Alexander

In terms of acting, Alexander is very high level. Colin Farrell is excellent and Angelina Jolie blew me away, before I had a very poor opinion of her, but her she really put on a great show. The production design is exemplary, the battles duly spectacular, but the magic fades from them under the weight of longwinded soul searching. Some legendary events are left out (cutting the Gordian knot), while they could have spiced up the story nicely and bring in a taste of the unknown. Stone didn’t know when to take his foot off the gas and when to hit the floor. It was his only mistake, but it was huge. (15.01.2006)

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)

The ultimate cut of 2013, presented by the director himself at the International Film Festival in Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic: Unarguably tighter and with a clearer purpose, with most of the problems or the original versions already solved. The problem is that this gave rise to a whole range of new problems. And not even the partial departure from the markedly symbolic direction of the original does anything to help. Paradoxically, the (supposedly) ideal final version of Stone’s opus magnum is the least interesting of the four versions you can see. Theatrical cut 2004: Potential not fully utilized? It depends what you were expecting. Alexander isn’t a movie for everybody. Either you love it, despite its unarguable downsides or you condemn it for those very downsides. And neither attitude is very surprising. As a “slightly different" historical movie, it’s flawless. Alexander requires certain willingness and a good dose of tolerance and a desire to get under its seemingly uninspiring surface on the viewer’s part. In return the viewer is rewarded with an unusual experience full of metaphors, symbols and hints. Something that worked exceptionally well is the character psychology. Perhaps in no other historical epic have the creators worked so hard on characterization of ambiguous characters. The fact that Stone overlooks Alexander’s controversial razing to the ground of certain cities is not pleasing. It doesn’t really fit in with the otherwise quite realistic story. And the misplaced use of Vangelis’ badly composed score is also a great shame. Don’t expect a classic, spectacular epic movie; you won’t find it here. But it has lots of other things waiting to be discovered. (14.01.2005)

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)

It is not a flawless film, but Stone's effort to break away from the boring descriptive narrative mode by attempting a thoughtful probe into Alexander's soul, to approach his Oedipus complex with his mother (a great Angelina Jolie), to show his desire to discover and overcome the glories of the ancient heroes of old, to bring closer his dream of uniting the peoples of the then known world under the influence of ancient learning, all while being misunderstood by those closest to him, is very appealing. Alexander is no boring boilerplate narrative with "good guys" and "bad guys" and it is free from screenwriting the shallowness and pseudo-historical insight of Gladiator or Troy. Sure, the film has its weak spots, and they are not few, for example, the bed scene with Roxana, however effective, is completely unnecessary for the development of the plot; or the scene of Alexander's taming of Bucephalos has quite a lot of room, while an event of such fundamental symbolic significance as the cutting of the Gordian knot is not even mentioned by Stone. Despite all that, the three hours passed like water and I wasn't bored for a moment. Alexander is a thought-provoking historical film, wrapped in an attractive package in the form of spectacular production design. The negative critical response from the overseas journalistic community is not at all surprising to me, given Stone's tarnished reputation as a man labeled an enemy and pariah of America. Praising Stone's films just isn't in vogue lately, and a certain effect of "sheepishness" certainly plays a role. (31.01.2005)