Alexander Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x536 | 8935.13 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x392 | 1919.31 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x320 | 1154.31 MiB | divx | |
|
320x172 | 444.52 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Fortune favors the bold
The greatest legend of all was real
Alexander (Farrell), the King of Macedonia, leads his legions against the giant Persian Empire. After defeating the Persians he leads his Army across the then known world venturing further than any Westerner had ever gone all the way to India.
| Angelina Jolie | Olympias |
| Anthony Hopkins | Old Ptolemy |
| Val Kilmer | Philip |
| Jared Leto | Hephaistion |
| David Bedella | Scribe |
| Jessie Kamm | Child Alexander |
| Fiona O'Shaughnessy | Nurse |
| Connor Paolo | Young Alexander |
| Patrick Carroll | Young Hephaistion |
| Brian Blessed | Wrestling Trainer |
| Peter Williamson | Young Nearchus |
| Morgan Christopher Ferris | Young Cassander |
| Robert Earley | Young Ptolemy |
| Aleczander Gordon | Young Perdiccas |
| Christopher Plummer | Aristotle |
| Gary Stretch | Cleitus |
| Colin Farrell | Alexander |
| Oliver Stone |
5.40 out of 10 (30272 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Absolutely crap waste of a couple of hours
posted on 30 Aug 2009I had made my mother rent me out this DVD from X-Tra vision, It was the last day of my 3rd academic year at Campbell college, Belfast and i had cancelled going out with my friends on the best day of the year to watch a movie that i thought would have a match to Troy, Gladiator or even Braveheart this movie turned to be a complete pile of sh 1 t! from the start the young Alexander was obviously asked to put on an Irish accent as that of Colin Farrell's. I myself am Irish and not a brilliant follower of Greek mythology but one thing i can assure the people of this world is that Alexander the great did not have an Irish accent. I think that there have been many good actors that have come from my country such peter O'Toole, Richard Harris and lots more but Colin Farrell was absolutely terrible in this movie.I don't know much about Alexander the great and Colin Farrell may have portrayed him well but its all for nothing if you can't but on the correct accent. Which i thought Angelina Jolie did well to be fair.The plot is pretty basic and not hard to get your head around but it managed to put me asleep.There should never have been a movie made about Alexander the great anyway because there's not much in the story that would be good and look well on screen.A terrible film and i do not recommend it to fans of Braveheart, troy etc.
3 hours of dull
posted on 26 Aug 2009I don't know what I was expecting when I walked into this movie. I guess, something along the lines of Troy. Whatever I had in mind, it certainly wasn't what I saw. The movie started out just fine. The 3,000 year old Anthony Hopkins narration gave the impression that the story of Alexander was a great one, and one that was worth telling. But the more I watched, the more I began to realize how wrong this impression was. The movie just seems to drag on and on, without any arc in the story. Just a straight line, hanging low to the ground, consisting of yawn-inducing dialogue and a few battle scenes which each gave me a headache. That shaky camera technique works just fine on the small screen, but in a theater does nothing to add realism.The biggest gripe I have isn't really about the length of the movie, (I began to wonder if the movie lasted longer than Alexander himself), but that the use of music is deceiving. Around the second hour of the movie, by the time most movies would normally wrap up, the use of dramatic and triumphant music began to get over-used. This kept causing me to think that the movie was finally over. The picture would fade out, and we'd be back to the old Mr. Hopkins and his narration. He'd mention something incoherent, and then we'd be back to Alexander. It was at this time that people started to leave the theater. From this point on, every 20 minutes, that dramatic music would play and the picture would fade out. Each time I was eager to think that the movie was ending, but then it would start back up again.By the end of the movie I was actually angry with boredom. Call me immature, but that's how much I didn't like the movie. If you asked me to think of one interesting point in the movie, I'd be at a loss for words. Just don't bother seeing this movie unless you want to spend seven dollars for a three hour nap.
Are you out of your minds?
posted on 26 Aug 2009I saw this horrible movie at the dollar theater and upon returning home wanted to know what other people thought about it. I can not believe that anyone would find this movie entertaining. This was without a doubt the wost movie I have ever seen. At points I felt it could not get worse, but it proved me wrong over and over again. The only remotely interesting thing about this film was watching the audience leave at the points where Alexander's homosexuality became more and more obvious. Seriously people, if you didn't think he was gay when Alexander told his mom he didn't want to get married because he was in love with his friend, or when he was staring lustfully at the eunuch, you seriously needed to see him actually kiss a man before it finally clicked? Dear ZEUS! Just when you think the movie should be wrapping up, the film backs up 8 YEARS! It was an unending movie which I began to believe would only end when it had fully documented all 2300 years of human existence, beginning with the childhood of Alexander and ending with me entering the theater. Fortunately Alexander was poisoned, and I was allowed to go home. If that film had lasted even 5 minutes more I would have explored options of offing him myself. This movie is a horrible waste of life. PLEASE DO NOT GO SEE IT. I beg you for your own sanity.
Alexander the Gay?
posted on 26 Aug 2009First, I have to get this off my chest: How the hell can it be June in 4th Century B.C. Babylon?Whew. That's better. Anyway, that should have been sufficient warning, but no, I stayed, and all too soon my perverted appetite for bad movies kicked in. I wish I'd had court-ordered unnecessary eye surgery under local anaesthetic instead of having watched this. Better memories.I was prepared to accept the whole Greek thing with the love between men, I really was, what with Achilles and the begenitalled statuary and the American Puritanical prudishness and all, but I was not prepared to sit through what felt like six hours of spycam at a gay Hollywood cast party. I know where to go for that sort of film if I want it. I don't.Prurient excess aside, to portray Alexander as a modern queer is laughable anachronism. Who knows what he really did? But he certainly must have been a bad-ass warrior with a lust for life and for combat that would seem almost insane to us, and not the gloopy, moody drama queen this movie makes of him. You can't command an army, much less an empire, by force of angst. Stone's Alexander is a silly caricature of perhaps the greatest general the world has ever seen.I didn't want this review to be about the homosexuality thing. The movie stinks enough in other ways to rate a scathing pan, but blame Stone, not me. This movie is nothing more in the final analysis than a slap-dash apology for the gay-rights movement.
Battle fatigue after three hours of heavy conflict...
posted on 26 Aug 2009Alexander is an ambitious project, whatever one may think of its shortcomings. The script has a hard time pinpointing what makes the great man tick--and it's certainly muddled when it comes to all the conspiracy theories surrounding his youth and manhood. His mother is played by Angelina Jolie as a conniving temptress with an uncanny control over snakes--a control she has over him as well, urging him to become the great leader in battles.Colin Farrell does the best he can with the florid dialog, full of pomposity and Shakespearean grandeur, but it's not a part that he really embodies with any great conviction. He does a workmanlike job but never really becomes the character. Nor is his relationship with his lover (Jared Leto) ever given more of a hint than intense glances can convey, as if Oliver Stone was reluctant to let the homophobic aspects of Alexander's life interfere with the storytelling.The battle scenes are realistic but fatiguing after awhile, following the accepted strategy of other action films by interspersing fierce battles with the quieter moments--but never too quiet since most of the dialog consists of arguments between Alexander and his army of dedicated fighters.Val Killmer gives a vigorous performance as his father Michael, almost unrecognizable in his one-eyed make-up and red beard. Anthony Hopkins serves as a one man Greek chorus, narrating the tale in the manner of a bad DVD commentary. Christopher Plummer does a nice job as Aristotle, teaching the Greek youths about their mission in life.On the plus side, the background score by Vangelis is strikingly effective, as is Rodrigo Prieto's gorgeous cinematography. The look of the film is one of its strongest assets with authentic detail in costumes and settings. But the script is a yawner, going back and forth in time to fill in gaps that were intended to fill the viewer in on some missing points. It's a technique that tries the patience several times throughout the lengthy running time.This should find favor with a very limited audience of history buffs.
Amazing, incredible movie... but destroyed?
posted on 24 Aug 2009Everyone went to the movie theater (including me) to see "Alexander the Great", it's time epic battles and huge armies of both sides. Yet we find ourselves watching a pure gay movie, it wasn't about "Alexander the Great" at all, but the life of a gay man. I was really, REALLY mad to see what they claim in there to be a historical fact, it was proved over and over again that man from those times were more attached to each other, they would kiss on the cheeks and hug, but in any mean would it be taken as homosexual, as the Movie itself shows, Alexander even married. The movie just twisted the history and because of that, it destroyed this titan and epic movie.Sure, sure, if the writers and director want to say Alexander was gay just for the fun of it; Okay, but at least make the gay scenes a little lighter; this movie is very heavy on sexual and nudity, with both straight and gay sex, I find it completely unnecessary, it was only useful to generate a huge free publicity by the costs of the angry critics worldwide and to simply destroy the entire movie, because a lot of people just did not tolerate the idea (including me, I cannot see Alexander being gay) - Something you can clearly see by looking at the IMDb.com overall rating on an incredibly awesome and epic movie.But seriously, if you can manage to watch this movie with a "giant will" to tolerate the straight and gay nudity/sex scenes, you will find yourself watching an amazing and incredible movie, Colin Farrel and Antony Hoptkins are acting inhuman in this picture, Colin Farrel should have won an Oscar for his acting, he is the perfect Alexander, it is a huge pity they made him gay… that was a waste of talent, richness and character, terrible choice, terrible!!!! The sound is spectacular; the visuals are unique and show scenes never seen before; the battles and armies are just amazing, they seem to come out of the history books, it is like a trip to the past; the story is breath taking; the director did a superb job, superb but mediocre at the same time because of the destruction he allowed within the Alexander Character, terrible, terrible choice.Eight out of ten, but it should have deserved an easy ten.
Waste of Time!!
posted on 22 Aug 2009I left work early, stood in line for 2 hours, and then wasted another 3 hours of my life on Waterworld part two. The trailers really made me want to see this movie, I should have watched them and stayed away. Babylon was beautiful, the two battle scenes worked really well, but the 2 hours of mush between had me wanting to sleep. OK I am sure that Alexander was bi- sexual but do we need to drive it in the ground? If I had paid for this movie I would of left after about 30 minutes and demanded my money back, but I wastrying to be polite and hope that the movie would get better, WRONG it getsworse and worse until I was praying that he would hurry and die.
skipped all the good stuff
posted on 22 Aug 2009The "love" scenes overshadowed the battles and history of the storyline. "And, with one thing and another, Alexander conquered the known world;" slip in one little battle scene, and waste the next two hours with a controversial sex movie. Hey, Oliver Stone wants to make a pro-gay movie, fine: just market it as such, and don't label it an action epic. I was robbed of $10 due to false advertising.That said, it must be mentioned that there were no redeeming qualities in this film. The CGI was messy, the acting was of high-school stage-production quality, and frankly, I was disgusted, even by the "straight" scene of Alexander and his wife on their wedding night. (Come on, people, call it by its name: porn!)(Braveheart included a honeymoon scene and a homosexual relationship in a much more tasteful presentation, with appropriate balance in relation to the storyline.)
Don't Waist You Time
posted on 20 Aug 2009This was one of the worst made movies I have ever seen. This is not a spoiler, but I must explain how the movie flows. First you start off with a date like 320 BC and then it jumps to 7 years in the future, then back to a date 322 BC, then 5 years ago, then it will say India, but your not sure what time in India but Alexander looks older. This goes on throughout the whole movie. The director could not find a method to put this movie together.Also, they really didn't explain how Alexander became so powerful. In one scene he is fighting a great battle and they were loosing. Then the next scene they role up and have concurred the land of the people they were loosing to without any explanation.Lastly, I watch a movie to be entertained not bored. If I wanted a history lesson, I would have read a book or watched the Discovery channel. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
It really is an awful film
posted on 20 Aug 2009Having read some of the reviews. It seems that someone is trying to coerce readers into writing a good review. This really is a truly awful film and the best review that I can relate to is made by Tun@Beardy.dk who seemed to sum up everything I could say about this movie. I don't normally add reviews to IMDb but really, this film is so pitiful and so "lost in Hollywood" that I felt I had to write something about it.The actors really are so badly miscast and the dialogue so lacking in any realism that you sometimes wonder whether a team of the Eastenders writers could have done better. Give it a BIG detour and do not waste any time even contemplating whether I am wrong...
Not bad, but left me with mixed feelings
posted on 18 Aug 2009I just saw Alexander in a midnight preview. Well, what to say? I was never very good in history, but if I was asked I would say that the film shows Alexander's life in a very realistic way. For example, any other filmmaker would have shown us Alexander as a hero, flawless, a great conqueror... but he wasn't just all that. It was very brave from Stone to show us his other side, the human in him, emotions... This film could have easily become a hack and slash movie, I mean Alexander spent most of his life in war. But in these 3 hours there are only two really big battles, but when it comes to them they are not nice or heroic like in "Troy", no, the camera holds still on all the brutality and dirt that such battles were full of. Alexander himself is a figure of controversy, especially his love life and sexual orientation. In that aspect Stone again was very brave, showing us Alexander's love for both, men and women. This is an epic film, whether you like it or not, but one thing is for sure, this film will be discussed...
Mediocrity in its entirety
posted on 18 Aug 2009The public have voted and in this case are correct. This film was mediocrity in its entirety. The 3 hours or so that this film takes to watch could be much better spent elsewhere.....however, saying that, Alexander is not a "bad" film, it is merely average. It is a fairly accurate historical epic that somehow fails to keep the watcher interested or remotely emotionally involved with the characters. The script, pace, acting, cinematography and more are generally average, while the narration makes the story disjointed and rambling. This film is mostly cited for the "notorious" homosexuality element, but in reality this is one of the few things the film does well. Those with extremist views will find fault with it, but they always will. The battle scenes are also nicely executed, but the feeling that the watcher is left with is that something is missing. Average and forgettable, this is one of Oliver Stones failures.
Divine!
posted on 14 Aug 2009If 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). Alexander is the latest one. Why Alexander is Great? Because it was made by a visionary about another visionary, because it is true to itself, to the legacy, to history, because it doesn't sell off, because it is not your typical popcorn blockbuster, and most of all because, steering away from creating a cartoon-like, hollow and fake "Super-Man" (Troy's Achilles) it focuses on the Man Alexander. The Hu-Man Alexander. Without concessions to what's popular, what's expected, what's commercial, what's understandable. This is a director that doesn't mince words or films. You can tell I am still under the spell. People mention the sexual orientation thing, either to complain about too much or too little. Don't judge the Ancient World by today's or yesterday's standards. Men in Ancient Greece had Friendships (albeit not necessarily platonic ones), not Relationships. People mention the accents. Alexander was born in Ancient Macedonia (not to be confused with today's Balcan state of the same name, please) and therefore would have spoken heavily-accented Greek, Olympias was born from Epirus, Roxanne could muster very little Greek since she was a "barbarian" (meaning non-Greek back then) and Alexander's soldiers came from all over Southern Balkan, Minor Asia etc. I found the choice of Irish over British or American (reserved to Athenians for instance) accent, and the use in the film of many different accents a particularly clever one. People dismiss the eagle's overflight. Read about omens from the gods, they were very important for the Ancients. People want full visibility during the battles (why don't you see a John Wayne film then, all the dead are hidden from view and the heroes are never afraid or confused), people want more battles or events (and yet complain about how long the film is), people want their money back. I could go on and on here but there is no use. See the film again. Read a book. Open your eyes. Ask questions. 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. Typical and sad.
Unusual, but great
posted on 14 Aug 2009I must say that I went to watch this movie with a very negative bias... all the comments I had heard about it could be summarized in two words "It's crappy!" However when I finally I did get myself to sit through it, the end result was a very pleasant evening. It is true that the film is a bit weird... like when you get important bits (like Philip's murder, Alexander's ascension to the Macedonian throne and his victory over the Persian king) being left out and then maybe explained later on... it is confusing. And then it was quite long I must say... one does tend to get the attitude "Come on Alex, hurry up and die so we can go and have a beer"... The ending was a bit confusing... it is not clear whether Alexander was poisoned or whether he died of some disease... BUT considering the sheer grandeur that is found everywhere in this movie, I must admit that it is great.The character I liked most was Olympias'.. and Angelina does a fine job at it. She is like some kind of sorceress always looming in the shadows... it's true that she doesn't get to do much in the whole movie, but the little bits she has here and there are acted out perfectly. She truly has the shape and looks of a Macedonian dowager queen.A friend of mine had told me that Colin Farell had no stamina to be the lead of such an epic movie... well I have my reservations on that comment. Truly he was no Charlton Heston in "Ben Hur", but still he fit the part of a conquering-obsessed leader very well.Even the others who were his companions all throughout his journeys from Macedonia all the way to India and back to Babylon were great, creating a balance between the friends who want to support their king and husbands who want to go back to their families and their fatherland. Dawson attracted a lot of sympathy as the ignored wife of the great leader and who only manages to give him what he wanted when it was too late...All in all a great movie in more ways than one.
Diplomatic, but honest
posted on 12 Aug 2009I have been looking forward to this film for a while now, even though I am not an Oliver Stone fan, I have always loved the story of Alexander the Great.The movie was not what I expected because I didn't find it to be a very "Hollywood" type film or an epic film. I found it to really just tell the story of Alexander and I respect Oliver Stone for that. Oliver Stone presents Alexander the Greats life as he found it to be through his research, and while it is laced with Oliver Stone's opinion, it is not forced. He does give you both sides of how things may have been (referring to lovers and his death)and that's fairly rare. I truly felt like I was being told a story about a legendary man. Alexander was also humanized instead of glorified in the film, which I also respect. We see his flaws, his trials, we understand why the people loved him, we see what made him a great leader, and we realize what made him fall.Now, with all that said, I found the performance to be inconsistent. At times I felt the actors weren't sure why they were committing to a line. But at times they were quite powerful. The one sensation that I took away from the film is what a passionate man Alexander was, about all aspects of his life. As for the accents, well they were all over the place and as off putting as that may be, it does not break a film, it hurts it.The camera work on Anthony Hopkins performances was distracting and awkward, but the coverage, angles and cinematography in general in the battle scenes I found to be very effective. The production design was stellar, but the score left me wanting more, a man like that should have had a theme as dynamic as him. All in all, I'm glad I saw it; I wish it was stronger all around, but compared to a lot of the junk that is in theaters these days, it's a fairly respectable film. I give it a c+.On a quick personal note, may I just say that to all the people who feel there should have been homosexual action I just have to say that you don't need sex to portray love. Love is portrayed in this film without a kiss, unless you're deaf and blind. For those who feel Alexander was not bisexual and are offended by the suggestion can just refuse to believe it and write their own film. This is Oliver Stone's interpretation, not yours and he was rather tactful with his suggestion. It's unfortunate that some rate the entire film by that notion.
You call this an epic? More like a turkey....
posted on 12 Aug 2009First there was 'Troy', one of the best movies this year. Then there was 'King Arthur' whereby it was enjoyable (excluding the huge historical differences).And then, there was 'Alexander'. Boring, boring Alexander to be exact.This movie should have been an epic. However, Oliver blew it by making 3 blunders:- 1) Long, long and extremely long conversation scenes. Oliver dragged the conversation on and on for almost an eternity. Honestly, I felt asleep TWICE during the night scene at Babylon. And not just me, I even saw some snoring away until the movie ended. If these conversation scenes could be kept short and sweet, many audiences will enjoy the movie and not need of listening to some mambo-jumbo talk like 'We will never be apart, I promise you' or something like that.2) Hopkins wasted his talents as the narrator. I don't need one - it's like paying RM 10 (about $2.20) just to watch Discovery Channel. Val was totally awful as Phillip, with the exception of the scene of him dying when he was murdered. Jolie talks in an irritating accent which hurts my ear every time I hear her talk. Leto should be participating in a beauty pageant, as he looks much more beautiful than most of all the ladies in the movie. And Farell wasn't as good as he was in Phone Booth - he looked more like a confused man rather than a hero himself.3) The 2 major battle scenes are dull and clumsily made. Alexander is known for his brilliance in strategy, but sadly in this movie, Oliver made him looking like a incompetent leader. Watch the 2nd battle and you know what I mean - it looks more like a slaughter to me.This movie really downgraded Alexander from 'the Great' to 'the Chump'. Overall, this is my vote for Turkey of the Year - 1/10 stars.
Not Oscar worthy but not that bad
posted on 08 Aug 2009A lot of people including myself saw previews of this movie and thought Oscars immediately, until i saw the movie itself. You see great previews with amazing sets and the potential of a great film but it falls short. The acting was good, but not excellent. The costumes and scenery were excellent though, and truly made you believe you were next to Alexander in his world. The major problem though was plot. It concentrated too much on Alexanders passion for men, and not his conquering nature. It had only 2 battles in the whole movie, each about 20 minutes, which I felt was not enough when telling the story of the greatest conqueror of all time. It lost my attention and just wasn't interesting enough for the epic it could of been. If you appreciate scenery and costumes, then see Alexander, otherwise wait until video. Too bad too, with all those actors and Oliver Stone at the helm you would think great movie for sure, but just wasn't that way. Only 40 minutes worth of battle if that and the rest plot, with plenty of boring parts that didn't go anywhere. 6/10
The Queen Who Wanted To Be King
posted on 08 Aug 2009As Anthony Hopkins in a very prophetic bit of writing tells us "His failures tower over others successes" I believe that's also true for Oliver Stone you may like him, or not, agree or disagree with him but you can never dismiss him. He goes for it, he takes amazing chances. Naturally, the risks are enormous. Alexander is a misfire from almost every angle. Maybe the most important aspect that in Colin Farrell's portrayal there isn't a hint of greatness. If this was really Alexander he wouldn't have made it into the history books as "The Great" but as "The Queen who wanted to be King". With this I'm not attacking the gay portrayal. That was a fact, present in every serious biography of the man. I remember the Robert Rossen version of the story, with a moody Richard Burton as Alexander and a great Danielle Darrieux as his mother. The problem there was quite different. We had hints of what made Alexander great but the film was a plodding, solemn, unexciting little epic. Maybe this is one of those subjects that mere mortals shouldn't attempt. Not even Oliver The Great.
Wow!!! That fight against Indians was gr8!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on 08 Aug 2009but who won the battle? Did Indians win or Alexander the great!!! Sorry this might sound a bit dumb but i just want to know this!!!!Anyway a great movie, a great epic!!!! Everyone should watch it! One thing i didn't like about the movie was the love making scene between Alexander and Ruksana! What was the need for that scene? Anyway i m still buzzing by the effects of the movie cos i just watched it 5 minutes ago!!!!!Great battle sequences, great story and great performances!!! Farrell acted very well and so did Anglina Jolie. I think characterisations of both characters really suited the actors' personalities and looks!!PEOPLE ITS A MUST WATCH! THERE IS SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT ONE OF THE GREATEST KINGS AND HIS CONQUESTS!!!!!! DO WATCH IT!!!!!******** ********** ********** ********** ********** ******** ***************** ********** ********** ********** ********** ******** *********AVOID VIDEO PIRACY AVOID VIDEO PIRACY AVOID VIDEO PIRACY ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** ******** ***************** ********** ********** ********** ********** ******** *********
Ignore the critics! This stunning film lives up to every bit of its hype!
posted on 30 Aug 2009This movie, without a shadow of doubt, is the best and most entertaining film of the year. The bad reviews I have read are preposterous. I will admit that the acting could have been a bit better, but it doesn't take away from the film whatsoever. The excellent graphics, unique camera views, and superb action make this the best sword-and-sandal film I have seen since Braveheart. Oliver Stone approached this film no differently than the rest of his polarizing films. I think the reason behind all the harsh criticism and bad reviews is because the critics just want to be different and create drama by saying that it was just a bust. Ignore the ratings and reviews and go see Alexander, the best film of 2004!