absolutely everything.
Let's start with the actors.
The cast is powerful: Farrell, Kilmer, Jolie, Hopkins and others. Kilmer was pleased, Hopkins is consistently good, although he has nothing to play here. Jolie and Farrell have questions. It is not clear what characters they wanted to portray. I love Farrell, but you don't believe him here. The character changes from scene to scene. Jolie's not bad, but she's inconclusive. Plus, she hasn’t aged a year for the film. As she was under 30 at the beginning, when Alexander was just born, so she remained under 30 when Alexander died.
Screenplay.
This is the main stumbling block. It felt like he was writing on his knee. There are a lot of long conversations in the film that are here just to make them happen. Events change each other and it doesn’t matter what happened in the previous scene. Does it end badly? I don’t care if the next scene is perfect. A silent horror, not a script.
Operating work.
I want to talk about the operator separately. In general, there are beautiful shots in the film, and you can see that they can shoot. But as soon as it comes to the battle scenes - that's it, the nightmare begins. It is not clear who is fighting with whom, and what is happening in the frame. I want to highlight the battle in India. I don't know who invented the blood flower. But it was just inconspicuous. I just wanted it to end sooner.
To summarize:
Oliver Stone's extremely weak work. Most likely, he wanted to show the ambiguity of the person of Alexander the Great, but on the output we have a film about nothing.
3 out of 10
Citizen Alexander? It is very difficult to say what this film is about. Of course, about the life path of the great conqueror. But Alexander is not shown as a conqueror, nor a strategist, nor a ruler touched by his greatness, nor a tyrant of the world ... in general. One listing of biography episodes is not enough. Many critical moments from the biography are completely missed. For example, it would be essential to show how a victorious army died out on its way home. So what did the director want to tell us? Even Tinto Brass's Caligula (1979) is a more intelligible film. In it the epigraph reveals the concept: “What is useful to a person if he acquires the whole world, and hurts his soul.” In "Alexander" instead of the conqueror we see some troubled person, always finding out relations with relatives and friends. This is probably the director’s vision. Alexander, they say, was seemingly successful, fought, won, became rich ... but forgot about loved ones, and as a result, he did not have a normal family, and quarreled with friends and killed them. If this is the director’s idea, then “Alexander” turns out to be closer not to the classic peplums, but to “Citizen Kane”, which, of course, is original, but strange. Perhaps the reason for Alexander’s slurring is that for Stone, the Macedonian film was a blue dream. It often happens that because of love in the project, it is difficult for the director to look at the film through the eyes of the viewer and understand whether the movie is interesting or not. The Creator is interested from the very beginning. The movie failed at the box office. Obviously, the audience expected large-scale battle scenes, and got some horsemen galloping in the dust. But the reason for the failure is mainly the length of the film and the lack of an advertising campaign, as evidenced by the endless sales of the film on media. Eventually, the film found its audience. Were the historical picture traditionally for historical inaccuracies, for the cute Farrell and Jolie. But remember that Stone wanted to see other actors in the film. Instead of Jolie, Zeta-Jones was supposed to play, and then Alexander’s mother would have been older. Farrell broke his leg during filming and, instead of prancing on a horse, turned into a sitting commander. But most of all, the film got because of one detail. And the opinions of both our and overseas viewers this time coincided. But if in other countries the criticality has come to naught, then we continue to criticize “Alexander” from the position of “why show such a thing”. Obviously, the development of public consciousness in our country has stopped at the stage: it is not necessary to imprison for this, of course, but it must be hidden and hidden in every possible way. The position is clearly hypocritical. One might ask a counter-question: why show Napoleon how many wives and mistresses he had? He's not known for his connections to women. However, no one is protesting the image of the personal life of the ruler, unless it is a question of... Moreover, the criticism of "Alexander" is still hypocritical, as the director was reproached for lack of historicity. “Give us what history has been like... except for one moment, it’s not necessary.” On the other hand, I do not share the opinion that the unusual sexual preferences of historical figures should be emphasized and disclosed in the entire format. That approach is equally preposterous. "Alexander" can be seen, the picture is mostly beautiful, the budget allowed it. But to see on the screen some ancient citizen Kane is not interesting.
Alexander Oliver Stone is different from other directors. First of all, other American directors take a different view of the world. He has no hurrah-patriotism. He views the same war in terms of the personal tragedy of the people in the film Platoon. We see the same thing in Alexander.
It is logical that Alexander, as a film, is not inferior to the vaunted Troy or Gladiator, but was less popular because of the longer scenes, because of the large pauses in these battle scenes and because of the fewer action scenes. Someone could even scare off the bisexual arc of the film, but in my opinion, it only reveals Alexander better.
This is a very bright film with bright dialogue, which is not boring to watch. The film sweeps through the fate of Alexander the Great and each episode of this fate leaves an imprint on Alexander, each episode tells us about his relationships with other people and deepens them.
The cast is the strongest.
I think it's Colin Farrell's best role. Here he is brave and kind and inspired. However, it can be hot-tempered, unbalanced. My curved syllable can't convey that, but the palette of emotions and the actor's performance are at the highest level. The secondary cast is also at a high level, which is worth one role of Jolie, Hoppkins or Jared Leto. Bravo.
I disagree with most people about battle. They are very naturalistic, shown in great detail, but not overloaded. He fought the Persians in the desert, before fighting the elephants in India. The incredible beauty of Babylon. What other movie do you see that in? A real epic about Alexander. It is hard to say whether modern directors could fit as much in one film as Oliver Stone.
9 out of 10
A homosexual aftertaste, a double impression (mostly disappointment) of the Great, a lot of intrigue and conspiracies, pools of blood, it was more like a pop comic... In short, now, after almost 20 years from the date of the premiere, it became finally clear to me why the film about the Great and legendary name I rarely show on TV, and contemporaries and film fans rarely remember about it, what not to say about ' Gladiator' and ' Braveheart'...
.. . The main characters of these two films are real heroes. Real men. Men with whom nature created them and tempered their being. Alexander named after Oliver Stone, this effeminate young man, who often hysterics, communicates with handsome young men, does not honor traditions, arrogant, selfish and vain, in short, ' Hollywood people' did everything possible and impossible to smear and incinerate the name of the glorious hero of world history, who is revered in the annals of history as a hero, and here is shown with dust and, if you like, nothingness in comparison with who we knew him before this story ...
I have nothing against bisexuals and homosexuals, and I agree that this phenomenon is not of the present time, but existed for them and far-off times. But that's where she snaps in her eyes and turns her nose. .
The most important thing is that despite the very stellar cast, mad money, the scale of the project, the Great Story of the Great Man, the eminent director and the peplum genre at the peak of fame and attention at that time (thanks to the same ' Gladiator'); the film failed also because it was a frankly average filmmaker, where there was no scale. There were no true heroes – not only Alexander was defamed, but the characters of Philip, the Olympics and the general’s entourage left behind two feelings. There are only two battle scenes in three hours. No drama. Panoramic views. Historical scale. Alexander’s greatness is poured into our ears, and at the same time his recklessness and lunatics are demonstrated. It is not clear why this man was a hero. There are almost no battle scenes with him. Why should we believe that he is great if we see nothing but words here?
. . Yes, in places you can praise the same fights for blood and realism. Something new and unusual for battle scenes. Babylon is very beautiful. The Pharos Lighthouse and the Tower of Babel are also known. The apartments are very expensive and bright.
In some places, suddenly, the film seems to stretch upwards and represents something worthwhile. But it does not last long and soon stops. Returning to earth and continuing to demonstrate frankly unnecessary uninteresting and even meaningless things.
Is it possible to believe this story, when King Philip has uncorrupted teeth, and Val Kilmer, no matter how hard he is, does not fit the Macedonian? Is it possible to believe this Alexander, when Colin Farrell, despite all his play, is purely visually not associated with the Macedonian king, and ugly painted in blonde and completely repels from himself? Is it possible with excitement to watch a film where the Russian dubbing is so bad and not ' at the point '...
.. And although the musical heroic theme still deserves special praise, Jolie’s charm and gracefulness plays a role. However, this is not a bad film in itself (despite all my minuses), for an eternity lagging behind the same ' Braveheart' with Mel Gibson and ' Gladiator' with Russell Crowe... Films are about real men, real heroes and are really Cinema with a capital letter!
7 out of 10
Today I watched the movie Alexander (2004), a movie that fell out of my sight because it's not as popular as Gladiator and Troy. Another factor that had an impact is the words of my classmate in high school: there Alexander sleeps with his associate. However, recently, surfing the Internet, I saw a positive comparison with this film, and decided to watch this picture within a week.
The picture itself, in my opinion, is tedious - it has a lot of dialogue, few battles and battles, and they do not have the extra pathos inherent in such a movie. Obviously, my expectations were fundamentally wrong, but then after watching, I realized that my unfulfilled expectations were replaced by a storm of thoughts about the very personality and life of Tsar Alexander. Basically, I will share with you exactly this, but let’s not rush – all in order.
First of all, the colorfulness of the film is impressive: perfectly designed costumes and armor of the heroes, scenery. Striking view from the palace of Babylon, revealing us the city.
The cast was eminent, and no matter how much I liked them all, I did not get any wow effect from their game.
It was unusual to see Colin Farrell light, but to the extent of the film, as his army advanced deep into India, he overgrown and became like Thor in the sequel, played by Chris Hemsworth, I approve. I didn’t see Colin Farrell in such images, I remember him as a police officer or a special agent, and even now I don’t even remember films with his participation. I will remember him for this role.
Jared Leto, as always, plays "sophisticated" and mysterious roles, but on the outside he seems the same everywhere - long hair, a mysterious look.
Val Kilmer and his king Philip appear to us as a drunkard and libertine. He wasn’t the best tsar, let alone the best father, but by the end of the film you realize that he’s proud of Alexander and loves him as a father. Philip gave many correct advice to his heir and warned him: “Fame is not without suffering, she will not allow it!”
Then the Olympics, performed by Angelina Jolie, Alexander's mother. Strong, rebellious and cunning woman. In his youth he taught his son that he was like God. Rumor has it that she was a witch, but this is not surprising, just look at her bottomless, mesmerizing eyes. Each of the parents tried to instill in their child their own views on life and future government. But, fortunately, Alexander was not like them and went his own way.
When I started watching the film, I knew there was a love line between Alexander and his loyal companion Hephaestion. Before watching it, I treated it with contempt and disapproval, but then I realized that it is not so simple. Hephaestion was the only one who truly loved and supported Alexander until the very end of their journey. Alexander’s teacher once said: “When men want to share knowledge, to cultivate virtue in each other, their love is pure and beautiful.” When they compete to awaken the good, best feelings in each other’s souls, love between men can create states.
Next, I will talk about what hooked me in the film – Alexander, his personality, life and dream.
Alexander the Great did what no one had ever done before: he conquered most of the known world in a short time. This ' victory' it was difficult. Alexander is an ambiguous man, he became a king not only by birthright, but also due to his achievements - "You can not be born a king, you can become one after overcoming many trials." His dream is the conquest of other states not for the sake of domination and tyranny, but for the sake of uniting them under one banner, so that all peoples live in peace and understanding for each other. Alexander did not consider his nation the best that was inherent in other peoples. He returned the land to the deposed kings to become his loyal allies. He tried to understand the life, thoughts, ideas, life of every people that submitted to him, but everyone did not share his vision. He wanted to be a king served out of respect, not fear. Alexander’s associates, as the campaign progressed, shared his views less and less, they did not keep up with his flight of thought, and he was intolerant of them for this. He chased not only himself, but also his people for the sake of a sky-high dream. “A king must be able to hurt those he loves.” Like any great man, Alexander was unhappy because he was obsessed with a vast, immense idea, it was a life-giving force for him, but it also destroyed him. Alexander was ambitious, arrogant and cruel, but at the same time generous, understanding and generous. Despite all the hardships and hardships his subjects had to endure, they loved him and he loved them. According to myths, Alexander knew the name of each of his warriors. The people thanked, revered and even deified their king for what he had brought them to, even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
The world is changing, albeit with drastic measures, thanks to people who are truly free from the shackles of society, traditions and rules. Alexander surpassed Achilles in glory, and was also doomed to a short life, and like any hero of myths is covered with unfading glory. But no matter how great and strong Alexander is, he remains mortal, his vital forces are finite. Due to the fact that Alexander zealously pursued a dream, he sometimes did not notice ' mood' his people are ordinary people with simple desires. All this led him to a mistake and to thousands and thousands of deaths. His faithful companions, despite their great love for their king, became far from faithful. “Snakes are like people. You will feed them, take care of them, but they will still betray you.
At the end of his journey, Alexander already felt an organized conspiracy, but this did not stop him. “You know very well that great men who take a step do not come back.”
Honestly, I liked the movie.
Until I remembered the existence of this film and decided to watch it in its entirety, I was deeply convinced that it was a highly regarded classic of cinema, so to speak. That it's a movie with a score of at least 7.5 on a movie search and a little more on IMDb. What a surprise I was when I saw what was available.
The film ' Alexander' not only received a lot of critical evaluations and did not like the Western audience, but also liked our viewer, despite the intimate aspects of the film. It may seem unusual, but it is not in my jurisdiction to consider the culture of historical film appreciation in the West. ' Interesting facts' talk about boycotts because of the demonstration of bisexuality of Alexander, and if this is really the main reason for such a hat and a bunch of nominations for ' Golden raspberries' - here it is even pointless to argue, because the diagnosis is obvious.
Anyway, I consider this film one of the best works of Colin Farrell and much better than ' Scarface' directed by Oliver Stone.
I found everything from the philosophy and personality of Alexander to battles and costumes attractive in this film. Unlike 'Troy', there are not cardboard suits, and warriors do not fall by themselves. Unlike 'Troy', we get a very unambiguous and at the same time interesting story of friendship, faith in their endeavors and the desire to be more than just a person.
At the beginning of the film we have the following link:
A young heir to Macedonia, problems with a powerful and tough father, a loving but treacherous mother, ambitions and the boy’s desire not to capture, but to unite the whole world in his hands. The boy, and then the young man, has all the tools for this - a strong army, loyal friends, a loved one and admiring people. By the end of the film, dreams and ambitions lead not the young man, but the man, to a dead end, where he loses all of the above.
At the end we have a very extraordinary work, a story about a great man and his great deeds, which deserves an assessment above 7 and even more 5.6.
10 out of 10
From the great commander to the impenetrable homeless alcoholic with a Persian belt and a white chiton
Of the minuses. in the picture it is difficult to catch at least some clear and integral meaning. It seems that the director himself was entangled in the whole story and could not make any artistic adaptation or historical cinema. Thus, Oliver Stone wanted to shoot a masterpiece, skillfully balancing on 2 chairs: artistic and historical, and eventually fell off both of them. (Such a metaphor ' the chair of a feature film' - no, but I put it in to make it clearer) Yes, it is very similar to that funny scene with Philip, who intended to cross the whole of Persia, but being drunk fell down and could not even cross the hall.
Why did he fall out of the chair of an art film? Because artwork should touch and awaken the hearts of people. If this is a tragedy, then in the audience as empathizes with the cruel and tragic fate of the main character. If this is a heroic epic, then the viewer admires his heroic fate and his exploits. And if these 2 genres are harmoniously combined together - then they strengthen each other and this is a masterpiece.
But not in this movie. Here these 2 genres do not help each other, but directly mutually and irrevocably destroy each other against all common sense. Well, we wanted to shoot a heroic epic, so why by the end of the film the greatest commander begins to look like an unwashed and unshaven bum alcoholic in expensive Persian clothes, who experiences hallucinations and sees the delusions of reality on every drink, behaving clearly inadequately? All the heroism in these scenes will be thrown in the trash. And they really spoil the whole impression of the film he created before these scenes.
Well, maybe they just wanted to film the tragedy of how alcohol destroys even the greatest, causing them to lose everything over time: their friends, their greatest empire and their lives. But this tragedy is again crossed by some strange dogma ala ' all means are good ' which is constantly hammered into the viewer ' Yes, you lost many friends. But you did something that no one else has done before. That's why you covered yourself with eternal glory. So it's not your tragedy, it's your victory. #39 This is not a tragedy, is it? And all the tragedy of this movie with this question also goes to the trash.
Why did the director fall from the chair of the historical film? Because the key historical moments from Alexander’s military campaign were not even mentioned in passing (the Gordian knot, the conversation with the Indian king Poros and the king of Taxila, the burning of Persepolis, etc.), and of the numerous battles only 2 were shown, without mentioning the others. Although they were no less interesting and heroic.
In short, all this is perceived as a strange comedy with a strange humor, where the main character is clearly not himself, as well as the writer and director, that not everyone will like.
The pluses. The only thing that saves this film and why I give it such a high positive rating is the really extremely successful hit of some scenes and soundtrack, colorfulness, entertainment, the play of Jared Leto, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer.
Soundtrack overall 50/50. I was happy in places, and in places was clearly not to the place and not in the topic.
7 out of 10
The legend that passed through the centuries or Spectacular and philosophical cinema about the real Alexander the Great
Historical drama. One of my favorite pictures of my childhood, directed by the American director Oliver Stone. When I first saw it, I was about twelve years old - and it made as much of an impression on me as Ridley Scott's Gladiator. Only if Gladiator took catchy history and music, then Alexander took spectacular and bloody battles, from which I was delighted. I loved this painting and will love it. However, I will mention the shortcomings that naturally exist. In the meantime, here is a brief opinion - a spectacular and philosophical film about a real legend. Now let’s get to the point:
So the virtues:
1. Alexander the Great - this picture is about him. About the same man (although someone else thinks that this is just a legend) who, having led a small Macedonian kingdom with his loyal army, defeated the majestic and most powerful empire of that time - the Persian Empire, and then, pursuing his dream - conquered many wild tribes, and reached India. At the same time, he built his own empire on this territory, echoes of which still exist today. The story of a dreamer is very close to me (I am myself), who managed to overcome the prejudices of his time, win the most brutal battles, and become famous for centuries! The example followed, followed, and will continue until the end of human existence. It was the dreamers who made the world we live in today. They have allowed humanity to advance so far, but not all of them are known, but the name of Alexander is familiar to everyone. This painting is a hymn to this man.
2. Bloody battles - it was nice that for the most part extras were used in the shooting of battle scenes, and graphics - only on big plans, where the experienced eye of a moviegoer is not always able to get it out. And I can’t help but note the “realistic” of the battles, because blood is pouring, especially in battle, closer to the final. This seems to emphasize that the glory and heroism in battle goes hand in hand with sweat, dirt and blood, a whole sea of blood, and given the primitive medicine of the time ... in General tough. But that’s exactly what it is.
3. Philosophical reasoning – there are a lot of them in the picture, starting from the calling of the king, about the welfare of subjects, about war, about dreams, about greatness, about intrigues, betrayal and much more. If you remove all the costumes, this era, and Alexander himself – all this applies today. Try to do it yourself.
4. The cast – here you and Anthony Hopkins, and Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Jared Leto (the actor I first saw here), Jonathan Rhys-Myers and Christopher Plummer, and these are only those I remembered. Stone managed to gather a galaxy of famous actors in one picture. They're all playing really well.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Alexander's gayness - I don't know if it happened or not. But as a child I did not arise on this occasion, but now, given the knowledge, it bothers me a little. Although, according to some sources, Alexander was gay, but not so much, rather it was just a hobby, nothing more. I'm inclined to believe it. Especially since the picture agrees with this, so I will not cry that the “sworn Americans” tarnish the image of Alexander the Great. I was a little uncomfortable watching.
2. Caricature - in the picture a little caricature depicts "barbarians", that is, Asian peoples. Although, it was only at first, because after the victories, the Hellenic culture, which came with the army of Alexander, mixes with the Asian, and it turns out such a unique world, the very idea of the existence of which could not imagine the greatest minds of the Ancient World.
A little about the main characters (there are many of them, but I will choose the most interesting):
1. Alexander performed by Colin Farrela is the king of Macedonia, the greatest commander, a dreamer who conquered the world. What I liked was that he was shown as a simple man, albeit a great man, but still a man. He has his own weaknesses, besides his own merits. He has no arrogance, he is tough and demanding, both to himself and to subordinates. Yes, he acted at times like a bloody tyrant, but only forcedly, but cruelly. An amazing fate that many dreamed of repeating, but no one succeeded. He was the first and will be the last. Well done, Colin!
2. Hephaestion, performed by Jared Leto, is Alexander’s closest friend and associate, without whom he could not have achieved that greatness. The most loyal and loyal commander. Jared was shocked
3. Ptolemy, played by Anthony Hopkins, is the ruler of Egypt, and in the past - an associate of Alexander, with whom he passed half the world. It was he who, only in his old age, realized what he had to endure, and with what man to fight side by side. Do you doubt Anthony's acting skills? Nope! Great, moving on.
As a result, we have a magnificent historical drama about the greatest tsar and commander, who went through many battles in pursuit of his dream - Alexander the Great, with a star cast, good music, and bloody battles.
Among the countless great commanders and conquerors of antiquity, the name of Alexander the Great stands out with special brilliance and pomposity, because it was the son of Philip II who managed to conquer almost all the boundaries of the world known in time immemorial and plant education and culture in the most remote corners of civilization, where barbarism was revered much more than education and science. A lot of historical reports have survived about Alexander the Great, describing in detail his campaigns of conquest, political position and even personal life. And yet it is not possible to say that mankind knows all that one would like about a great king. Scholars continue to debate what exactly the Macedonian died of at such a young age, such as his ties to loyal friends and girlfriends. However, despite all the tinsel that girdles Alexander’s fame, the fact remains that for his time he was an unsurpassed leader, who everywhere smiled luck, before whom all doors opened, and whom his brothers in arms revered like a deity. And it would be strange if such an outstanding person were not filmed full-scale historical epics designed to illustrate to the audience the true power of the personality of Alexander the Great, which inspired followers to great state achievements and demonstrated that there are no barriers if you believe in your business and have charisma capable of burning hearts. So Alexander the Great became the leading hero of a considerable number of popular peplums of the mid-20th century, but when the audience finally got tired of the loud screen battles, of which there were menacingly many, this genre gradually disappeared into oblivion, leaving only a memory of past artistic achievements and unprecedented epicity that eludes subsequent generations. But the efforts of Ridley Scott, at the dawn of the new millennium, who filmed the unforgettable Gladiator, which won several Oscars and was marked by excellent box office, peplum as if Phoenix rose from the dead. And since the general played by Russell Crowe, invented by the screenwriters, managed to melt the hearts of demanding viewers, the producers rightly considered that such a magnitude as Alexander the Great can receive no less attention. However, despite the best efforts of the film crew and a huge budget, “Alexander” of the 2004 model could not become a sensation, although it can not be said that the film was unworthy.
So, the plot of the film takes us back to the times preceding the advent of our era, and introduces the audience to Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell), whose story tells his longtime friend and colleague Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins). Born as a result of the connection between the treacherous Olympia (Angelina Jolie) and her husband, the willful king Philip II (Val Kilmer), Alexander from an early age was preparing to lead the state and simultaneously suppress any intrigues that could deprive him of the right of primacy. Incited by Olympia, the young man knew his worth well, but he never picked his nose higher than necessary, since honor, valor and the desire to prove to others that he was worthy of being a leader leading legions into battle were laid in his character. Learning science from Aristotle himself (Christopher Plummer) and finding the full support of his faithful friend Hephaestion (Jared Leto), by the age of twenty Alexander had acquired the necessary skills to become a king and fate itself gives him the opportunity to rise to the place of his father and accept what he was born for. And since the soldiers and society needed a firm goal, without the achievement of which the very existence of the state was meaningless, Alexander assembles an army and goes on a campaign of conquest to the East, which has become legendary. Following the dream of uniting the disparate countries and territories in his hands, bringing them peace, order and enlightenment, the Macedonian never departed from the laws of honor and if he went to the battlefield, he was always on the edge of battle, thereby winning the absolute loyalty of soldiers and the respect of opponents, who had no choice but to bow their heads before their new ruler. However, the endless campaigns, privations and fatigue cannot but affect the philosophy of Alexander himself and his relations with his faithful henchmen, because of which he will have to learn completely different aspects of his power, which cannot be based solely on conquest, which has no end.
It is very difficult to tell the story of a man who was the full master of the horizon, and even such a respected director as Oliver Stone had to tell us about Alexander the Great without losing the slightest detail in the most important time periods of his busy life. Taking on the formation of a great commander in the Hollywood blockbuster, Stone was not constrained in funds and received enough freedom from the producers to delve deeper into the psychology and personal experiences of the hero instead of filling the screen with spectacular battles in which thousands of armies clash in a single mess. Such an approach was not liked by everyone, because the Macedonian is associated with an ordinary person with a conqueror who lived in war and was never afraid to throw himself into the thick of battle. Expecting colorful combat spectacles, the audience was able to enjoy only one detailed scene, which is truly admired, but it actually occupies only a small part of the timekeeping. All the rest of the time, Oliver Stone builds a delicate artistic portrait of Alexander the Great, who in his version is not an instrument of propaganda and divine awe, but a man with his dreams and aspirations. Of course, Alexander is strikingly different from all those around him, his eyes are burning, he believes in his destiny, but the great king will never refuse to help a friend and if a simple subject is in trouble and unable to do anything, the Macedonian will be ready to descend to the dirty ground to prove once again that he is not just a king, but also a real guardian of those under his wing.
The role of Alexander the Great became a real test for the Irish actor Colin Farrell, beginning a gradual conquest of the Hollywood hills. But the skeptics had to calm their fervor as soon as they saw it on screen in the appropriate image. Farrell had to play his part in the most important, critical intervals of his biography, and therefore he gained experience and grew up with the passage of the script. We can clearly see how difficult Pharrell’s work has been, how his view has changed from youthful fire to an adult’s understanding of what the world really is. But despite all the problems and difficult decisions that Macedonian had to make, it is clear that even in the face of the inevitable, taking away all his vitality, he still remains a man capable of doing the impossible.
In the end, I want to say that “Alexander” in spite of everything deserves to get acquainted with him and get to know the great commander as he could well be in reality.
9 out of 10
It's been 14 years since an 11-year-old boy saw this. And now he is ripe to recall the main film of his life.
Yes, this review will be subjective. No other film has made such an impression on me as Alexander, although I have since revisited a thousand whole and serial films, from Happy Together to Shawshank Escape. It was after him that I realized that history is my hobby for life, and it was after him that antiquity became my favorite historical segment of human civilization. So what struck me so much, and why would I go against a mountain of negativity about this movie? Read below.
1. Backstory. Of course, it will be best for lovers of antiquity. And I was just then, as a fifth grader, studying millennia from Sumer to the barbarian kingdoms. And passed shortly before the premiere lesson on the conquest of one phalanx half of the ecumene fascinated. So much so that the night before the session I had a dream of my own version of Alexander. I don't remember it anymore, but it wasn't much different from the plot. So the movie went perfectly.
2. Actors. The lineup is good. Hopkins, Jolie, Farrell, Kilmer, Dawson are cool. No worse than Troy, no better than Gladiator. And the second roles are very colorful, that Clete, that Barrack, that Parmenion. Their game allows you to feel the era.
3. Details. 150 liters of blood. 12,000 guns, 20 Thai elephants, Moroccan soldiers... what this movie is good at is the set and the costumes. Crowds of Phalangites and Asians, townspeople, aristocrats, Babylon, Pella, Alexandria - all this will look charming. Frescoes, bas-reliefs, Greeks, Persians, Indians - a real universe, as in the lord of the rings.
4. Music. Vangelis -- oh, that Vangelis. All my life I will probably hear the battle hymns of the battle of the Gawgamels, the majestic motifs of crossing the Hindu Kush, the dramatic music of the massacre with the Indians and the truly wonderful ending chords of the film. The composer and his musicians played above all praise. Hans Zimmer is always top class, like Marvel comics, but it’s a masterpiece. Vangelis, you deserve to be among the Olympian gods with your music.
5. Drama. The relationship of the heroes is a separate song. This film spit on the typical monumentality of peplums and in the midst of incredible events unfolded the same incredible drama. Memories of an old friend about the deceased leader, the friendly love of the king and his faithful companion, a full-fledged sexual relationship with an exotic Asian, prattling with his father's associates, ringing family scandals - here he is, the living World of Antiquity! I can’t help but compare it to the revived film era “Gladiator” and one-year “Troy”. In one, liberal European discussions about freedom and tyranny, in the other, poetic pathos. And here we are, the same people, but 2300 years ago.
6. History. I love the thesis “show it either spectacularly or reliably”. I love quotation marks. Nope. It can be neither so nor so, or so and so. There is a great balance of historicity and entertainment. No Gladiator fantasies, no hyperbole like three. And at the same time, horses jump, spears break, and people have beautiful sex. Yeah, a lot of things are pulled, because it's the story of 15 hours, not three. There is no Asia Minor, almost no Central Asia, no Egypt, no Palestine, no Greece. But there is Ptolemy who will gallop through Europe and dictate his history to Cadma. And the rest is juicy, tasteful and swinged into a three-hour format. These are the possibilities of cinema. Troy's 15 years of storytelling. It took a couple of months to finish.
7. Plot. That's a great Stone idea. The old Greek pharaoh, in a world that has changed beyond recognition, tells descendants about the origins of this world, to which he, even at a young age, had direct relation. It tells of a man who, while still his friend, became a legend. Very cunningly and subtly through Ptolemy’s narrative, we rush from the year 353 to the year 323, looking at a map of the world and looking at parts of it in detail, as if “traveling” on Google Maps with a professional commentator. A real popular science historical attraction.
8. Love. Perhaps the mainstream in the film is not a list of cities and battles won, but a spiritual transformation of the greatest, along with Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan, ruler in history. The story of how a young man who has risen at the helm of the state and determined to achieve the greatness of the gods lives side by side with real people, how he interacts with subordinates for his purposes, how he seeks support from his peers, how he satisfies simple mortal needs and carnal pleasures on the way to immortality. How people look at the world it changes, how they resist and how they accept these new rules of life. In my opinion, it is shown quite sensitive and pedantic.
A separate item about Stone. Yeah, we all know where he went. A fan of dictators and a patient with Stockholm Syndrome in severe form. But geniuses very often have these repulsive traits. Yet their creations outlive their creators, whose dark sides die with their hosts. And we must evaluate the masterpieces of such people in isolation from the identity of their creator. Not in the sense – without analyzing the motives and preferences of the author when creating a work. And in the sense of his background and turns in one direction or another. This film is an undoubted contribution to the history of cinema, and future generations, I am sure, will not forget it.
Be sure to see all lovers of history, peplums, biographies and human relationships. It's rarely done. They don’t always appreciate it.
I love this movie with all my heart and will watch it again and again. Thank you, Oliver Stone. Thank you, despite your obsequious, as the attitude of Asians to Alexander, the film about Putin.
10 out of 10
Having returned from sunny Greece and inspired by the history, culture and color of this country, I decided to finally pay attention to the film "Alexander" and watch it in its entirety, not in fragments, as it was before. Here are the thoughts I have after watching.
Alexander the Great is an ambiguous personality, but certainly one of the strongest, most influential, powerful, brave and intelligent generals and rulers in the history of the world. Everyone has heard his name, even if “everyone” does not know a single fact of the biography of this great man. I do not know which actor would be able to reincarnate in the image of Alexander in such a way that he was believed unconditionally, but, in my subjective opinion, Colin Farrell did not succeed. His ever-sad, repressed expression on my face did not fit with the image of a strong personality. Too much uncertainty and doubt has been shown and expressed, which has somewhat tarnished the overall impression. This is not how Alexandra remembers history and not how it should have been “transferred” to the screen.
Perhaps, the image of Alexander performed by Colin Farrell is the only aspect that did not give rest during the viewing. Angelina Jolie and her Olympics impressed me: a strong and powerful woman, such as the ruler could take as his wife.
To give credit to the 2004 film, the battles look very dignified. The viewer is now tempted by graphics and special effects, however, "Alexander" looks very presentable even now. The film is not overloaded with excessive bloodshed; all scenes are harmoniously and consistently arranged, except for those in which the chronology is deliberately broken. The viewer has a whole story, which is easy to understand. Although there are inaccuracies, author’s vision and distortion of facts in the general plot, I try not to pay attention to such details, since first of all, this film is fiction, not scientific and documentary.
In the end, “Alexander” is a historical film that is worth the attention and time allotted to it. Certainly, it is beautiful, bright, meaningful. People who are lucky enough to touch the history of Ancient Greece, it will be especially interesting.
7 out of 10
At the age of 25, Alexander became the ruler of the world visible on maps of Macedonians and Greeks. He became the king of Egypt, where he was worshipped as a god. Why did Alexander conquer countries and peoples? Not just for the gold. Alexander had many treasures. Another, but not him, would have stopped trekking. He wanted to be the lord of the world. They were driven by vanity, the desire to leave a memory of themselves for centuries. They will be remembered and talked about thousands and thousands of years later. And he managed to do that.
One day I will be depicted on these walls.
In historical films it is difficult to achieve authenticity, especially when it comes to the heroes of antiquity. Here the director chooses more how to submit material, what to come up with, add from himself. And Oliver Stone has found his niche, he's showing human qualities that we either didn't know about or only knew about.
Of course, this immediately puts the historical canvas about such a famous commander at a disadvantage. In principle, this happened - the film failed at the box office. For such a film, there is only one major battle and this is the battle of Gaugamela, as well as the battle with the Indian kings. Although Iskander Zulkarnain has a long track record. There was not enough fighting big and small. After all, in the same Central Asia, in countries like Bactria and Sogdiana he had a worthy resistance, remember at least Spitamen. After all, during the entire seven-year campaign, only there near the present Samarkand, his troops were defeated. And the battle of Gaugamela looks confused, until the end it is unclear how the troops moved on the battlefield. Plus, some drunken shooting, obviously a minus in the direction of camera work. The best place in this fight is the opening speech of the Macedonian king.
Yes, this is not a documentary, and the director of the film is not obliged to present all historical accuracy, but the main character in the movement of the film does not grow up at all. He seems to be the 20-year-old when he came to the throne. Homosexuality only aggravates the situation. A couple of years ago, there were rumors that Hollywood wanted to make a film about Amir Temur, known in Europe as Tamerlane. It is not difficult to imagine who can turn this historical character into. Maybe the creators of the film specifically sought to hurt the feelings of people of non-traditional orientation. But if there is no evidence, why twist the image? Ala, "The Director Sees That." Love or close friendship (we do not know for sure, even according to historical information) between Alexander and Hephaestion, two military leaders, is shown quite well. But again, Hephaestion here looks like a court favourite, not a general. Perhaps other actors would be more appropriate in these roles. Farrell in this role does not look at all, there is no charisma of the commander, there is the charisma of a glamorous lover of sugar and a depressive-sentimental nobleman. Such roles are good for an actor. Remember at least “Lie down in Bruges” and “True Detective”
But I'm afraid our world is much bigger than we thought. It turned out to be a world...
- A world of tyrants.
. The cast is equal to the film "Troy." Val Kilmer as the father of Farrell-Alexander in this film looks very convincing. It was he, his father, who gathered Macedonia into a single fist, created a bridgehead for the further offensive against Persia. Sir Anthony Hopkins coped wonderfully with the role of a wise narrator, a former graduate of Alexander Ptolemy. The rest of the secondary characters did not complain, looked decent. There are some good scenes such as the tame of Bucephalus, the entrance to Babylon, the preparation for the battle with Darius. But that doesn’t save the movie from feeling like it’s an arthouse for a lot of money. To all it is worth noting a good musical accompaniment over which worked Vangelis, noted in "Blade Runner". Especially memorable at the time of the battle with Darius and at the end of the picture. The well-deserved awards of the Golden Raspberry are quite justified. To date, it is Oliver Stone's worst film, although Movie Search ratings don't show that. And it is a pity for Colin Farrell, whose acting is not so second-rate, however, he played well his role in such an unsuccessful production.
Result: For some, it would be better to watch a documentary about Alexander the Great and not torment your impression from books and other sources. This picture is for once.
Oliver Stone’s film tells the story of a great general who led the first European onslaught on Asia and brought the greatest empire to its knees. We are talking about Alexander, the Macedonian king.
Today, little is known about this man. Eyewitness accounts have been lost, and history is overgrown with legends. However, legends make up the historical chronicle of the ancient era, on the legends of gods and heroes - Heracles, Achilles, Odyssey, Greek identity was based. It is with this material, with legends, and worked the creators of the picture.
This review is written long after the release of the film. Now it is clear that many did not like the picture. They note the allegedly uncanonical image of the famous tsar, the fragmented plot and freedom in handling historical facts. Well, to a certain extent, fair remarks. However, critics forget that they know the truth to the same extent as the creators of the picture, and the film presented is not a documentary chronicle, but the result of a creative comprehension of historical reality. I must say that the interpretation turned out to be quite interesting and, to some it may seem nonsense, quite orthodox.
Little is known about Alexander’s character, much less than many other heroes of the past. Everyone unconditionally admits that this was a gifted person, put forward various hypotheses about the inclinations and preferences of this person. The point of view of the filmmakers is actually quite common in historiography. And although homosexuality and the Oedipus complex do not fit with the image of the great leader of the peoples – well, this is modern morality, very different, I note, from the morality of the ancient Greeks, yet history does not choose its creators, and moralists should hold their sermons for a more appropriate occasion. Moreover, the context in the film is much wider and allows you to close your eyes to some controversial facts.
At the center of the legend of Alexander is the opinion about the boundless ambition of this king, about his desire to conquer the whole known world. Historians have to go to tricks to explain the origin of this ambition, and the explanations, I must say, are very convincing, especially since the facts speak for themselves, after all, the conquest of the world is not such an ordinary event. The filmmakers strictly follow this legend, placing in the center of the narrative the divine inspiration of the great commander – the Potos, as Aristotle, the mentor of the young king, called it. It was this impulse that led Alexander across the mountains and steppes to the edge of the world, subduing and mixing all new peoples, this impulse made him neglect the opinion of his companions, dissatisfied with the cosmopolitanism of the ruler. I agree that the writers should focus more on this idea and show Alexander as a statesman. But in this case, the narrative would be too heavy, so it is not surprising that in the film so much time is devoted to the inner world of the famous commander, especially since the features of the character and ideas of this man had great consequences for the entire modern civilization.
Overall, the film was strong from both a historical and artistic point of view. We can agree that the narrative is somewhat fragmentary, but it is worth recalling that the legend of Alexander is also very incomplete. Historical authenticity is not required here, it is enough that the plot and acting fully reveal the character of the characters and the overall idea, and the film copes with this well. However, the narrative may seem fragmentary or whole, depending on the savvy of the viewer in matters of ancient history.
Among the artistic merits of the film, one can note a good staging of battle scenes, impressive scenery and costumes, music and drama of individual scenes. So, for example, the collision of Alexander riding Bucephalus with an Indian elephant in the final battle is simply asked for a picture.
In conclusion, it remains completely incomprehensible to me that critics and some ordinary viewers have rejected the film so strongly. I would like to believe that the majority simply did not understand the message of the film and rushed to brand it on the basis of minor oversights.
Choosing a film to watch in the Bible, I decided to take Alexander. In 2004, he went to his premiere in the cinema and after a long time decided to look again with an older look with established interests in the field of cinema. The film is bright, colorful, replete with beautiful speeches and shots rated at 7. Let me start with the positives.
One of the main advantages would be the presence in the work of monologues with bright epithets against the background of beautiful landscapes with pleasant music. I don't know if that's what they said in Dr. Greece, but it looked spectacular. The nature footage was impressive. In countries washed by the Mediterranean Sea, the flora is generally attractive, hence such a visual effect. I will support many that the sound design is level. I also remember the play of the narrator of Alexander’s biography, the cat performed by Anthony Hopkins, despite the fact that he rarely appeared in the frame. In general, the acting job seemed worthy. The episodes depict a strong emotional tear, filmed in an interesting manner, characterized by a slightly shaking camera and vague surroundings. This was especially evident in the final scene, where Alexander, at death, tries to catch the silhouette of an eagle. Cinema looks easy due to lack of tediousness. The presence of long dialogues does not spoil the overall impression. The battle scenes are given a little time, so more episodes revealing the inner world of the heroes.
To the disadvantages I would like to include the inaccuracy of the narrative. I did not read the biography of Macedonian, but after the film I could not build a chronology of his life. Yes, shows his aspirations in childhood, shows the hikes. But in what year he captured, and did not understand because of the clumsiness of the plot. I was also surprised to learn that Persia resisted him on the first night and even managed to put a knife to his throat. If he married her, why would he let her behave like that? It was fabulous. Alexander himself showed inconsistency in his words and feelings. Then he disagrees with his mother about the inadequacy of his father, then in the next frame he condemns his father for drinking. Then he marries a citizen of Persia, then in an ardent speech says that his soldiers “mocked” by taking Persian wives as wives. Plus, he often broke into hysterics and built a line of behavior not out of concepts of strong will and leadership. K. Farrell, in my opinion, was not suitable for the role of Macedonian.
I recommend watching because there is something global in the film. It seems that the picture was prepared in order not to go unnoticed. But the story seemed chaotic to me, Alexander himself was an incomplete and uncharismatic personality. But maybe he was. Who knows the people who lived in that country at that time? But it doesn’t sound like a leader.
12 years after the release of the film, I decided to watch it.
When he first came out, there were a lot of jokes about the ambiguous sexual image of Alexander, and this also frightened me at one time, it seemed to me that they were trying to give cheap piquancy, kitsch. Although I myself am familiar with the life of people with non-traditional orientation.
And now I am no longer a student who could sell fried themes, I came to this film after watching a documentary about Alexander, I became interested in the history of the world.
I understood that this was indeed an extraordinary person, a very bright and rare star that flashed in the history of mankind.
The film kept me focused from beginning to end.
I agree that Colin Farrell does not reach Alexander, BUT he evokes emotions, and in the second half of the film, where Alexander’s policy towards vassals is shown, he reveals Alexander, his intelligence and originality very well.
The military component of Farrell, of course, is weak, it is difficult to imagine that Alexander could carry himself in battles (his speech before battles), but one can note in addition the naivety and desire to win and win that Farrell shows us, his excessive determination.
The battles themselves plus/minus also reveal all the power, horror, scale of the action.
The scenery and costumes were great, and Babylon loved it. Dancing, even Roxanne, who is not Roxanne at all, played a small role by 101%.
Regarding the bisexuality of the characters, this was a topic that I did not even remember and was not imposed by the director at all, by and large it could be removed.
Everyone praises Jolie, I don't know, played as she played, in my life I saw the whip of intriguers. The role itself is a simple, explicit image.
Absolutely not annoyed by Ptolemy, by external similarity, I am not a pro, I think I successfully chose the base of the film - to tell it from Ptolemy - I read that he kept the embalmed mummy of Alexander, well showed the situation of his developed empire - a lighthouse, the desire for science.
Very well conveyed the society of the environment of Alexander, without it can not.
But again, the way he tried to convince them to attack Darius 3 is very weak! Maybe not in the original. I wouldn't quite imagine that Alexander Farrela could punish traitors.
But all the same Colleen Farrell - well reflected the naive desire for victory, for glory, his Alexander really lived his reality, perhaps torn off.
This actor is really good at tragic scenes.
Oliver Stone, it seems to me, touched on all the features of Alexander, all the problems of great campaigns, and the management of a large state, he conveyed everything from beginning to end. It showed powerful battles, different cultures.
Showed internal relations, intrigues of the environment of Alexander.
Everything is harmonious.
Colleen Farrell is good episodic, but in general, the picture does not spoil.
I re-watched Oliver Stone’s Alexander movie and liked it again. Yes, there are a lot of historical mistakes and inaccuracies in the film, and well, I know and see them, but the film is actually exciting. And the point is not even in the presentation of material on behalf of Ptolemy Laga, when you listen to the story from the third person of the former eyewitness of events, but in the fact that the theme of the Macedonian king who conquered the Persian Empire is presented not only colorfully, but also with the disclosure of the character of the hero. Stone brushstrokes clearly marked the moments of revealing Alexander’s character – the relationship with his father and mother, learning from Aristotle, unshakeable faith in victory, brilliant decisions in difficult moments, generosity. I did not forget to show us the reverse side of the king of Macedonia and Persia - bisexuality, uncontrolled aggression, drunkenness, vanity and cruelty. All of these things came together in one person. And on the screen we see a living man with his passions, not a heroized doll, or the son of the god Amon-Ra and Zeus, as he called himself. The viewer seems to plunge into the IV century BC and passes next to Alexander his campaign, fights at Gaugamela and Gidasp, ascends to the throne in Pella and enters the conquered Persipolis, the effect of presence is striking. Here it is impossible not to mention the magnificently filmed battle of Gaugamela, the Macedonian phalanx and horse getairs against the multilingual army of Darius Kodomon, where there were sickle-bearing chariots, and Sogdian-Bactrian cavalry, and the “immortal” king of Persia. The flight of Darius before the end of the battle, when the result was not yet known, predetermined the triumph of the Macedonian arms and the fall of the king of kings. Very accurately displayed the course and outcome of the battle, not even to complain. A huge plus is the historicity of the costumes and weapons shown on the screen. If the staircase was not known at that time, then the riders are shown without stairways, and Alexander’s horse’s pod of leopard skin corresponded to historical fact, the well-groomed beards of the Persians and the excavated Greeks also add historical flavor. Well done consultants and costume artists.
Colleen Farrell played a very difficult, characteristic role, and in my opinion he coped with it. His Alexander conveys all the contradictions of character, which leaves an imprint on the relations of his comrades and troops, from adoration to hatred. And he himself from the “liberator” of the peoples from the Persians turns into a bloody invader, into a tyrant no better than the former. Val Kilmer, who played Philip II, was generally magnificent, we see a tough and strong-willed ruler who could pacify the Greeks under Heronea, but was a fan of Bacchus, that is, he drank a lot, which may have been the result of his death at the hands of a bodyguard. Angelina Jolie perfectly played the Olympics, Alexander’s mother is a power-hungry and vain woman coming off the screen, and in her eyes you can see no mercy from her, but at the same time she was able to convey boundless love for her son. The other actors also played well, I will not list all, I will highlight Rosario Dawson, not for the scene with the nudity, but for the conversation of her heroine Roxana with Alexander during the Indian campaign, she was one of the entire entourage at that time told him how it was proper to behave as a king, I confess I did not expect such a transformation of a savage into a queen. Very well played episode.
American historical cinema is either loved or scolded: they love dynamic plots, high-quality dialogues and spectacular battle scenes, and are scolded for the inauthenticity of the description of historical events, and sometimes excessive cruelty of those battle scenes (well, this is already being presented by opponents of cruelty in cinema). All this was transferred to Russian historical pictures, and all diligently mixed with dirt “Ulansk Ballad” for mindless imitation of Hollywood and distortion of historical events. Hollywood’s “300 Spartans” are praised for a well-translated fighting spirit, while others “sand” for the fact that the film is half shot from a comic book. The film, which will be discussed, was also not to everyone’s taste: according to the established “tradition”, someone noticed a lie in it, while others, on the contrary, called this film “an excellent history lesson”. Maybe the film will not help students to get a five for the story about Alexander the Great in class, but what will give a sea of impressions and experiences, as well as please the eye - this is for sure.
After the first viewing, the film was deposited in memory as a perfect historical action movie and thriller, but the specific events of the film were completely forgotten. While reviewing this film with pleasure, I decided to write down some important points so as not to forget, as there is no detailed plot description on Wikipedia. Here's what I did:
The story begins with Alexander’s childhood, when his mother raised him, and his father appeared unexpectedly and beat his mother, after which she promised him that her son would avenge her. The boy is trained as a warrior, told about the exploits of his ancestors. There is also talk of the shameful passions that arise between men, mentioning Achilles, who allegedly died because of his love for Patroclus (although, as far as I know, Achilles lost a brother, not a lover, to the pain of fighting - perhaps this is one of the lies in this film). His father tells him about Greek heroes and his childhood. When Alexander grows up, his mother also notices homosexual tendencies in him and advises to pay attention to girls. At that time, his father arranges drunken orgies and allows himself to humiliate his son and wife, which causes disgust in Alexander. When his father is killed, Alexander plans to avenge his death against the Persians, and while discussing plans for an attack with experienced military commanders, he shows a good knowledge of military strategy. He manages to win the first battle, and at the age of 25 he becomes the ruler of most of the world.
I hope that my descriptions of the events of about the first third of the film will not be considered spoilers, because I only described them before the first battle. By the way, although the film has a fabulous budget, the authors were not particularly generous to the battle scenes: there were only two of them, and filmed not in the scenery, which usually looks great, but in open terrain, but the second battle scene showed real madness. Bloody hell with warriors wielding on elephants is an unforgettable sight. As you can see from my description (which I even had to shorten), the film is replete with plot twists, interesting characters - which alone is Alexander's mother performed by Angelina Jolie! Yes, there are few battles, but in the film there are also gorgeous scenery, transporting the viewer to the ancient world, where slaves create a real paradise for gentlemen. Spartacus. Blood and Sand, which no one dared to accuse of historical inaccuracy, thanks to which he received the highest rating, you will not see beautiful scenery and landscapes, but listen to excellent dialogue and look at the chic battle scenes, which are mounted no worse than in theatrical films. “Alexander” is inferior to the above-mentioned series in the quality of the storyline, but in itself is simply mandatory for viewing all peplum fans, despite some inconsistencies with real facts. They embellished it. Let’s say it’s a history lesson with free elements.
9 out of 10
Alexander is a historical film by Oliver Stone, describing the life of the Macedonian king, the great commander, the creator of the world power that collapsed after his death - Alexander the Great. In Western historiography, he is better known as Alexander the Great. Oliver Stone tried to depict in his film the entire stage of Alexander's life - from the earliest years, until his death. His relationship with his mother, who from the very birth raised him with hatred of the king and her excessive love and care paved the crack between their relationship, which later completely separated them from each other; father - Phillip 2, who hated Alexander's mother and wanted to redirect his son against his mother; Hephaestion, who was with him from his childhood and was the support that his parents could not become the first wife of Alexander, who was the Persian wife, who was the first to see him in his wife - Alexander's wife. After that, Alexander with his army moved back to his homeland, ending his long 7-year campaign. On his way back through the desert, Alexander fell ill and died at the age of 32. The generally accepted version is that the king died a natural death. At the same time, the cause of his death has not been reliably established. The most common version of death from malaria. This version was followed in the film and the director. There are many controversial issues surrounding Alexander’s life, besides his death. Is Alexander bisexual? Some sources say that he was straight and Hephaestion was like a brother to him, and others that they were lovers. But still in the world more adhere to the latest version and in the film Stone showed it perfectly. Especially in scenes where the king often compared himself to Achilles and Hephaestion to Patroclus. At the same time, in ancient Greece, the two heroes of the Iliad were usually considered a homosexual couple.
In short, the cast was satisfied. Colin Farrell became so used to the role of Alexander the Great that he could not leave it for a long time. Which, by the way, had a very bad effect on his further career. Angelina Jolie, as always, played at a high level. Interestingly enough, 2 films were made at the same time. The first starred Jolie's future husband Brad Pitt, who played Achilles in Troy, and the second Alexander, in which Jolie played a loving mother Alexander, who matched himself with Achilles. Jared Leto, in his repertoire, played an unusual role - the best friend and lover of Hephaestion, with which he coped perfectly as always.
The film is worthy of 3 hours of viewing. Yes, there are disadvantages, but they are not significant and the general atmosphere does not spoil.
7.5 out of 10
It is always nice to watch high-quality, historical films that are made with dignity, and when money is spared for them. Starting to watch this loud and famous movie, I prepared myself to see the unrealistically interesting and exciting story of a great man whose name has remained for centuries. Seeing this movie, I was disappointed and indignant. I was expecting more from this movie.
We see the film adaptation of the life and great campaign of Alexander the Great and his people to the East. We see childhood, youth and the main years of the reign of the great and mysterious personality of Macedonia. We see his doubts and victories, love and secret hobbies, a dream and a hard fall.
With a huge budget, the director Oliver Stone made this historical film very high quality, and it is felt when watching. Costumes, scenery, thousands of extras, it was all just super done, but as for the directing and the film itself, it was a failure. The direction of this historical film is terribly, terribly weak. When viewing, a feeling of falsehood is clearly felt and something is constantly missing, something alive and true. This film turned out like a beautiful and bright package with Hollywood actors and big money, but inside everything is empty and arrogant. It must be admitted that this is one of the loudest and most failed, historical films of the level that I have seen.
Connoisseurs of historical films will agree with me, this movie did not work. The second time I would never watch it. In the hands of Oliver Stone, there were so many opportunities to make a strong and exciting, historical film, but the main thing is that it was true, but it turned out to be a blockbuster for cinemas to make a jackpot in the first screenings of the film, because this film has such a budget and so many good actors.
As for the actors, the film critics and their performance were extremely cold. Six nominations for the Golden Raspberry Award for such a high-profile film is of course a complete failure. This is my favorite role of Colin Farrell. He was overplaying everything and giving everything false. Such famous personalities and the first stars of Hollywood as Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer also did not please the viewer, but only disappointed with their insincere and implausible game. It's a shame the movie didn't work. From this story, and with such a budget, it was possible to make a chic, historical film. And what we see is a hard fall, disappointment and falsehood. This is not a historical film.
I love history. Ancient especially. When I first saw the movie 'Alexander' a few years ago, it didn't hook me. I came back to him recently and realized how much I missed.
First of all, Alexander himself. Someone wanted to see sweat, blood and bristles on the screen. So it is necessary to watch the same type of action, in which the characters just fight, shoot, and then die in their arms with a call to avenge them. Who said that Alexander was just a brave warrior who without a shadow of a doubt led people to death?
Why do so many people deny him such a human weakness as fear? He was only 20 years old when he became king. Who among us at this age is able not only to be responsible for his actions (look at the current youth), but also for the lives and fates of his subjects. Oliver perfectly turned out the image of a boy, who since childhood was shared between his father and mother, who was betrayed by friends and relatives, but who still aspired to his dream. Just the way he saw her. And hands off Colin - he was great.
Ptolemy’s reasoning brings some order to the outline of this story. In the end, it should be perceived as the memories of veterans of the Great Patriotic War in our time, maybe a little embellished and exaggerated, but absolutely necessary.
Angelina... No comment. I just don’t want to repeat myself because everything has already been said.
And, probably, the main stumbling block is the debate about the "Davidness" & #39; in the film.
It was, it was considered normal and even celebrated. To deny such relations among the ancient Greeks now is to be prudish. And in general, there were special legions, which recruited just such pairs. They fought especially desperately and bravely, for it was better to die on the field than to show themselves a coward in front of their beloved.
Hephaestion was exactly the kind of man for Alexander that we all dream of. A friend, a lover, but most importantly, a like-minded person who demands nothing for himself, no power, but simply supports his king. Who knows, Alexander could have gone far, created such an empire without a reliable shoulder next to him.
And this is also a love story, largely doomed, because Hephaestion knew how many people he would have to share his master with. It's a heavy burden, isn't it?
In short, films on a historical theme should be such that after watching them, you would like to climb into Wikipedia to learn more about this period or character.
And now I even know the date of Alexander’s birth.
P.S. And I just fell in love with a Spanish dancer.
It has always been very difficult for me to evaluate historical, biographical films because they are always difficult. If the director takes up this case, we can say with accuracy: there will be no unambiguous assessment of his film. The main task of this kind of film seems to me to be the presentation of historical material in an accessible language, so that an ordinary person, who at the most passed somehow glimpses this in history lessons at least a couple of years ago, can use it. Of course, this is not easy to do, especially considering that the task is to convey the events of two thousand years ago. Everyone handles this task differently. In this regard, Oliver Stone, the director of Alexander, clearly succeeded. Transmitting the “not dry” facts of the biography, showing the main events of the ancient world of the era of Macedonian, he supplied the film with inserts of the story of Ptolemy, telling about the events of those years in the first person, which gives an impression of absolute authenticity, presence in that time. It also creates such an effect that the viewer lives with Alexander. Birth, childhood, youth, youth... This makes it possible not only to find out in what conditions the growth of little Alexander, but also to find explanations for many of his actions in the future. We see Alexander not only as a powerful commander, but also as a person. It seems to turn inside out: among the qualities of a brave war (will, courage, determination) there are internal fears, resentments, weaknesses inherent in any person. The director denounces in him all the humanity that is usually hidden under an iron mask, shows without a halo of heroism so that he is still a hero who won not only the whole world, but also the hearts of people. That’s what makes the movie special, and that’s what I find to be its biggest advantage.
Particularly striking were the stunningly recreated military scenes. Skin bumps before the start of the battle and the sincere joy of victory at the end - the film does not leave indifferent. Well, the battle itself is not even worth talking about: it is so realistic that almost all the battles I sat with my eyes closed.
It is worth talking separately about the visual design of the film. Clothing, decorations, buildings - everything is recreated carefully, painstakingly, believably. Even one of the wonders of the world, the lighthouse of Alexandria, flaunts in the background during the same stories of the chronicler. It is worth mentioning the music, the motives of which change with the mood of the film. Appropriate was the reception of the ring composition (the film begins and ends with the same frame - the fall of the ring from the hands of the already dead Alexander the Great), which gives the picture completeness. Symbolism is clearly expressed: interruptions of battle scenes from the height of the eagle flight speak of a predestined victory, because the eagle is a symbol of divinity, courage, faith, victory, greatness and power.
And, of course, the actors who also skillfully played their roles. The role of Angelina Jolie was unusual, but she got very used to the role, playing a slightly mean, crafty, but very strong personality, the mother of the Great. Jared Leto portrayed the serene tranquility of his hero Hephaestion, Alexander's best friend. To some extent, Hephaestion and Alexander are antagonistic heroes, because the former does not have such ambitions, he does not rush to the stars, he is very prudent. I didn’t really like the character played by Colin Farrell. He certainly showed feelings, humanity, but, in my opinion, sometimes everything was somehow too much.
Some scenes seemed to me long, but I think it can be justified, and in general it does not spoil the overall impression of the picture.
But did Alexander really exist? Of course not. Years later, we make him an idol. All people rise and fall... soar and fall. The film showed Alexander, who is unlikely to show encyclopedias and textbooks. The film showed a personality, heroic, but not divine. He is a man who has achieved heights not through some incredible power, but solely because of his personal qualities and ambitions.
The historical drama of Oliver Stone "Alexander" with Colin Farrell in the title role, telling about the life of one of the greatest commanders of all time - Alexander the Great, managed to become a classic.
From the very beginning he bribes the cast of the tape. Here are Colin Farrell (Alexander of Macedonia), Anthony Hopkins (Ptolemy Soter), and Angelina Jolie (Olympiad), and Jared Leto (Hephaestion), and Val Kilmer (Philippe II of Macedonia). With such a truly brilliant cast of leading actors, there is always a risk that when watching a film, we will not look at the characters of the story, but specifically at the people who perform these roles. It is not enough to recruit good actors, each of them must still be in his place. Roles should be selected in such a way that each of the actors could fully reveal their talent. The director did this task perfectly.
Most striking is the reincarnation of Angelina Jolie. Jolie has long become a kind of “face and name” that attracts people to movie theaters to watch action movies of not the highest quality. Oliver Stone in his film showed not the brand “Jolie”, but a first-class actress capable of playing the image of such a complex and charming woman as the Olympics, the mother of Alexander the Great.
All conventionally “external” advantages and disadvantages of the film were considered in a huge stream of reviews and critical articles. For this reason, the author of the review decided to consider the essence of the film. The essence is that the director tried to reveal the character of Alexander and his complex relationships with relatives and friends.
The tragedy of Alexander the Great, as the director of the film saw it, is that, being the ruler of almost everything known at that time of the world, Alexander as a man remained misunderstood and lonely. There is a reasonable remark, they say, all people exposed to power are always lonely and not understood by anyone. In the case of Alexander the Great, the problem of "psychoanalytic" kind is added.
The father and mother of Iskander Zulkarnain (under the name of Alexander the Great the Arab world knows) hated each other with fierce hatred. For the Olympics (Jolie), Alexander was the only and beloved son and tool with which she could take revenge on her husband, Philip II (Kilmer) at the same time. For Philip, Alexander, on the one hand, is the beloved son and heir to the throne, on the other hand, the “breed” (quoted by Philip II), who, at the instigation of his mother, can go against his fatherly will.
Alexander’s parents are torn by conflicting feelings, which is why no king of Egypt and Babylon is suffering, but a simple boy. Alexander, like any other boy, reaches out to his father, but the father will then swallow him, then decide to show his son that he is only one of his subjects. One of the few orders that Philip manages to leave to the boy during the film is to beware of women. This order will play a cruel joke with Alexander, because the father did not bother to explain in detail what he meant.
A mother who thought that she had raised someone who would make her her queen and, accordingly, devote her to the management of a vast empire was gravely mistaken. The most stunning idea of the director is that Alexander’s campaigns are nothing more than an escape from his mother. In Alexander outweighs his dislike of his mother, who tried to separate him from his beloved father and who apparently ordered Philip’s murder. Alexander had his father’s words in his head that women should be avoided. And running away from women begins with running away from mother.
The director makes hints at Alexander's bisexuality, though he doesn't show it explicitly. However, the director's "Freudian" concept explains Alexander's bisexuality. On the one hand, on the biological level, he is attracted to women, but the words of his father work no worse than biological instincts, as a result of which the relationship with women in the hero Colin Farrell does not develop very well. On the other hand, the lack of male attention in childhood and a kind of hostility of the father to him create in Alexander the need to have a strong male shoulder, capable of at least a little replacement for the father. Such a “friend-father” for Alexander becomes Hephaestion, with whom, according to some hints, he was in an intimate relationship.
Drawing a psychological and even more psychoanalytic portrait of a person who lived 25 centuries ago is extremely ungrateful, but very interesting. The director of the film offered us his vision of the personality of Alexander the Great, and the vision is extremely interesting.
The psychoanalytic portrait of Alexander the Great can be skipped and pretended that it does not exist, if the viewer is disgusted with everything related to Freud. However, the film is worth watching. The film is sure to find something that will catch you alive: good camera work, grandiose battle scenes, high-class acting, costumes and scenery. You will not remain indifferent.
Alexander always considered the film to be another grandiose epic film without a particularly exciting storyline or overly dramatic moments. For me, historical films are endless battles, a couple of love moments, and highly anticipated scenes (especially if you know the story). When I finally saw it, I saw something completely different.
To begin with, the cast is very tempting, at least for our generation, where Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins are all loved and admired. Jared Leto is generally a separate topic, maybe in 2004 he was remembered by everyone as a secondary character with beautiful eyes, now everyone knows him as a quite bright and even shocking actor, take at least the film Dallas Buyers Club. He is not afraid to take risks, and having chosen Leto for the role of Hephaestion, the director absolutely did not lose, Jared coped with her by all hundred. Although, I want to note, he appeared in the frame not so often, but always very timely. Angelina Jolie is out of the question, at least to me, if there's anyone who looks like a daring and very domineering queen, it's her. The film clearly tried to show a parallel between her and Alexendra's wife, Roxanne. However, this parallel only emphasized the magnificence and power of Jolie and her heroine. Anthony Hopkins didn’t do much acting, I think they took him more for the PR of this film. Although his presence is not superfluous, rather the opposite. And finally, Colin Farrell. I honestly don't understand why his role is considered such a failure. Many people think that he is not too brutal, that he is not courageous and charismatic? Not at all. I am even outraged by such statements, because if you open your eyes a little wider and forget about these stereotypes, the boundaries of worldview will immediately expand. Colin Farrell may not be an exact copy of Alexander, he may not be what we imagined the formidable conqueror from childhood, but the fact that he presented a completely different image, and an image completely acceptable from the point of view of history, in my opinion, is worthy of respect.
Let’s take a look at what the negative critics rely on. Poorly selected for the role of Alexander, lack of military battles and drama and of course gay theme. Battles are one of the main tasks of the director in the historical cinema. One of them! I don’t understand if the entire 3-hour movie should be battles, because this film includes such genres as drama, melodrama and autobiography. All who complain about the lack of fighting, whether they believe that Alexander was an alien or indeed a son of God, who lived by battle, not human, earthly emotions and problems. To anyone lacking drama, do you think 300 Spartans is a much more impressive film than Alexander? If so, then there is a problem in the very preferences of this or that movie, where slaughter, like a meat grinder, and “brave-heroic” actions are more touching and dramatic than the full disclosure of a man like Alexander, with all his strengths and weaknesses. If you firmly believe that Alesander in this film is vulnerable and hot-tempered, I have to say you simply did not look for such a turn of events, because it is always easier to love the perfect, courageous and unshakable hero. Oliver Stone tried to show that a leader and a leader may not be a tyrant and a despot, but an ordinary person who has his own persistent goals, but at the same time takes into account the feelings of others and especially his loved ones. I want to note how Alexander’s attitudes to certain people were shown. No, he was not soft-bodied, because he punished traitors, and respected those worthy of respect. Remember the scene where he did not enslave a Persian princess. Why confuse nobility with nobility? And finally the gay thing. Maybe someday I'll figure out where that gay thing was. Honestly, I had heard about it even before watching it, and so I expected some forbidden love, passion and so on. However, in the film there was only one kiss with the dancer for a party. What about Hephaestion, you say. What about Hephaestion? Hephaestion may have been gay, but Alexander, although open-minded, did not go beyond any limits. At least I didn’t see it in the movie. Remember what Alexander said to his wife about different types of love when she exclaimed “You love him?” Or what he said to Hephaestion before he died, about their future families and children. Those who did trace the unconventional love affair between Alexander and Hephaestion, I'm sure that's what gave the film such a low rating. All of the above items were just small additions to such an “unforgivable shame” as the theme of love between two men. For me, this is the most unpleasant thing, is it really such hostility can so outshine your eyes and make you hate a movie full of bright moments, great heroes, incredible scenery and huge work done by actors, writers, director and many others.
In conclusion, I want to say that Oliver Stone is good, since thousands of people are still arguing about his film, the rating changes, and the discussions do not stop. I think Alexander’s film is a very decent movie, different from the usual historical one. And to experience its essence, do not look for what you usually look for in action films, biographies, dramas, but connect all genres together and enjoy.
The commander, who conquered half the world at such a young age, is probably associated with a powerful titan. It is not strange, because even during his lifetime he was considered a demigod. “My family is from Hercules, and your father is Zeus himself,” his mother Olympia told him. He himself from an early childhood read Homer and admired the fearless Achilles. What should be the man who built an empire stretching from the Balkans to India? What qualities should one possess who has changed the course of history and done things that no one has been able to repeat before or after? The name of Alexander the Great is overgrown with legends. He was painted and continues to be painted by a powerful superman, a fearless warrior, a cold-blooded conqueror. But it is worth thinking for a moment: maybe he was not at all like that.
The film begins with Ptolemy, ruler of Egypt, forty years after the legendary Hawgamell, telling the story of the conquest of Asia. The old man’s story is carefully recorded in order to convey the spirit of those great events to subsequent generations. As you know, history is written by the winners, so the conquering kings chroniclers always overly idealized. Ptolemy, who began by presenting the name of Alexander and elevating him almost to the level of the gods, suddenly deviates from this - typical for the time - format of presentation, and asks: what was Alexander really? Is it really a demigod? Or is it a man with his weaknesses, feelings, shortcomings and fears?
Oliver Stone, the screenwriter and director of the film, sets himself the task to show Alexander the man. It touches on some moments of his childhood, youth, and focuses on his relationship with his mother. The future conqueror from an early age was not easy to deal with his feelings for his parents. Excessively cruel and rude father and cunning mother, lover of snakes, lived in enmity among themselves, and each of them wanted to educate Alexander in the spirit of his character and interests. This only created and intensified his alienation from his loved ones. From early childhood, the only person in whom Alexander found understanding and support was his friend Hephaestion.
To the question: “Did Stone manage to show Alexander the man?”, I answer: “Yes.” But if you ask, “Did the director show the qualities that made this man conquer half the world?” I shake my head negatively. Basically, we saw the emotional states and mental anguish of the great king. The high-quality script and Colin Farrell’s excellent performance made it possible to capture the complex character of Macedonian, in which courage was combined with sensitivity and vulnerability. Alexander is seen as a dreamer, but Alexander as a general is not traced at all. His quest for conquest is presented by Stone in the light of a certain obsession, devoid of rational calculation and any plan. And without the last two things, he certainly wouldn't have conquered half the world. The only scene where Alexander's tactical considerations are shown is not at all credible. There you can see the youth saw of the young conqueror, rather than the grandiose talent of a strategist, which the real Alexander certainly possessed.
Another gross miscalculation of Stone is battle scenes. And it’s not that there were only two of them in the entire three-hour film, but what they are. I doubt that the viewer is very interested in knowing where the left, where the central, and where the right flank of the Macedonian army. Perhaps Stone, signing them, made a claim to the maximum reliability of the reconstruction of the historical battle. And in fact, watching this battle, it was not clear at all how the Macedonians, of which there were ten times less, came out victorious.
At one time, "Alexander" became one of the most high-budget films, where a whole team of superstars starred, and which was crushed to dust by critics and hardly paid for itself at the world box office. Stone was thrown a lot of claims: from distortion of historical facts to political subtexts in the film. Many were outraged by Alexander’s apparent emphasis on bisexuality. The image of the great conqueror with an overly emotional and hot-tempered neurotic also caused discontent. The picture was nominated for Golden Raspberry in six categories. All this is fair, and not quite. As a biopic that tells about the brief and prolific life of a great historical figure, the film is quite good and not without some aesthetics of masterfully worked out scenes and dialogues. As an action, Alexander is weak. I am not going to judge the reliability of the facts - anyway, you can find dozens of different interpretations of such events, and the film is still artistic. Given all that has been said, we can conclude that Stone’s work is far from the worst in the genre of historical cinema and it is certainly worth watching.
7 out of 10
In my opinion, this film is somewhat underrated. As you know, the first half of the 2000s revived Hollywood’s passion for the epic picture of the ancient world and “Alexander the Great” is one of the key paintings of this period. Yes, perhaps the film is a little boring and protracted, but this exacerbates the sense of hopelessness and tragedy of the life of the greatest hero of all human history. In my opinion, Colin Farrell was just born for the role. As you know, this actor in life is still a bully, but his talent, as they say, forgives him everything. By showing his hero to the vulnerable, the suffering and even the insane, he only brings him closer to the audience. We all understand that even the greatest are men of flesh and blood, that even the ancient rulers who believed they were born of gods were men. This is a tragic fate and at the same time the greatest man in all known history, the name Alexander called children in almost all corners of the planet. I also think that the emphasis on the bisexuality of the hero is exaggerated not by the film itself, but by critics and audiences. In those days, there was a slightly different vision of the relationship between men and women. As is known, Plato himself praised male love and considered the highest manifestation of love between men warriors or sages, women were considered the guardian of the hearth and the continuation of the family. Of course, we do not understand this in our time, we can argue about it, but it was different times.
Torn by passions, Alexander still aspired to the top of the world, experiencing all the hardships of military life. His whole life was spent on a campaign to this summit, he shared all the joys and sorrows with his warriors, including Hephaestion (Jaret Leto) who was devoted to him. At the same time, the young Alexander was influenced by the family drama, the strange relationship of his parents, his overbearing father, as well as the fact that he died prematurely and young Alexander had to take his place. The painful love of his mother and the desire to elevate him to God left the hero no choice but to become the greatest king, whose name will be known for many centuries to come.
I think the actors did great, everyone in their place. The gloomy and even somewhat heavy atmosphere, the length of the film gives even more drama to this picture. Young Angelina Jolie (actress almost the same age as Colin Farrell, and played his mother) introduces some element of the myth of everything that happens, where people can really be gods, if only for the duration of their lives.
If you are waiting for an epic movie, historical spectacle, it is better to watch Spartacus with Kirk Douglas or Troy. This film is more of a psychological drama, but it will not leave you indifferent when great people are torn apart by great passions. Colin Farrell played excellently here, he is a born actor, so much emotion that you begin not just to empathize, but to breathe in the same beat with the hero and live it while the picture goes.
Boldly put
Thanks to this film, I became interested in the personality of Alexander the Great, for which I thank him.
I will say that this film did not immediately become one of my favorites, after repeated viewing and information about Alexander taken from other sources, I elevated it to this rank.
Reasons for this attitude:
1. The only strong film about the life of Alexander.
2. Throughout the history of cinema, few dared to film such a person.
3. Wikipedia says that Oliver Stone's film is based on historical facts, and Colin Farrell is matched by an outward resemblance to Alexander. Before watching, I doubted the choice for the role of Alexander, but after Farrell for me was Macedonian.
4. With great curiosity I looked at that era: places, clothes, armor, manners, views, teachings. The world where Alexander's foot walked. This film gives you the opportunity to plunge into the world long before us.
5. In the footsteps of the great conqueror, from the beginning of history to its completion. A complete film.
6. Alexander himself in the film is a contradictory personality, living like any person, but believing in his divine essence. The indefatigable soul that looks only forward with both low and high values. The authors have created a living hero who is remembered for his thoughts and actions. Especially you can see how his life changes after each step towards the goal.
7. Val Kilmer as Father Alexander and Angelina Jolie as Mother, I count 100% hit. I think that’s what they looked like.
8. Anthony Hopkins in the role of the aging Ptolemy – a colleague of Alexander, leads the narrative of the life of Alexander. At the beginning of the film and at the end, I listened.
very carefully. A penetrating and philosophically meaningful speech, where some phrases stay with you for a long time.
9. Money did not regret the creation of the picture, a rather large-scale picture. Creating an early world is like creating a new one. Great work done.
10. Exceeding myself, I mean the director. Best job.
For objectivity, you need to say about the minuses in the picture, since nothing is perfect in this world:
1. All his adult life Alexander spent in battles, the film shows spectacular battles, but the viewer wanted their list to be more.
2. I love historical films: Gladiator, Patriot, Braveheart, The Last Samurai, and there is one feature in Alexander, he was shown alive with a beating heart, with his vices, sometimes with schizophrenic behavior, drawing himself and his army to achieve one goal, to conquer the world. I think the audience wanted to see Hercules in him. Oliver Stone gave us not fiction, but history.
I accepted her as she might have been. Some people don't.
The glory and memory of men will always belong to those who have strived all their lives to realize their great dreams. “Alexander, I think Oliver Stone’s great dream, which he proudly fulfilled.” Not soon there will be someone who will be able to show Alexander in the best light.
This is the most unfair film in history.
Yeah, that's right. To a greater extent, those who criticize, although sometimes quite one-sided, and those who admire from the heart. They are looking at different sides of the same thing. Yes, for the first time the film frankly did not like, Alexander irritated with his exaltation, Hephaestion did not notice at all, Philip slightly overplayed, Parmenion on the commander was not like a commander, but a confused schoolgirl, the rest were or were not, the rumor fondled familiar names from history, and the personalities behind these names in the film did not see. The sound is good, the picture is beautiful, the color scheme is selected perfectly. Oh, yes, Roxanne is a separate subject. I did not think that the Sogdians and Bactrians had such roots. Some scenes did not see, because periodically tired of boredom, just did not look. But! You know, you don't have to represent Brad Pitt in this movie, let alone Russell Crowe. It's not that movie!!! Crowe is gorgeous in his Gladiator - no words! But it's a different movie! It’s a different story and a different approach.
In Stone's film, it's impossible to imagine another Alexander (God, I was annoyed by Farrell while watching). I strongly suspect that the director shot this way, trying to reveal a different essence and a different character, while trying to figure it out. And the fact that it is difficult to combine such a vision with the generally acceptable characteristics of heroic action (battle scenes were not particularly impressive) - here it is, a contradiction, and played against, and gave a negative, and did not turn out a whole, strong and complete story. But! But again! After watching this film for the second and a half times, suddenly spit on everything that you can find fault with (sorry, Herodotus) and began to follow the story of two friends, well, maybe two lovers, two commanders, warriors who killed how many people FIG knows, and for some reason carried, if not through life, then through the film for sure, a bright feeling of love for each other, and God with her, we will not deal with, friendly or romantic, but sincere and happy. And I kind of like that.
Alexander - one of the best historical films and films in general!
I’ve seen it several times and don’t get bored. I look with bated breath every time. Excellent cast, spectacular battle scenes (though not the best in this genre), beautiful costumes and bright scenery! Watching the movie is a pleasure!
Most of all, of course, caught Alexander and Hephaestion. Their love was shown very beautifully, without vulgarity and other things. All their looks, smiles, tears, all their emotions fascinated and made them believe. Of course, this is the main merit of actors.
Colin Farel is quite cool, but here he conveyed exactly the image that was conceived in the film. Although, after all, it was in love scenes and relationship scenes that he did not last a little. But not much.
But Jared Leto was amazing! I never thought he could play so brilliantly! Everything, absolutely all emotions he conveyed perfectly! Throughout the film, I couldn’t take my eyes off him, even though he wasn’t the main character. The role of Hephaestion is definitely his. I don’t think anyone would have played better. This character is associated only with Jared. I think that's what success is. You can’t imagine anyone else besides this actor.
All the other actors were great too.
The film shows the life of Alexander, not only as a great commander, the son of Zeus, the king and so on, but also as a man. This movie is bribing you again. It is not interesting to look only at historical facts and battles.
I like the small number of battles. In some movies, they are very annoying because of the overabundance. Everything is fine here.
Anyway, the movie is beautiful! I think I'll watch it again.
To me, this is an incredible story. From the very first minute, the picture captured me completely and completely, and did not let go for several hours. It was from this film that I began my acquaintance with Collin Farrell, and later became one of my favorite actors. Alexander of Macedon was a hero whose greatness and glory was almost inferior to the heroes of Greek mythology. The cruelty of his father and the excessive love of his mother, the envy of his peers and the constant internal struggle, the little boy knew from childhood that he had a great future. Audacious, narcissistic, desperate, but willing to unite the whole world, this was one of the most outstanding rulers, and I think Colin coped with this role perfectly.
Angelina Jolie is as beautiful as ever. A cancerous woman with a sharp mind and foresight, the true mother of a great king. I don’t think anyone would have done a better job with this. Anthony Hopkins came very close, his role was not so great, but for some reason I remember. Of course, from his presence, the picture only won.
As for the sensational connection between Alexander and Hephaestion, I do not see anything vulgar in this, everything is quite sweet and modest. This is not a gay movie, my friends! Look at the root. Jared Leto played well, sensually. These gentle looks, so much tenderness. Hephaestion was the only one who was ready to do anything, was devoted to the end, accepted Alexander as he was. This is true friendship, true love.
The film is very colorful, lively, it is literally full of colors and endlessly changing scenery. Nice soundtracks, atmospheric. The presence of multiple wars does not spoil the plot at all, does not make it boring, because this is a story, and it, as you know, is all in blood. This is the story of a great man who lived with a good purpose, who was equally loved and hated. And as in any drama, the end was very predictable.
I enjoyed watching it for the hundredth time. “Alexander is one of the few films that can stir up so much emotion in me, it’s probably my favorite movie.” It is so beautiful.
I really enjoyed watching it. It is a pity that the director in the final version of 2007 cut a lot of good scenes. Apparently, he was under a lot of pressure because of Alexander’s not quite traditional orientation. I didn’t see anything in the movie that made it so critical. Alexander was a multifaceted personality and Oliver Stone managed to reflect that in his film. I think we should be grateful for his work. Scenes of campaigns and battles are shown very realistically, especially the battle with the king of Persia Darius. Colin Farrell perfectly conveyed Alexander’s character, his emotions and doubts.
For the completeness of the picture I would recommend critics to read 'Comparative biographies' Plutarch, the part where he tells about Alexander or the Mary Renault trilogy. Then it becomes clear that all the attacks on the director were completely in vain. He didn't come up with anything. Everything is strictly based on historical materials.