Brenda
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
richardjp-17225
Story about Alexander the Great. Based on fact or just made up? Who knows, but it is long winded and boring. Just when you are hoping it is about to finish, it carries on. Just when you think Alexander is going to die and the movie will end, it continues. When he finally does die, the movie still continues
whidbeydanielg
In this film you wouldn't know it. He was in battles, but the battles seemed little more than two armies going at it. What I would have enjoyed was learning about his thinking about military strategy, his tactics, his philosophies, how he implemented his ideas on the battlefield.Instead, we get a (very boring) story of Alexander as being a mama's boy and as someone trying unsuccessfully to please his father. It is the story of a neurotic, not of one of the greatest generals of all time.There are a few great battles, but after awhile they too get boring. What was happening? All you see is the small picture (guys hacking each other up). You don't see Alexander planning, plotting, strategizing, analyzing, etc. He's just another guy hacking away.He doesn't come across as a great man.The decision to jump around in history is puzzling. It makes the film hard to follow and disjointed. We don't get a sense of change in him, or in the world, or in his leadership or his generalship. It's cute, but distracting.The film is as bad as most people have rated it to be. There is nothing about him that would make me want to follow him. Instead, I'd want to give him a hankie so he would have something to cry into.
Hecate-3
Creative writing professors teach that stories should be told in chronological order. Past events make present events more meaningful. Withholding the past robs the audience of meaning; flashbacks inserted later fail to correct this but interrupt narrative flow. A jumbled order of events also makes it harder for an audience to follow what's happening. Again and again, writers flout this simple rule to the very great detriment of their work. This film is no exception. I cannot say that this film would be good if it were in chronological order, but at least it would be comprehensible.In addition to jumbled chronology, this film boasts horrible direction from a top-notch director, sound effects and music that drown out important speech, poor editing, cringeworthy makeup, cringeworthy hair: dye and styling, and a cringeworthy, histrionic performance from the lead Colin Farrell. None of the acting is good here; not even Angelina Jolie showed to advantage despite being stunningly beautiful. (Incidentally, being approximately Farrell's age doesn't make Jolie miscast, because she's sometimes shown with Alexander as a young boy, and although some people seem to want more signs of aging when she is shown with Farrell, I couldn't bring myself to care about that.) But so many actors in this film were miscast, it's tempting to think that the casting directors were utterly inept, or people were cast on the basis of blackmail material. I will leave it up to others to determine whether the cast blackmailed the production for roles or whether producers blackmailed the cast into appearing in this travesty. I hate to think that these were the performances Oliver Stone wanted and used his clout as an industry giant to force from his cast.The two battle scenes (that's right: only 2 in a 3.5 hour film about a man who spent his entire adult life conquering) were designed to show savagery in slow-motion close-ups, not to depict tactics, strategy, or outcome; they also used the overworked shaky-cam that is almost never a good idea (looking at you, Gladiator). It's difficult to tell who is being impaled, but the audience was never given any reason to care about any of them anyway. Such confusion might be realistic in depicting a common footsoldier's firsthand experience of battle, but it's not the way to tell the story of a military leader who was a tactical genius. The first battle shows Alexander's legendary strength and courage by having one of his men save Alexander from his own recklessness, making him look foolishly inept. The only other thing that these battle scenes convey is that war in ancient times was brutal. If that was news to you, go read some history before you watch any more movies. And if gore is all you want, horror flicks abound.The melodramatic music did little but remind me of the emotions the film had not invoked. And no one in Hollywood has ever come close to Shakespeare's St. Crispin's Day speech, but that doesn't keep the hacks from trying. A scene of the war leaders debating tactics would have been much more effective at both informing the audience and building character.For the people defending the accents: there are generic English accents – U.S. and British – that don't scream "I'm from this particular region." An RP English accent for Greeks and a generic U.S. accent for Macedonians wouldn't distract, so I could focus on what's being said. Farrell's accent makes it impossible to forget that he comes from Ireland. Say what you will, that accent rips me right out of a story about ancient Macedonians. Would you also defend a Texas twang or cockney?People defending this film claim that its detractors only like mindless action flicks, don't appreciate history, or don't appreciate drama. I like action epics – if they're well made. I enjoy historical documentaries and history books – if they're good quality and informative. I like drama in both films and classic novels – if it's well done. This film fails at all these. It fails as an action flick because nothing happens except for two, brief, gory battles in which no one can tell who's winning. The film fails as history, because it depicts none of the important events of Alexander's life, except perhaps for his dysfunctional family dynamic which is told so out of sequence that no one can follow it anyway. And finally, the film fails as drama because it never gives a genuine sense of who any of these people were, let alone why anyone should care about them. This film neither educates nor entertains. Nor is it artistic; a few allusions, a symbolic eagle, and some acid-trip coloring isn't enough to make a movie artistic. The film succeeds at nothing except perhaps production design and costumes.This film is more historically accurate than most historical movies, but then again, that isn't saying much. This film portrayed one of the greatest warriors, leaders, and military strategists of the ancient world as a neurotic, weirdly disingenuous, emo brat who is constantly blubbering and whining. Where is the young man whose quick wit and intelligence impressed Aristotle? Where is the young man whose courage, determination, and sound military strategy won the respect of all who fought with or against him? Where is the ambitious, ruthless young man who set out to conquer the world but was wise enough to recognize that actually ruling it required a different approach? As many reviewers have already stated, there is nothing in this film to explain why he is known as Alexander the Great.I can mostly forgive Braveheart for its historical inaccuracy and even its character assassination of Scotland's national hero. But I can forgive Braveheart, because it's a good movie. Oliver Stone's Alexander is a hatchet job on the man it claims to portray, and it doesn't even manage to be decently entertaining.It hurts to think of all the resources that were wasted on this.
