ALEXANDER (DC/DVD/S)

Plenty of blood thirsty action

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.

A brilliant film with a star studded cast. The fight scenes are amazing, you almost feel like you could be there at times with them. This is not the best film for anyone who can't stand seeing snakes as they are a regular feature in Angelina Jolie ' s scenes. The only complaint is Colin Farrell 's hair he really doesn't suit it how his character has it and for big softies like me who get upset (yeah I know it's fake lol but they make it look so real it puts some human actors to shame) when an animal gets hurt on screen be warned

Terribly disappointed with this film. I was hoping to learn something about the period and this particular figure from history...and had had it recommended by a friend.Well....In the end, I just hadn't got a CLUE as to what was going on. We jumped backwards and forwards...or backwards and backwards.....I mean...."10 years previously"....Then "9 years previously".....So had we gone back 19 years ? (I'm guessing not, in this particular instance...as I imagine Alexander would have been back to his early teens... Still, things are simply NOT made clear.)It was just SO jumbled, it didn't really make much sense to a historical 'numpty' like myself.Scholars who have studied Alexander, might have better luck....At least they might be able follow the strange 'timelines'....and be able to work out what's happening.In the end....All I seemed to learn was that Alexander and his Dad were definitely NOT the best of friends....A number of the Greeks were bisexual....and they spoke with Irish accents.VERY poor...and to add insult to injury, the price of the DVD has dropped to around half price in the couple of days since I bought it.....Even if I'd only paid the new price (£2.50 ?)I'd have felt overcharged.Phil.

I saw the theatrical released version at the time and found it - visuals aside- to be insanely dull and told me little or nothing- with Farrell appearing miscast.In this one the expanded scenes that explain the emotional motivations of Alexander and his mother and other details - it is certainly much better. I could've sworn though that in the world I grew up in Alex was famous for murdering his own best friend Hephaestion in a drunken rage? And did not Alex have a feeble-minded elder sibling whom he sought to usurp in some political marriage?

Fantastic.What gets me about this film is there is just so much detail. The locations and the minor characters all have some significance. Watching the director's commentary gave me an insight into how much work has gone into such a huge movie as this. If I had more time on my hands I would watch this movie again.As someone who has spent two years living on Greek islands and knowing very little about what I believe was the largest empire in history, this film was exactly what I wanted. I wouldn't say it tells you everything about Alexander, but it gives an enjoyable overview. What it also does is it bring the ancient history to life in a way you can almost taste.Oh, and Angelia Jolie is great as a scary, sexy snake witch.

I saw this in the cinema and was dissappointed. BUT the Directors Cut is a lot, lot better. I can't quite say why, but I think this version provides just that bit more detail to make it more comprehensible and enjoyable. The battle scenes are superb...easily on a par with films such as Braveheart. I rate Mr Stone's films - but so often they are better second time around, and as the Directors Cut, for example 'Nixon' and 'Kennedy'. Well worth renting and giving another go...I am going to buy it!