Alexander

The film:It's kind of funny how popular entertainment works. All I remember hearing about Oliver Stone's "Alexander" is that it was a horribly acted, poorly constructed shambles of a movie. Scanning the torrent of vituperative scorn heaped upon this film will give you an idea of the climate at the time of its release. Needless to say, I was dubious. Any movie that scores lower than Jessica Simpson's "Dukes of Hazzard" must be an abomination, right?However, I am a Stone fan, and was inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt. I loved JFK, Nixon and Natural Born Killers, and enjoyed Any Given Sunday and The Doors. At his best, Stone excels at getting truly absorbing character portraits up on the screen, and setting them against an expansive backdrop which captures the essence of the period.Alexander, starring Collin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, Jared Leto and Christopher Plummer, both succeeds and fails in these categories. Some of the characters are endlessly fascinating, some are rather threadbare. Certain aspects of the period are wonderfully represented, and some are sort of left up to the viewer to fill in the blanks. Some performances are pitch perfect, others, while enjoyable, are painfully weird and out of place. All told, Alexander is somewhat weak in comparison with Stone's best.So why did I enjoy it so much?Looking at the above-listed stars, it's easy to see that Stone has assembled a particularly good ensemble cast. The weakest of the bunch are Farrell and Jolie. However, each actor does an admirable job of creating a character, Farrell and Jolie included. If anything, Jolie's performance is hampered only by her youth (she is only one year Farrell's senior, yet plays his mother), and her wretched accent (somewhere between Eartha Kitt and Austin Powers' Frau Farbissina). Farrell's performance is just a bit shallow - he looks heroic and manly in battle sequences, certainly, but doesn't do much beyond that. Sometimes, he really seems to nail complex emotions. Other times, it's just a bit poster-board and flat.The rest of the cast, however, including the lesser-known supporting players in Alexander's army, are uniformly terrific. Particularly good are Plummer as Aristotle, Kilmer as a drunken King Philip, Hopkins as an aged Ptolemy, and Jared Leto as Alexander's male lover, Hephaistion. Rosario Dawson plays Alexander's asian bride Roxane, though beyond her pendulous naked breasts and dancing ability, I can't say I got much out of it (Dawson really shines in 2005's Sin City, though). To me, though, the performance that makes the movie what it is is by Connor Paolo, as a young Alexander. This 14 year-old actor absolutely nails the portrayal of a young, idealistic prince with adolescent dreams of grandeur. This portrayal really lends a depth to the later plot, acted by Farrell, which Farrell himself really doesn't provide.But any Stone movie review eventually comes down to Stone himself. How well did he construct the story, and how well did he execute it and edit it together?My main gripe with the story of Alexander is its naivete. I really have to wonder how historically accurate it is to portray Alexander as an idealistic dreamer who longed to unite the world in a Pax Romana-esque explosion of culture and personal improvement. Certainly, all of these things may have been present in the man, and they may have been ancillary effects of his conquest, but it is pretty tough to swallow as Farrell dreamily describes his vision of a great society to his male lover Leto. The story functions much better when Alexander is instead portrayed as a conqueror impelled by his family demons to push across the globe for something he knows not what.Nonetheless, the film is truly wondrous at times in its evocation of ancient times and places - Babylon is a singular cinematic achievement - utilizing CGI nearly seamlessly to truly give the impression of a "wonder of the world." Similarly teriffic cinematography and composition are achieved in portrayals of India, Egypt and the steppes of the Himalayas. The scenes of Greece and Macedonia also shine, especially in HD, really placing you there in the time. This film is Stone at his finest visually, creating a world which draws you in.I for one really liked the way the so-called "gay" element of the movie was handled - watching Alexander provides one of the better explications of the homosexual "lover-beloved" relationships that were present in Hellenistic noble circles. Again, this concept was grounded by scenes of the young Alexander and Hephaiston being taught by Aristotle about the idealistic virtues of manly love - scenes which brought into sharp focus what could have seemed gratuitous homoerotic later scenes between Leto, Farrell, and a few others. It's a part of Greek history, and Stone kept it in as a big theme, instead of bending to anachronistic puritanism. Kudos to him for that.Besides Stone's possible anachronistic interpretation of Alexander's world-uniting motives, historically, this film really can't be faulted. It is true to the sources we have, be they Plutarch and Herodotus, or more modern scholars. Those sources may be tinged by legend or political agenda, but they are all we have. This is a movie which you could show a professor, who would be hard pressed to point out a major error (unlike the barely recognizable "history" of "Kingdom of Heaven.") I would also say, as is Stone's talent, this movie makes you feel like YOU ARE THERE. I would show this film to students to get them excited about the Hellenistic period. (Though at 214 minutes, it might take two class periods...)As you have read, this cut is 214 minutes. Certainly, this is a long movie. But Stone, in his ability to create scene and to really transport the viewer, makes this movie fly by. It felt like 2 hours, not 3 and a half. Stone has re-ordered the fragmented structure of the film. The previous director's cut grouped various scenes closer together by time period - Alexander's childhood was one big chunk, then his travels were another, intercut with his early reign and death. This cut, on the other hand, basically takes the two time periods (childhood through early reign; travels across Asia and death) and skips back and forth between them, each line running roughly forward. Both cuts can be followed, especially if you have some knowledge of Greek history. I have to say I prefer the first director's cut a bit, since I found the childhood scenes so strong, it was nice to have them in a chunk. But this cut still works. The added material fleshes out the side characters much better than the previous two cuts, which is welcome in any case.Alexander is an enigmatic movie. It fails at so much, but only because it tried for so much. I was completely absorbed and never bored once during the 3.5 hour running time. I felt transported to the world it created, and my emotions were stirred in a simplistic way by the scenes of glory and adventure on the screen. Ptolemy (played by Hopkins) utters a line which might serve as the movie's epitaph: "His failures were grander than others' successes." So true of Stone. He wears his ambition on his sleeve, is rarely if ever subtle, and draws a lot of critical fire for this. Yet the explosion of creativity which results, whether it succeeds or fails, is never boring. I recommend Alexander for this reason alone.Let me put it another way: This is a movie that got critically bashed, and I can't really discern why. It's better than "Dukes of Hazzard." It's also better than "Revenge of the Sith," a film from around the same time which received many positive reviews despite its bizarre dialogue, paper-thin character motivations, and plot holes. It's got its problems, but it is also big fun if you're a fan of the historical epic genre, the director, or of the historical period.The disc:As far as the quality of the Blu-Ray presentation, let me put it simply. I own Planet Earth, 2001, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Prestige, all renowned for their sterling HD transfers. Alexander tops them all in terms of detail and color. You know how some Blu-Ray discs look fine enough, but really seem like something a particularly good DVD could do? The aforementioned "Kingdom of Heaven" is one such disc to me. This Blu-Ray presentation leaves you with no doubt. This is High Definition, pure and simple, and no 480p DVD disc could do what this disc does. On my 50" SXRD display, the detail is overwhelming, the color is beyond rich and vibrant, and the 3-dimensionality is extraordinary, especially in the festival scene in Greece, the scene in the cold mountain pass, and in the Babylon entrance scene. At its best, this is THE demo disc to really show off your system. There are a few spots where black levels falter (such as the palace in India) or flesh tones are a little hot (Aristotle springs to mind), but these flaws represent 5 minutes or so out of a 214 minute experience. The rest of the film is nothing short of flawless, and the visual splendor aids in drawing you into the film.The extra materials also excel - two commentaries including a director's track and a historical overview by Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox, two documentaries with amazing behind the scenes access, and a bevy of other features. Really first rate.If you like history, this is a movie to get. If you like great HD, this disc is a no-brainer. If you like neat and tidy 90 minute films which spoon feed you the plot and who to root for/against, this is NOT the movie for you. It is complex, confusing at times, ambiguous in its morality, violent, lusty, raw, and disgusting. But that's history... have you ever read the bible? Yeesh. This is a movie which inspires love and hate all at once. I for one find it utterly spellbinding, even though I am well aware of its flaws. In the end, I think this is completely appropriate for its subject matter: Alexander the Great, a historical figure who, warts and all, you can't simply ignore and would do well to study. I give this disc 5 stars for its technical brilliance, its creative spark, and its sheer, mesmeric "movie magic."

Like pearls before swine is this under-rated film before the steroidal masses.There have been a few films of ancient legends either classical or medieval that have earned some attention as epics in this decade. They are the following:2000--Gladiator, directed by Ridley Scott.2004--Troy, directed by Wolfgang Petersen.2004--Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone.2005--Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott.2006--300, directed by Zack Snyder.The masses seem to have their tastes backwards, as they are facing the rear rather than forwards. They have no idea the difference between a good epic from a bad one. Even the critics have had occasional lapses of good judgment. Although critics usually tend to come through properly, they have severely undercut one film in particular: Alexander.Epics are supposed to provoke the feelings of the films of Cecil B. DeMille, David Lean, Kubrick, and Ray Harryhausen. They are not supposed to be merely brutish, nor turn episodes of historical periods into steroidal glorifications. I suppose some idiot is sitting in the back row of the theater telling everyone else, "You can't blame a film when it makes money." Suddenly, everyone forgets what taste means! What "ought to be popular" is not the point of a historical epic.The point is tragic heroism. Aristotle, in his work Poetics, has explained the keys of what defines a work as a tragedy. A tragedy has a hero, and a hero is a character who sets out on a mission, usually called a quest, to find something or do something, whether it's in finding an object like a golden fleece or a cup of the Christ's blood, in killing a certain monster, or in committing oneself to a mission on behalf of virtue. It is when the hero, usually the story's protagonist, makes a fatal error in judgment due to his personality--but not merely a victim of circumstance--then returns to it with a commitment toward something admirable in a way that has an end result of large proportion and catharsis.For instance, in the 2007-animated film Beowulf, the title character sets out to destroy a monster in which he becomes seduced by it instead, falling prey in such a way that his error would later result in the destruction of an entire city. The only way for him to resolve the matter is to selflessly destroy himself in the process of killing the dragon. When he dies to redeem himself for his error, he is acting honorably in his intentions, and therefore is defined as a tragic hero. A tragedy is usually thought of as having and ending with a hero's demise, but sometimes a story having a happy ending would still be regarded as tragedy according to Aristotle. The film Jason and the Argonauts, a film with a happy ending, would be a Greek tragedy. The seriousness and broad landscape of the action make it a tragedy.Oliver Stone's film Alexander has not only the capacity for a greatness in which it is eclipsed somewhat by masterpieces like Lawrence of Arabia does not detract from the comparison, and where that film is worth five full stars, Stone's Alexander is worthy of a lesser rating: in the vicinity of four stars for its mild flaws. Yet, the film has been criticized all over the place in ways I've never even heard of films being criticized before! And, this really just shows how people have blindly hated it for its unique qualities. How can anyone criticize Stone's portrayal of the ancient Greeks by delving into bisexuality where men thought of themselves as gods? This just makes no sense! Criticize the film for having confusing battle scenes and perhaps I could agree, but to criticize it as hateful merely because it shows Alexander crying over dead friends on a battlefield is blatantly a disregarding of the historical fact and of pure cinema. People assume that what made Alexander so great is that he was a stoic and merciless killer. So, for Stone and actor Colin Farrell to paint him as emotional was apparently too much for today's U.S. audiences to comprehend in their small mindedness, easing what they think they know about the historical person. And, what of their small mindedness? It seems the U.S. interpretation of Greek legends is much different than reality and true Greek idealization, as the masses have turned reality and Greek ideals into corn-fed masochisms and idiotic, inhuman, and idiosyncratic notions of steroidal football players.As far as mass popularity, Gladiator, starring Russell Crowe, was a financial success. And, we know why. It has rather intense action, but it evokes two other films: DeMille's Sign of the Cross and Kubrick's Spartacus, the former being a decent-but-memorable grandiose epic of the 1930s and the latter being one of the highlight epics of the 1960s. The photography of Gladiator is not only gritty, it's poetic. It's a good film; where it lacks in certain elements of plot, it makes up for in visuals, directing, and great acting, especially Joaquin Phoenix. However, the film deserves a rating of merely above average. Yet, it was still popular in the U.S.Where director Ridley Scott made a financial success in a historical setting, he would propel a much greater film of worth in Kingdom of Heaven--the Road Show version known as "the Director's Cut." He again emulates an idea shaped as early as 1935 in Cecil B. DeMille's film The Crusades. Where American audiences complained of forming political references and anti-Christian views, they had not realized that the theme in which they have resorted to superficial criticism was essentially the same theme of DeMille, the director responsible for such epics as The Ten Commandments, a film which DeMille directed twice, the latter remake being the most critically-acclaimed and remembered biblical epic of all time! No one would dare accuse Mr. DeMille of being anti-Christian, but DeMille's same statement of The Crusades, made from Ridley's perspective, has now been distorted into an anti-Christian meaning it never had!Kingdom of Heaven's American audiences were thin despite wide acceptance in Europe, and despite Roger Ebert who reviewed it with his highest star rating. The film discusses morality and justice in addressing faith rather than insinuating anti-Christian or pro-Muslim stances, as the film's critics have tried to assert. As did DeMille's film The Crusades, Ridley's Kingdom of Heaven brings together two sets of people through religious principles rather than adding to the coldness. Perhaps the American masses don't care to do any thinking. Obviously, Kingdom of Heaven is far superior to Gladiator when comparing Ridley Scott's two historical epics. It is worthy of four stars of five, or four-and-a-half of five if possible. Some of the aggression at this film has been speculated by other critics to have been caused by the movie's lesser theatrical version, which was shortened by a whopping 45 minutes from the original Road Show Director's Cut version, cutting out the meat and potatoes of the story. If there is one film on video reason enough to get into the high-def format, this film is it.And, now let's see where the masses have embraced the truly horrible films of Troy and 300, the latter film pertaining to the Spartan war against Persian invaders. First off, 300 has none of the virtues of either Kingdom of Heaven or Alexander, but it has made a lot more money from the American masses. Yet, the film is terrible! It is more about half-naked WCW "wrestlers" than anything intelligent: a series of cinematic postcards without any plot depth whatsoever! No one cares about any of this film's characters, because there is no reason to care. It is just a lot of running of guys who have all had their teeth sharpened. This film deserves two stars--three would be overdoing it. The plot is as flimsy as they come; if it hadn't been spelled out in a basic humanities text, there would be nothing in this film worthy of mention. 300 makes Stone's film Alexander look like a masterpiece! Zack Snyder isn't even close to comparable to any of the other directors in my film list above. The film 300 is so boring that its brownish photography presents me with Montezuma's Revenge.And Troy was better, but not by much! It is another stuffed shirt. It's a way to watch Brad Pitt tan, and its cinema and its Greek story here seems usable for little else to support its cardboard characters. This film gets three stars, tops. Petersen, its director, has made good films before. This isn't one of them.I don't see why people have completely disregarded the cinema in its classic form from the '60s. When Peter O'Toole walked through the desert, people gravitated toward it like an oasis. But, today's mass pop culture can't recognize a Greek mythological tragedy from a Cheerio box. Yet, I'm supposed to accept people's word about Stone's Alexander epic, because it makes THEM comfortable! Something's dreadfully wrong, and it isn't me, nor is it Stone's Alexander. The critics and masses are wrong about this film just as they were wrong in 1982 about Ridley Scott's film Blade Runner, although to a lesser extent, which means that these critics won't recognize their mistake this time because Alexander is not a great film, but just a good one.

I really wanted this to be good, I really did, but it is utterly dire. There are some saving graces, the visual effects are sometimes ok and there are some nice vistas to look at. Other than that this is total car crash of a movie. The casting is terrible, every significant part is woefully miscast. Farrell as Alexander sets the tone. He is wooden and simply hasn't got either the physical presence or charisma required to play him. He looks a bit like a pantomime dame for the most part. His portrayal is monotone, lacks any emotional resonance and his relationship with Hephaistion is pathetically badly portrayed. Kilmer as Philip is equally poor. He simply doesn't fit the part. Philip is not portrayed as the ferocious and deeply flawed man he was with his serial monogamy and excessive drinking. He is just slightly grumpy. Jolie as Olympias is bizarre. She affects a totally bizarre sort of Arabian Nights accent that is jarring out of place with the Irish Macedonians. She was an Epirote from literally the neighbouring country so the idea that she would possess such a completely out-of-place accent simply ruins any credibility she has in the role.Historically it is accurate insofar as it follows the general course of his life but it misses out enormous chunks of the story. He sort of pops up at Gaugamela without needing to fight in Asia Minor, no Issus, arguably the key battle. You don't see him at Troy. Egypt is glossed over in a word or two from Ptolemy (a performance that oozes an easy payday for Hopkins without getting out of first gear). It simply whizzes through the great epic of Alexander's life dotting in an out with no real sense of the course of the action.This is a subject which demands a far better approach. It fails utterly in giving any scope to the history which is shot through at such speed that it makes little sense. Alexander's amazing ability as a commander is belittled and he is made to look lucky or reckless. He was both but crammed full of tactical brilliance. The man never lost a battle and defeated a huge array of foes in a massive variety of terrain often wildly outnumbered. It is at best a character sketch which compiles disparate elements of Plutarch and Quintus Curtius Rufus, badly. Such a sketch relies on a great central performance, which it absolutely does not have.Desperately poor and in many ways actively harmful to the legend and the historical records of the man and his achievements.

Over-long, tedious; the battle-sequences are few, confused, lacking in a narrative the viewer can follow; it ultimately grows tiresome long before the end – it's debatable if the film or the viewer runs out of steam first – but really, it's a turkey by any decent standard.It was a controversial film given it's portrayal of Alexander's character which didn't go down well with Greek academics and historians were critical in general – that the film exists in 4 different versions is some indication of editing problems – for me, the one version is quite enough.This 2-disc DVD edition splits the movie across both discs with 85-minutes of "making of" extras on the second disc and with a commentary for the film itself; English subtitles are available for the feature and the extras.

When first released this film was given a bad press. I have re-watched it (more than once) and feel much of the criticism was undeserved. The battle scenes were stupendous, & Colin Farrell gave a good effort as Alexander, bearing in mind the charismatic king was a complex young man & possessed many quirks or characteristics, not easy to play on-screen at all. For any first-time viewers, try to ignore the previous poor press and do watch the movie, with an open mind too. I am fairly optimistic most will not be disappointed.

Den Film habe ich jetzt schon seit dem Kauf vor 2 Wochen 6 mal gesehen man kann nicht genung davon bekommenDas einzige was man bemängeln muss oder kann er ist nicht Vollständig es fehlen die Schlacht bei Issos die schlacht gegen Theben und Athen ebenso die Erorberungen von Susa Persepolis und Ektabana sowie die Krönung zum Königvon Persien aber r dann hätte der Film 2 stunden länger sein müssen warum nicht war wahrscheinlich aus Kosten Gründen nicht möglich. Die Schlachtszenen hätten langsamer sein können es geht alles ziemlich schnell erst beim mehrmaligen ansehen findet man neue Szenen herraus. Zu den Darstellern allen voran Colin Farrell als Alexander grandios allein schon die Ansprache an seine Soldaten bei Gaugamela sensationell man fühlt sich mitgerissen als wäre man selber dabei dann die Szene auf dem Balkon in Babylon mit Hephaistion Jared Letofür mich von beiden Darstellern überragend in szene gesetzt das Geht unter die Haut Love HurtsLiebe hat viele Formen in diesem Fall war sie stärker als Alexanders beziehungen zu Frauen. Hephaistions Ring den Alexander kurz vor seinem Tod gen Himmel hebt zuvor sein Blick auf Hepaistions Skulptur sagt alles dann der adler den er herranfliegen sieht dann fliegt der Ring zu Boden und zerbricht diese Liebe war oder ist unsterblichÜber Alexander und seine Erfolge brauche ich nicht zuberichten Interesanter ist seine gespaltene Persönlichkeitmal Grossmütig dann wieder Brutal aber ich kann alle seine Entscheidungen nachvollziehen Der Mord an Kleitosder seinen König beleidigt vor allen Generälen Freunden usw alexanders jeder andere König hätte Kleitos töten lassen .Einzig den Indienfeldzug kann man ihm als Fehler anlasten aber nur weil der die Gebiete nicht halten konnte aber Rückwirkend betrachtet machte ihn der Feldzug unsterblich was sagte er auf dem Balkon in BabylonMänner werden nach ihren Taten gemessen wenn sie nicht mehr leben wie recht hatte er dochAber er war eben auch nur ein Mensch da hatte Kleitos recht mit Hephaistions Tod begann auch der Abstieg Alexanders er hatte niemanden mehr der ihn liebte es scheint so als fehlte ihm einfach die Kraft die hatte er aus seiner intimen Beziehung zu Hepaistion geschöpft. Ich denke er wusste genau das alle Personen Generäle uswAntigonos. Ptolemäos, Kassander nach seinem Tode das Reich zerstören würden was sie auch sehr schnell tatenWas die Eroberung Persiens aus rein Militärischer Sicht angeht kam Alexander natürlich die Dummheit oder Unfähigkeit von Dareios zu gute der kein grosser Herrscher war. Das Herrscherhaus der Achämiden war durch Inzucht Mord und Intrigen von innen herraus geschwächt.Die Truppenteile waren wild zusammen gewürfelte Verbände zu dem waren sie meist nicht gepanzert hatten keine richtigen helme und taktisch falsch geführt. Wie will man mit Streitwagen die Phalanx aufbrechen die Pferde laufen voll in die Sperre ein unsinn des GrosskönigsAlexanders Männer hingegen waren eine perfekte Armee mit Offizieren Abteilungen durch organiesiert und vonüberragenden Generälen dirigiert. Es ist fast nicht zu Glauben das es den Persern bei Gaugamela nicht gelang die Makedonen zu überflügeln und einzukreisen aber jeder auch Alexander brauchte Glück und das hatte er in der Unfähigkeit der Perser man kann sich noch die Frage stellen was gewesen wäre wenn Memnon der griechische General des Dareios nicht vor der Schlacht gestorben wäreAber Schluss damit der Film ist sein Geld wert ich muss diesen Film jedem ans Herz legen der Geschichtlich interesiert ist der Film zeigt auch an was es uns Menschen heute fehlt nähmlich EHRE und für eine Sache wenn es sein muss das letzte zugeben Gruss Gregor

Wondering about whether to buy Alexander on Blu-ray?Don't buy the UK one - you only get the Theatrical cut. This Italian one has both the Theatrical Cut and the new Ultimate Cut on two separate discs with different extras on each disc. I suspect on a quick watch that the Theatrical Cut is the best cut of the four on Blu-ray but I advise you to get this one. The only Italian you will see is on the back of the case. The actual disc boots to an English menu on both discs - English DTS-HD MA audio is the default option - no subtitles need to be switched off etc. All the extras are in English.This seems exactly the same as the much more expensive US 2-disc one yet the discs are the same. Summary? If you want Alexander - buy this one!