Alexander

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)

I’m not going to mince words, I’ve never been a fan of Stone’s film (the only one that I’ve liked is Any Given Sunday). As a historical account of the life of the greatest warlord in history, whose journey was not only filled with glory, victories and friendship, but also with a lot of intrigue and hatred, this film works really well in places. The battle scenes are worth the price, likewise the music, but watching it is still terribly tiring and not everyone can stand it. Instead of entertaining the viewer, Stone gives them a thorough history lesson and introduces them in detail to all the characters. This may not be to the liking of even someone who has been a history buff all his life, let alone an ordinary fan who goes to the cinema primarily to be entertained, as in the case of Petersen's Troy. As I’ve said, it wasn’t bad, I watched it without any problems and got an idea of what Alexander was like, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again. (02/02/2012)

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. (15/01/2005)

We live in a strange world when even many serious periodicals do not forget to mention in the first lines of their review of Alexander that the most scandalous facts of the film are two things - Colin Farrell showing his bare behind and yes, his character has a bisexual nature. How surprised I was when this tabloidization fell on infertile ground and the film turned out to be a beautiful and contemplative spectacle. There is not a hint of scandal in the relationship with Hephaestion, on the contrary, it is an honest relationship and I am sorry that contemporary society, behind its supposedly tolerant face, hides so much mockery. I could understand complaints that Oliver Stone is no longer what he used to be, but here it is more about the fact that he no longer wants to provoke or poke at the political and social hornet's nest at all costs. He made a historical film according to his own standards and he succeeded in my eyes. He let the story and the emotions prevail over the visual aspect, giving enough space to the intense love triangle and especially the fateful relationship with the mother. Moreover, he managed to write a meandering, yet excellently escalating story, the climax of which brought me to my knees. Paradoxically, this film, which undermined historical epics in Hollywood, belongs to the excellent ones. 85% (21/06/2007)

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)