Farrell not that great in this and the plot was too big...

Rating: 6/10 (9 January 2006)

even for a three hour film. The story of Alexander the Great is an interesting one, but Stone begins when he is a young child and tries to fit all he can in 3 hours. I thought it made the film too broad and hard to follow in places since there are quite a few flashbacks. It would have been better, if the story had been narrowed. Maybe begin just as Alexander was named King and then follow him as he conquered the East.
One question I have after seeing this was did every man in 320 BC wear eyeliner? Was eyeliner even invented then? And Jolie is as hot as ever but was it possible for a woman to have flawless makeup at this time? I was also disappointed with the battle scenes. They were too choppy and not that great. The battles in Gladiator were much better. The blood was flying everywhere, but you just couldn't tell much about what was going on.
And the acting was not very good by anyone. I thought Farrell was pretty bad and I've liked him most of the movies he has done. And why did Jolie even bother with an accent. And she was the only one who tried to have an accent. We know they didn't speak English at this time, so why bother with fake accents.
FINAL VERDICT: The story of Alexander that Stone wanted to tell would have been better if it was a 10 hour mini series on the history channel. He tries to tell to much in 3 hours, which makes the film seem disjointed with a lack of a central story. I don't think it was as good as Troy, and that wasn't that great either, so I don't recommend this one.