Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pretty Good To Be Honest, 23 Jun 2006
Despite the reviews i have to admit i thought that this was a pretty good film. I was swayed by the film reviews when it came out and therefore when i watched it i was really disappointed. But then i watched it again on tv and i began to appreciate the film. The two battle scenes are fantastic emphasising the confusion in ancient battles. The fact the Gaugamela was the second best battle in film in the Empire magazine shows its quality.
Despite the views on the acting it hought some of the performance were very good. Val Kilmer as Phillip was in top form as was Angelina Jolie. It was some of the more unknown actors such as those that act as Cassander and Cleitus that make impressions.
It is also the scenes of tension between Alexander and his men between the fights that are very well done. The death of Cleitus and mutiny in India are highlights.
I personally think that too any people have been influenced by the reviews by critics and dont let their own minds make a judgement.
|
|
|
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Stone's Alexander ain't all that great, 31 Dec 2005
So, according to Oliver Stone, who's never met a piece of history he didn't want to distort, Alexander the Great was a girly man crybaby who let his own men insult and belittle him throughout his whole quest for greatness. The very fact that Stone sensationalized the homosexual malarkey of his Alexander cut the rug out from under this film's feet before it ever hit theatres. Alexander the Great is a name that has resounded throughout history for over two millennia - but the history of that story somehow wasn't good enough for Stone. I think even Freud would shudder at the thought of someone who is not a psychologist or even an historian trying to psychoanalyze a man who died over three hundred years before the birth of Christ. It's unfortunate because this could have been a powerful film. Skipping back and forth across Alexander's life (Stone apparently thinks is a devilishly clever way to tell a story), we follow the great conqueror's story from his childhood to his death through the eyes of Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins). Born to Philip of Macedon and his exotic first wife Olympias (Angelina Jolie) -who claimed Alexander was the son of Zeus -Alexander (Colin Farrell) had a complicated childhood. Olympias groomed him to be the next king, worrying all the while that Philip would not recognize him as the legitimate heir. Interestingly, Olympias doesn't seem to age a day between Alexander's birth and his ascendancy to the throne at the age of nineteen. We're talking about Angelina Jolie here, so I couldn't get past the thought that this is an Oedipus complex just waiting to happen. Anyway, Alexander replaces his murdered father, sets off north to establish his control over the tribes there, and then just keeps heading east conquering everything that gets in his way. After his daring defeat of Persia's King Darius, he fights his way all the way into India, farther than anyone before him had ever gone. If he had known those Indian tribes had war elephants, I daresay Alexander might have just turned around at the border and headed back home early. Instead, his military exploits extend over seven years. We hear him talk about assimilating the conquered peoples, and he certainly likes to build Alexandrias all over the place, but this grand vision theme of Alexander's life doesn't get enough play in the movie to sufficiently explain his motives. The movie does have some strengths. The battle scenes are very impressive (except the end of the final one, when Stone decides to get artistic with it), especially Alexander's ill-fated fight with the elephant-equipped Indian tribes. Blood and guts are spilled on an epic scale. Angelina Jolie is mesmerizing as Alexander's devious, snake-loving mother - but I have no idea where that accent of hers was supposed to have come from. Speaking of strange accents, Colin Farrell sometimes sounded to me like he should have been leading Braveheart's forces. He never became Alexander in my eyes - there just wasn't enough substance to his character. If the film had been nothing but battle scenes, Farrell would have been more convincing; it's the scenes taking place between battles that leads this film astray. Most of this time is spent watching Alexander exchange meaningful glances with pretty boys wearing more makeup than Jezebel. The rest of the time consists of all those loyal men who supposedly adore their brave king whining about the length of the campaign, criticizing Alexander's motives and strategy, and making snide remarks about his heritage. There's no way Alexander the Great let his men talk to him the way they do throughout this film. There's really not much leadership on display by here. Alexander's brave, certainly, but he's no Patton. Basically, Oliver Stone does a great disservice to Alexander the Great, passing him off as a dandy with little strategic genius and even less control over men who supposedly loved and respected him enough to fight and die for him thousands of miles from home. Stone's characterization of Alexander is just plain weird - and that's the whole problem with this movie. Let's hope that the youth of today and tomorrow don't see this film and actually believe they're seeing an accurate picture of Alexander the Great because Stone's Alexander ain't all that great.
|
|
|
13 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A jewel-encrusted mess, 22 Jan 2007
Ignore those who berate this film. Mind you, ignore those who heap praise on it too. If you have an interest in, or understanding of alexander the great, then this film will both wildly frustrate & bewitch. To those who don't, god-knows what you'll think (though i suspect its running-time may be an issue).
Almost all its problems can be traced back to the script, an indictment many modern cinema-goers won't be particularly surprised to hear, but here, as with the similarly audacious Troy, smacks of a colossal wasted opportunity. Firstly, and somewhat significantly, Alexander's characterisation is misjudged and ultimately unrealistic (you wouldn't follow this charisma-lite, whinging alexander to the ends of the earth). Secondly, its jumps in time seem arbitrary, as though they're now a necessity & cinema has evolved from chronological presentation, but they end up surpressing a great deal of the story's tragedy.
But then the film's numerous qualities do take charge. Its beautiful realisation of significant moments in his story and evocation of an ancient world, through lavish production-design and breathtaking photography, will be enough to carry you through this (and rewatch in my case) - The entrance into Babylon for example, and the through-jungle charge on the elephants are quite simply stunning.
One other thing, if you think you might have a problem with 'Greeks' with Irish accents, don't bother with Alexander. But then this would be such a phenomenally small-minded and petty criticism of a film that you're probably better off with 'xXx' anyway.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|