Alexander

Plot synopsis:
The film is based on the life of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, who conquered Asia Minor, Egypt, Persia, and North West India. Shown are some of the key moments of Alexander's youth, his invasion of the mighty Persian Empire and his death. It also outlines his early life, including his difficult relationship with his father Philip II of Macedonia, his strained feeling towards his mother Olympias, the unification of the Greek city-states and the two Kingdoms (Macedonia and Epirus) under the Hellenic League, and the conquest of the Persian Empire in 331 BC. It also details his plans to reform his empire and the attempts he made to reach the end of the then known world.
The story begins 40 years after 323 BC, around 283 BC, with Ptolemy I Soter, who narrates throughout the film. We see Alexander's daily life and the strained relationship between his parents. Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias and his tutor Aristotle, where he finds interest in love, honour, music, exploration, poetry and military combat. His relationship with his father is destroyed when Philip marries Attalus's niece, Eurydice.
After Philip is assassinated, Alexander becomes King of Macedonia. Ptolemy mentions Alexander's punitive campaign in which he razes Thebes and burns Persepolis, then gives an overview of Alexander's west-Persian campaign, including his declaration as the son of Zeus by the Oracle of Amun at Siwa Oasis, his great battle against the Persian Emperor Darius III in the Battle of Gaugamela and his eight-year campaign across Asia.
Also shown are Alexander's private relationships with his childhood friend Hephaistion and later his wife Roxana. Hephaistion compares Alexander to Achilles, to which Alexander replies that, if he is Achilles, Hephaistion must be his Patroclus (Achilles' best friend and lover). When Hephaistion mentions that Patroclus died first, Alexander pledges that, if Hephaistion should die first, he will follow him into the afterlife. Hephaistion shows extensive jealousy when he sees Alexander with Roxana and deep sadness when he marries her, going so far as to attempt to keep her away from him after Alexander murders Cleitus the Black in India.
After initial objection from his soldiers, Alexander convinces them to join him into his final and bloodiest battle, the Battle of Hydaspes. He is severely injured with an arrow but survives and is celebrated. Later on, Hephaistion succumbs to an unknown illness either by chance or perhaps poison, speculated in the movie to be Typhus carried with him from India. Alexander, full of grief and anger, distances himself from his wife, despite her pregnancy, believing that she has killed Hephaistion. He dies less than three months after Hephaistion, in the same manner, keeping his promise that he would follow him. On his deathbed, Bagoas grieves as Alexander's generals begin to split up his kingdom and fight over the ownership of his body.
The story then returns to 283 BC, where Ptolemy admits to his scribe that he, along with all the other officers, had indeed poisoned Alexander just to spare themselves from any future conquests or consequences. However, he has it recorded that Alexander died due to illness compounding his overall weakened condition. He then goes on to end his memoirs with praise to Alexander.
The story then ends with the note that Ptolemy's memoirs of Alexander were eventually burned, lost forever with the Library of Alexandria.

Tags: boring, murder, violence, flashback, psychedelic, action, philosophical, melodrama, tragedy, revenge, historical, queer

Review:
In this film, we see a relationship that is hard for most people today to understand, namely a passionate love relationship between two men in which sex is not very important and possibly even absent.Aristotle essentially explained the whole film near the beginning when he told the young couple something like the following, as best I can remember it, "When two men lie together in lust, it is over indulgence.
Every time the momentum picks up a little and we finally get into it a bit, we are suddenly thrown back into yet another agonizing scene between Alexander and his mother, or his father, that stops the film dead in its tracks because of the ridiculous dialogue and over-the-top acting.Not to mention the weird accents, Colin Farrell who is wholly miscast because he doesn't have the charisma of a world-class leader (nor the voice - in his pre-battle pep talk speeches he squeaks like a mouse on speed), the wishy-washy approach to his bisexuality (if you want to make the point, then just make it, for Pete's sake), the flat characters of his friends and generals that one cannot tell apart, Val Kilmer chewing up the scenery, and the rather poor aerial shots of the big battle.
In a long shot, Oliver Stone chose to create a historically accurate  film around the life of a man, both fact and fiction, who created the  gateway for humanity's future path.
This is a brilliant film, which was portrayed correctly, from a  personable point of view, to create the character of Alexander in the  manner in which he lived; uninhibited by other influences save those  whom he loved and knew were trustworthy.
The film is a biopic of Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) and his campaigns but I'm befuddled how Stone does not go into depth the effect the man had made in history.
You'd have thought given the amount of ancient source material which is still extant, dodgy or not, on Alexander's life that Stone could have cobbled together a story from the various accounts without resorting to simply making bits up (i.e Alexander being shot in battle with Porus), pointlessly attributing speeches from one character to another (i.e Darius's daughter giving a reply to Alexander which is actually that of Porus), having set designs which were simply ludicrous (i.e Olympias having the Ram on a tree thingy from Ur in her room)...I could go on, and on, and on...This film was simply awful on every level, the battle of Gaugamela just looked like a complete shambles, why did the Macedonians (Including non-Irish actors) put on Irish accents?
Viewers who expect an epic display of world conquest will be extremely disappointed in Oliver Stone's Alexander, which includes exactly two fairly brief battle sequences in its three hour running time.
The film is not about conquest; it is an attempt to create a character study of one of history's most self-contradictory and enigmatic figures.The emphasis, however, should be on the word "attempt." Alexander fails in three basic ways: in its cast, in its refusal to meet certain character issues head-on, and in a directorial decision that easily ranks among the most serious misfires in recent memory.Alexander the Great was a charismatic, self-contradictory, and enigmatic leader who led and inspired the largest army the world had seen up to that point.
The role, however, is considerably revised, and while Rosario Dawson gives it all she has the part plays like something out of bondage skin flick.During the film's theatrical release some audiences complained that Alexander was portrayed as a homosexual.
The resulting relationships read like something off a television soap opera that has been canceled halfway into the first season.For the sexually insecure, there is a DVD issue that deletes some eight minutes of this footage; although I went with the unedited version, and although the scenes in question are very badly done, I cannot imagine the deletion of these largely cringe-inducing scenes improves the film to any significant degreelargely because virtually everything about the film is no less awkward.The script is at best mediocre and the story line so incoherent that Anthony Hopkins is required to provide constant narrationsomething that has the effect of telling us what happened rather than allowing us to see it happen.
But by far the greatest failing of the script and story line is Oliver Stone's decision to present a chunk of the story, such as it is, out of sequence.In essence, the first half hour of the film establishes the tri-fold conflict between King Philip, Queen Olympias, and the young Alexander and runs up to a major confrontation.
The third was to give the film a chance, having been influenced by almost unanimous bad or indifferent reviews before seeing it.As a film and man of history, Alexander would have been better served by linear story-telling as opposed to retrospectives of his youth through the narrative of his veteran general, Ptolemy (sorry, Anthony Hopkins).
With a cast like it has, a budget ample enough for three good films, and a legend-centered plot sure to pique the viewer's interest well before the movie is even seen, it delivers a seriously despicable, laughable fiasco.Of course it's set in ancient Greece.
So far no good.As for Alexander's supposedly legendary tactical genius and indomitable character, here instead the viewer gets to watch the boy from Dublin with painfully obvious bleached streaks in his hair and freshly tinted eyebrows look at Jared Leto countless times with a facial expression that's half "Mommy can I have another cookie?" and half irritable bowel syndrome.
After watching this film, I came to realize that if the real Alexander the Great looked anywhere near as weird as Colin Farrell with a giant blonde wig, that was probably the distraction he used to stay alive in so many battles.
As a matter of fact, the only convincing character was Angelina Jolie as Alexander's mother, and she is probably younger than her on-screen son, Colin Farrell!
I guess I should give Oliver Stone some props for sticking with historical fact and giving Alexander a "feminine male friend" but I admit, my 21st century American bias made it difficult to accept that a man who led thousands of brave soldiers also enjoyed having his nails manicured by transvestites.
(Michael Wood's excellent TV series/DVD/book "In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great" is a much better use of your time, and much more engaging.) The Irish accents are invasive, and in the case of some (e.g. Val Kilmer) truly risible.
(It would have been a very low budget porn film to use such poor wigs...)The film's historical accuracy is better than Stone's version of the Kennedy story, but it completely misses in its attempt to capture the true sense of scale and ambition in Alexander's quests.
Stone uses Plutarch's theme throughout his film, don't be fooled by his placing the tale in the mouth of Ptolemy, Ptolemy was used as his main source by Arrian who wrote an altogether more honest and accurate account of Alexander's life and comes to quite different conclusions than Plutarch which while still dubious in their own right are demonstrably more trustworthy than a self-admitted propagandist.So why use Plutarch when you know he's intentionally historically misleading?
Because it's more sexy.From him comes the portrayal of Olympias as having snakes in her bed (though not mucking about with them all the time), from him come the most lurid accounts of Alexander's excesses in sexuality, drinking, demagoguery and what have you...they have to be there so Plutarch can ultimately use them to kill him, it's Plutarch who puts Alexander's death down to drinking, a tendentious lesson in how ignoring the Greek virtue of self control will bring even the 'Great' to a sticky end.Here endeth the history lesson.As to the film itself my complaints would largely be repeating what's already been said...very silly and inappropriate accents, the structure of the film is a mess, manipulative historical inaccuracies which would have made even Plutarch blush, are they Greek or Macedonian?
Misrepresentation of the Achaemenid Persians while completely ignoring Alexander's massacres of civilians, terrible and confusing battles which give no hint at his tactical brilliance (looking mad/daft and shouting a lot does not a great commander make), he gets an arrow in the chest at completely the wrong time and place, awful hammy script making for unintentional comedic moments.....and much, much more....takes a breath...So in conclusion, this film is largely based on the least trustworthy account of Alexander's life which is then messed about with a bit more by Stone, often for no discernibly good reason, then chopped up into a pointlessly confusing, often laughable shambles.Avoid..
I think the reason Hollywood is so dumbed down now is when someone tries to do something different on a big scale like Alexander, HEAVEN'S GATE, REDS, ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, THE RIGHT STUFF or films like that is that the American critics who are always complaining about dumb audiences and filmmakers can't get them and tear them a new *beep*hole killing them off at the box-office.
Pretty much boring movie is Alexander.Not at all gripping is the story.Based on a true story this should be at least something courageous portraying one of the greatest conquerers of the world.But rather than being courageous this was quite frail.Collin Ferrel never looked Alexander.His acting is terrible in this movie.Rather than inspiring,Alexander(Collin Ferrel) hardly looked a shadow of himself.Angelina Jolie never looked the mother of Alexander.Van Kilmer also fails to deliver,looking very much shabby & over-pretentious.Rest of the casting is OK.Some fight scenes are good though specially the epic battle with Persians.The fighting was quite captivating.In this movie the effort should have been more on Alexander's battle campaigns but this was more of a drama movie.Never at all you enjoy this film,truly if real Alexander would have seen this he would have been ashamed..
As a result, Stone essentially neglects to tell the story of how Alexander came to be such an all-conquering warrior, and gives the illusion that his conquests were made simply by turning up.One of the main issues with the film is that the central characters - despite their lengthy screen time and the numerous incidents each is embroiled in - are never stripped bare for the viewer for long enough for them to be more than two dimensional.
She has been given the direction to use some sort of anachronistic "Transylvanian" accent that would do better in a Hammer Dracula movie than in this piece.Val Kilmer looks as if he wants to leave the film as soon as possible and the only real genuine emotion I felt during the film was pity for him.The blonde wigged Colin Farrell is far worse.
I have heard pretty much nothing but bad things about Alexander, so I pretty much stayed away from it, but I noticed that it was sitting in my mom's movie collection and I just wanted to watch something new.
Trust me, Alexander is just a bad movie and is an insult to one of the greatest warriors of our time.Based on the story of Alexander the Great, we see him grow as a boy who isn't accepted by his father, is admired by his mother, and is slowly learning the power of being a king, being a strong warrior.
His father is murdered leaving him the throne and going into battle to conquer lands, own whoever he wants, make decisions that will effect his country, having to figure out who are his true friends, questioning his sexuality, discovering the true difficulty of being a good king to his people.I seriously had the neuce around my neck by the end of this film, I just couldn't believe how long it was, I don't mind long movies at all if they are worth your time and are very well put together but Alexander is just a mess.
Stone and his writers are more interested in Alex spouting platitudes about respecting the Persians ancient culture rather than his belief in the superiority of Greece over the barbarians.Alexander's wife Roxanne, when she is not required to do full frontals, contributes very little to the film apart from a few pouty looks.
If there have been five films in my life that left the most indelible impression on me, holding me immobilized on my chair watching until the last credit has disappeared while everybody else is already leaving, talking to myself while going home, three of them were connected to Oliver Stone one way or another (Midnight Express being the first).
Undefeated yet mortal, great yet flawed, larger-than-life yet human, Alexander has left a mark in the histories of so many peoples for a reason, and yet, the film has no more chances to be understood by his viewers than the king himself from his soldiers and childhood friends.
Having names such Oliver Stone, Anthony Hopkins, Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, Christopher Plummer and Rosario Dawson in the cast; a great theme; and a huge budget, I could never expect that "Alexander" could be a boring movie.
There is also the cumbersome length, pedestrian pace and Oliver Stone's direction which is rather pretentious(a term I try to avoid like the plague but the term applies when talking about the direction here).In conclusion, it may have great spectacle but there are too many poor assets that made Alexander in all honesty a chore to watch.
When director Oliver Stone announced that he would be making a huge budget film on the life of Alexander the Great, audiences, understandably, had high hopes.
Hollywood star power and tons of money can't save this overwrought, melodramatic story of the life and times of Alexander The Great (Colin Farrell), the Greek warrior who conquered lands in times B.C.The single biggest problem here is the script, and in particular the plot structure.
But whatever the cause, the screen story's convoluted plot is a huge barrier to understanding Alexander and the people in his life.In addition, the script's dialogue contains too much exposition, mostly from Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) who, via numerous monologues, lectures us about Greek history.
"Alexander" is no exception; it muddles along for nearly three hours, and covers most of one man's lifetime as he conquers lands from the Mediterranean to the Far East.Maybe Oliver Stone would have been better advised to confine his saga to a smaller, more restricted story, one wherein viewers can get to know the protagonist and his inspirations and challenges.
Stone's Alexander actually screams like a girl and throws a tantrum at least twice in the movie.As for the battle choreography, it is probably the worst of a major film in the past ten years at the very least.
The Battle of Gaugamela, one of the greatest victories in the history of the world, that left the army of Darius, King of Kings, completely annihilated and his empire open for free reign, is depicted by Stone to be remarkably slow-paced and anti-climactic.In short, it is inconceivable that the producers deemed this film worthy of investment, and it is a sacrilege to the great man and a stain on his memory that this travesty of a film was ever made..
Just as Emmerich failed with the enduring legend of Achilles and the Trojan war, Stone fails miserably with Alexander.In the 60s, in the era of Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia, audiences knew what they wanted and expected from a historical film--good history, a sympathetic hero (and hopefully heroine), lots of action.
This is a movie I really looked forward to seeing but it turned out to be a great disappointment and I switched it off with half an hour to go.Although the action scenes were brilliantly executed and presented, I found the many flash-backs to Alexander's childhood were extremely boring and that they made the story hard to follow.I looked forward to action on a grand scale and that part didn't disappoint me.
I don't need to know about Alexander's sex life, a movie about a man like this should be about his achievements, not about who he had sex with!
Historic , big-budgeted , mammoth rendition and breathtaking epic movie with stunning battle scenes but overlong and a little boring pacing ; this one is professionally directed by Oliver Stone (2003) .
You don't have to like it, but respect it as being different.Oliver Stone clearly loves and wishes to cherish the memory of Alexander, as does everyone working on the film.
It's different than how I ever thought of Alexander and his life, but I accept Oliver Stone's take on it, because it's his movie.
I don't know how many people will go see it twice, but I really believe that if everyone who didn't like it saw it a second time (as a biography or an art film, mind you), then you will see an excellent movie..
It appears that the film attempts to make up for this with battle scenes that drag on forever and really aren't that interesting; the time would be better spent giving the viewer a more informative picture of who Alexander really was.
It was nothing short of incredible.Oliver Stone, who directed and wrote the script for the film, did a superb job recreating the life of Alexander the Great.
Instead, Oliver Stone focuses on Alexander's sexuality and on his insane, snake-handling mother, played by Angelina Jolie, with what sounds like a Transylvanian accent.Colin Farrel is spectacularly miscast as Alexander.
Like all Oliver Stone movies, Alexander was long, but it was definitely worth seeing.
Oliver Stone's attempt to give a realistic rendering of Alexander the Great's life necessitated a realistic rendering of his times as well, and the fact is, things were different then.
I found it badly acted (Colin Farell, Angelina Jolie), badly casted (again Colin Farell is terrible as Alexander), badly filmed (with horrible sceneries) and way too long with too many bad conversations.It doesn't happen very often that i walk out on a movie but on this one i almost did.