Great film, lame comments.

Rating: 1/10 (21 December 2007)

Overall score of 5.4 and a ton of negative comments tells little about the movie but much about the audience.
Really it gets so lame it's funny to read. "He portrayed Alexander without too much machismo? How dares he!" - that's basically what half of the comments is about. And nearly every last one of these people thinks that he has enough knowledge about cinematography to tell Oliver Stone how to make movies. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
The movie itself is of course brilliant. It stylish, elegant and dainty. And it shows perfectly that *every* man is just a man and nothing more than that, regardless of his role in history. That's what I easily agree with. (And I suppose that partially for this "Alexander" is so hated. Of course there's a billion of B-grade movies which teach us exactly the opposite.)
I'm not even saying that Alexander in the film perfectly resembles real Alexander. It's not necessary. What I'm saying is that: 1) Such things are totally impossible to verify, hence the discussion is pointless. 2) The film has nothing to do with historical credibility since it's not documentary.
The only wrong thing about "Alexander" is the attitude of people who believe themselves to be experts in history (while in fact they'd fail a secondary school exam if it was today) and even better experts in film-making (while it's further from truth than Australia from Europe).
Bottomline: Once you're ready to accept it as work of art (without your own incompetent ideas) - it'll work wonderfully for you.
10/10