Alexandre

Douce-amère racontée pendant trois heures d'histoire. Sans un héros historique musclé et viril, sans action et sans émotion dans les deux premières heures, sans explication des motivations des personnages (tout cela change seulement dans ce flashback). Même l'atmosphère historique qui émanait si agréablement de la simple "Troie" a été remplacée par une chaleur érotique bisexuelle rappelant le fameux "Caligula". J'apprécie que Oliver Stone n'ait rien simplifié et soit fidèle à l'histoire. Il a réussi son profil psychologique d'un grand conquérant avec une âme tourmentée. Mais d'un grand film de trois heures, j'attends autre chose, en fin de compte. Et je ne comprends surtout pas les investisseurs, comment ont-ils pu investir 150 millions de dollars dans un tel scénario qui échappe complètement aux formules commerciales. (13/01/2005)

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)

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)

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)

With the passage of time and after a second viewing, I must say that it is truly amazing. There is a difference between seeing it in a packed cinema with tons of popcorn everywhere and seeing it in a home theater, in a calm and pleasant setting. The production design is stunning and the battle at Gaugamela is truly an awesome spectacle. Additionally, the characters' psychology is excellent and they had a very unconventional approach to the concept of epic historical blockbuster; it’s different, original and good. (15/01/2005)

I’m not going to mince words, I’ve never been a fan of Stone’s film (the only one that I’ve liked is Any Given Sunday). As a historical account of the life of the greatest warlord in history, whose journey was not only filled with glory, victories and friendship, but also with a lot of intrigue and hatred, this film works really well in places. The battle scenes are worth the price, likewise the music, but watching it is still terribly tiring and not everyone can stand it. Instead of entertaining the viewer, Stone gives them a thorough history lesson and introduces them in detail to all the characters. This may not be to the liking of even someone who has been a history buff all his life, let alone an ordinary fan who goes to the cinema primarily to be entertained, as in the case of Petersen's Troy. As I’ve said, it wasn’t bad, I watched it without any problems and got an idea of what Alexander was like, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again. (02/02/2012)

Oliver Stone is a legend who has made great films. However, many say that in recent years he has failed, which is reflected in films like "World Trade Center" or "Alexander the Great". One has a tendency to compare the film with a gem like "Troy". That comparison is a bit harsh, but on the other hand, not completely unjustified. I haven't explored the extent to which Stone stuck to the source material, but I am sure he did it fairly faithfully. Unfortunately, he focused mainly on certain controversial aspects of Alexander's life, such as homosexuality and his strange relationship with his mother, where it would be possible to talk about a certain form of Oedipus complex, which ultimately also affected his relationships with women. Fine, interesting, why not, but Alexander was primarily a warrior, a man who was able to unite a very diverse world for a very short time, something that, in my opinion, no one else has achieved, not even the Soviet Union. The emphasis is not placed on conquest, which is a shame because when the battles occur, they are strong and naturalistic, which has always been Stone's pride. In the current "Savages," he wants to show that he still has it. "Alexander," however, falls short in many respects, and also in the sense that the director likes to use various filmmaking techniques. It is noticeable only when Alexander is injured and falls off his horse. Suddenly, a different camera filter is used, which actually does not look effective, but just strange. Stone did not get anything dazzling from the actors either. Anthony Hopkins plays his classic role, Colin Farrell is sometimes quite unbelievable, and based on this film alone, I would not have liked Angelina. Val Kilmer showed here that he used to have an athlete's body, but today he would not get the role of Philip of Macedon. A very hesitant film, unfortunately. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/10/zitra-nehrajeme-lovci-dinosauru.html (01/03/2013)