Alexander

With the passage of time and after a second viewing, I must say that it is truly amazing. There is a difference between seeing it in a packed cinema with tons of popcorn everywhere and seeing it in a home theater, in a calm and pleasant setting. The production design is stunning and the battle at Gaugamela is truly an awesome spectacle. Additionally, the characters' psychology is excellent and they had a very unconventional approach to the concept of epic historical blockbuster; it’s different, original and good. (14/01/2005)

A bittersweet three-hour history lesson. Without a muscular and masculine historical hero, without action and, in the first two hours, without emotions or clear motivations for the characters’ actions (everything changes in a flashback). But even the historical atmosphere that so pleasantly radiated from the simplistic Troy has been replaced here with a bisexual erotic sultriness reminiscent of the “famous” Caligula. I appreciate the fact that Oliver Stone didn’t simplify anything and is faithful to history. As a psychological profile of a great conqueror with an aching soul, Alexander is a success. However, I expect something more from a three-hour epic. And I mainly don’t understand the investors, or rather how they could invest $150 million in a film based on a screenplay that utterly defies commercial formulas. (13/01/2005)

In terms of acting, Alexander is very high level. Colin Farrell is excellent and Angelina Jolie blew me away, before I had a very poor opinion of her, but her she really put on a great show. The production design is exemplary, the battles duly spectacular, but the magic fades from them under the weight of longwinded soul searching. Some legendary events are left out (cutting the Gordian knot), while they could have spiced up the story nicely and bring in a taste of the unknown. Stone didn’t know when to take his foot off the gas and when to hit the floor. It was his only mistake, but it was huge. (15/01/2006)

Oliver Stone is a legend who has made great films. However, many say that in recent years he has failed, which is reflected in films like "World Trade Center" or "Alexander the Great". One has a tendency to compare the film with a gem like "Troy". That comparison is a bit harsh, but on the other hand, not completely unjustified. I haven't explored the extent to which Stone stuck to the source material, but I am sure he did it fairly faithfully. Unfortunately, he focused mainly on certain controversial aspects of Alexander's life, such as homosexuality and his strange relationship with his mother, where it would be possible to talk about a certain form of Oedipus complex, which ultimately also affected his relationships with women. Fine, interesting, why not, but Alexander was primarily a warrior, a man who was able to unite a very diverse world for a very short time, something that, in my opinion, no one else has achieved, not even the Soviet Union. The emphasis is not placed on conquest, which is a shame because when the battles occur, they are strong and naturalistic, which has always been Stone's pride. In the current "Savages," he wants to show that he still has it. "Alexander," however, falls short in many respects, and also in the sense that the director likes to use various filmmaking techniques. It is noticeable only when Alexander is injured and falls off his horse. Suddenly, a different camera filter is used, which actually does not look effective, but just strange. Stone did not get anything dazzling from the actors either. Anthony Hopkins plays his classic role, Colin Farrell is sometimes quite unbelievable, and based on this film alone, I would not have liked Angelina. Val Kilmer showed here that he used to have an athlete's body, but today he would not get the role of Philip of Macedon. A very hesitant film, unfortunately. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/10/zitra-nehrajeme-lovci-dinosauru.html (01/03/2013)

It is not a flawless film, but Stone's effort to break away from the boring descriptive narrative mode by attempting a thoughtful probe into Alexander's soul, to approach his Oedipus complex with his mother (a great Angelina Jolie), to show his desire to discover and overcome the glories of the ancient heroes of old, to bring closer his dream of uniting the peoples of the then known world under the influence of ancient learning, all while being misunderstood by those closest to him, is very appealing. Alexander is no boring boilerplate narrative with "good guys" and "bad guys" and it is free from screenwriting the shallowness and pseudo-historical insight of Gladiator or Troy. Sure, the film has its weak spots, and they are not few, for example, the bed scene with Roxana, however effective, is completely unnecessary for the development of the plot; or the scene of Alexander's taming of Bucephalos has quite a lot of room, while an event of such fundamental symbolic significance as the cutting of the Gordian knot is not even mentioned by Stone. Despite all that, the three hours passed like water and I wasn't bored for a moment. Alexander is a thought-provoking historical film, wrapped in an attractive package in the form of spectacular production design. The negative critical response from the overseas journalistic community is not at all surprising to me, given Stone's tarnished reputation as a man labeled an enemy and pariah of America. Praising Stone's films just isn't in vogue lately, and a certain effect of "sheepishness" certainly plays a role. (31/01/2005)