Alexander review

Rating: 2/10 (5 February 2006)

Don't listen to all the positive reviews of this film it is in fact tedious.
Alexander was this fantastic warrior so why don't we see him fight much? There are only two battle scenes in this film and the amount of time we see Alexander in action is minimal. He was bisexual/trisexual/pansexual as well so why don't we get more sex scenes? We don't get much sex or violence in this film we get lots of boring boring talking, and the characters talk like in a Shakespeare play so most of the time you can't work out what they're drivelling on about. If Stone really wanted to make the language authentic he should have got his characters to speak in the actual languages used at the time like in 'Passion of the Christ'.
I think Oliver Stone has made some excellent films like 'Born on the 4th of July' and 'Natural Born Killers' but he just got it wrong here. In attempting to make the film deep it just ends up deeply tedious. The film is very uninvolving and you don't get to care for the characters. They keep going on about Achilles and Troy in this film. 'Troy' is way better than this film because it doesn't shy away from being a straightforward piece of entertainment, and in actual fact it succeeds in being a lot more deep and meaningful that this confusing and pretentious film. Why does Stone decide to introduce his natural born killer red colouring effect when Alexander falls in battle? It really doesn't mean anything apart from- yeah- Alexander is injured so he's bleeding and blood is red so- yeah- everything goes red- yeah- like blood - yeah deep and meaningful.
Lots of talk and very little action of sexual or violent nature about a hypersexual hyperviolent warlord results in a very disappointing film and at 2 hours 40 minutes long a really boring one too.