Some praise and much critics

Rating: 4/10 (10 January 2005)

I rated this movie with 4 because I overall feel disappointed by "Alexander". A movie I had much hopes to be another historical Blockbuster.
First of all i will write the good things of the movie :

The character portrait of Alexander given in this movie convinced me. Esp. the way he was influenced by his mother and that Alexander excludes himself more and more from his macedonian troops.

The Battle of Gaugamela is the best Battlescene in history I've seen so far. Great cameras and there were also some tactics described not the fast-cutting, hectic fighting of most modern movies of that genre.

But sorrily i left the movie with the feeling that the great potential was wasted.

The music is really awful. It is either too corny or too "patriotic". The worst scene is when Alexander tames the wild horse and rides over the grassland. It reminds me of "Black Beauty" ( not ONLY because of the music ).

The dialogs are horrible! The last movie I've seen with such bad dialogs was "Pearl Harbor". I was expecting a historical movie, not a corny Love story between two men. The movie is way too much stressed to the relationship of Alexander and Hephaistion, so everybody talks about the gayness of the movie and not about the History of Alexander.

The role of Ptolemy as narrator of Alexanders Life takes away a lot of atmosphere. I hoped to see a movie about the ( political ) History of Alexander. How he grows to the greatest commander of ancient history ( from strategic and tactical view ) and esp. about the campaign through Asia. In one moment he's a 16 years old teen and then standing at Gaugamela. What about the Battle at the Granicus, the Battle of Issos ,his conquer of Egypt? They're all just mentioned in two or three sentences by Ptomely. What about the long march to Babylon and further to Persepolis? And one of the most disputed events of Alexanders journey was left. The burning of the temples in Persepolis! Those events are either left or unmotivated told by the narrator instead of making these the main events of "Alexander".

FAZIT : The inner view of Alexander as a person is well done. And the ( rare ) Battlescenes are great, but the movie is missing a good balance between dialogs and events. But my greatest critics is about the dialogs itself. Who the hell wrote them? Perhaps they would do well in daily soaps but not in a historical movie for cinemas. So the movie makes a good portrait but most of the times bores the viewer with long non-happening scenes.