People who complain about this movie are missing the point, entirely

Rating: 10/10 (25 November 2009)

I happen to be a fan of history, and of the Alexander legend.
What the hordes of pseudo-intellectuals forget is that it's a movie about the legend, not about the man. Going in, I expect it to be a story, embellished, dramatic. I don't want realism, and neither should anyone who watches this movie. If you want to know about Alexander the Great, you go read a history book.
The movie was said to be long, but it was excellent in its length. The portrayal of Alexander was said to be 'whiny' or pathetic. I think that's a personal, probably a modern, bias. I like to imagine an Alexander who wasn't afraid of emotions, like many people are these days. Besides, when I think of EXTREMELY charismatic people, not just fake-charismatic people, I think of emotional - because they have to connect with people. One of the reviewers here said it didn't feel like real conversation. Well it was obvious to me that it was the POINT of the story to have a series of monologues as a stylistic choice, attempting to make it seem more like an epic poem. It did exactly that, I thought.
There's also the comment that it overlooked Alexander's intelligence on the battlefield. While I agree, it did overlook his master-strategist aspect, it was intentional. Everyone knows he was a master strategist. The story was about his legend, the dream that people saw when they remembered him. He was that epic assault on the enemy. That single, solitary attack with complete abandon and complete faith that represented Alexander the Great, god among men.