ALEXANDER (DC/DVD/S) [2004]

Thank you for the delivery Amazon !Very good movie .. underated !!

This movie may be a failure, but as one character says of Alexander - 'His failure towered over other peoples successes!' This directors cut is actually a little shorter than the theatrical cut, and the changes are not obvious unless you do a study of the two or someone has told you what they are - but they work. The directors cut somehow flows better than its theatrical cousin, and does not seem quite such hard work, making it worthy of re-appraisal.However, it is still overripe - the last third of the movie showing the destruction of that which Alexander loved - His horse, his best friend / lover Haphaestion, his army, his health and most of all his dream of one nation - just somehow seem at odds with the rest of the movie, and make for an unsatisfying narrative arc. Of course, these are just the facts of history that Oliver Stone had to work with, but you can't help wondering if the rival Alexander project of Baz Luhrmann which was scrapped when Stones vision was going to reach screens first, might have been more successful - focussing as it did on just a portion of Alexander's life. Alexander had too rich a story perhaps to fit into one movie. The rise of Alexander has more than enough for one epic, and the fall of Alexander is a story in itself - but to fit it all into one movie smacks of the kind of desire to outdo the competition that sank Cleopatra.So what works and what doesn't. Stone is a genius film maker, and this movie is amazingly shot and has imaginative ideas throughout. Occasionally these are a little overbearing, such as the reverse colour used when Alexander is injured, but on the whole they succeed - the eagle flying from Alexander talking to his soldiers across the battlefield to the waiting Persians is wonderful (if somewhat poor cgi). The device of splicing the dual narratives of Alexander's young life with his life as the general making his conquests, is ideal - a straight chronological tale would have been just too dull - especially with the later parts in India being just so depressing. The cast is veritably star studded, in a modern way, and the supporting cast are uniformly excellent. Angelina Jolie makes a memorable, sexy but scary Olympias making her perfect casting - except for THAT accent which was a big mistake and quickly becomes tedious. IN fact, what was it with accents in this movie? Farrel has an Irish accent that is impossible to hide, but does Val Kilmer have to echo it, and Jared Leto too, as if to say the ancient Greeks were actually an Irish dynasty? The other major woman in Alexander's life is also a big success, Rosario Dawson playing the exotic barbarian woman who became his wife, but she is under utilised. Opinions will vary as to how good Farrel was, but in spite of the accent, I think his was a great performance showing the intended emotion, vulnerability and indeed ego of the complicated young man.The music by Vangelis is a masterful piece of music - buy the album by all means - I did. However, as a score to a movie, it has mixed success... sometimes it is just too distracting - in epic moments of grandeur it is magnificent - but in battle scenes just tries too hard and does not sit well. Perhaps it might have worked in someone elses movie of Alexander, but not Stone's.In short, this movie will frustrate you with its length, with its rushing through parts of Alexander's life, and lack of a satisfying narrative arc. But it is a movie made with great care, by some of the best in the business, and deserves re-appraisal in this director's cut form.

I don't understand why this film has had bad reviews. I perosnally was hooked from the start.I did classics at uni so perhaps I am bias but it is really quite clever. All in all, the amount of passion and care that Stone put into it is obvious.I can understand where Oliver Stone was coming from, he has included a lot of information about myths, and alluded to Achilles etc, showing that Greek culture was rich, that Alexander who lived in the 4th century BCE came a lot later than Homer for example who created the Odyssey and Illiad in roughly 700BCE. The talk of eagles all the way through refers to them being a sign of the gods; that Alexander was favoured by Zeus.The reason why a few historians are not so keen is only because it skips some major battles in Greece itself but Stone could never have included everything. The things he did include showed a high level of research. He also hinted at a lot of issues in Greece at this time.The battles were full of gore and exciting to watch. The acting was good, perhaps Alexander would have been slightly stronger but I think the idea was to give him a personality and not just show him as a war machine. Leto is also really good, he does it perfectly, a softness with Alexander's character and yet still strong (the classical idyll). I read a review on here saying that the homosexuality is too subtle, well what a load of rubbish, it couldn't be more plain. Jolie's acting is slightly OTT but it fits with Greek plays presenting 'barbarians'.The only bit of info I agree with in those bad reviews is that they wouldn't have had Irish accents at this time. However, in fairness what would they have sounded like? They spoke a dialect of ancient Greek,what does that sound like, and what would it sound like when speaking english? In my view the lead was Irish, that's as good as any reason in my book. Plus the people from Macedonia have a slight Irish accent whereas the Greek have English accents such as Aristotle, implying a slight difference.Sorry this is such an essay rather than a normal review, I just feel this film needs defending. It is clever, historically quite accurate and more importanly I found it entertaining, I could watch it again and again.

This is not the ultimate cut, which has additional footage not included here. Apparently the Ultimate Cut is not available although there are a couple of clips on Youtube about Bagoas & Hephaistion (cut because of ignorant homophobic complaints). I remember watching Alexander when it first came out and being very disappointed. I appreciate it more now, and think the casting is good too. It is not easy to get into the story unless you know a bit about history and can remember the Greek names of the many characters, which are also sometimes shown as children and in old age, so it is confusing and there's a lot to take in. I had to watch the film more than once.The film is all about Alexander's conquests and there is frustratingly little about his relationships with Hephaistion, Bagoas and his wives. Alexander's life should probably be dealt with in a series rather than a single film. The battle scenes are very violent and I didn't like seeing elephants and horses hurt (event though according to the Director they were not actually hurt in real life). Alexander was known to be very humane towards women, he did not take advantage of them, let alone rape them. In his commentary, Director Oliver Stone says he rapes Roxane on their wedding night. They have violent sex, I did not like this at all, I did not find it believable or necessary, it reflects more Mr Stone's attitude towards women rather than Alexander's, and was not surprised to read about claims of impropriety made about Mr Stone as part of the #metoo movement.