Alexander

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

Alexander

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Alexander

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Alexander - 23/2/2006 3:07:31 PM

Empire Admin

Posts: 26526
Joined: 29/6/2005

Post your comments on this article

Post #: 1

- 23/2/2006 3:07:32 PM

yellow-bastard

Posts: 213
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Swansea, South Wales

good

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 2

RE: Alexander - 23/2/2006 7:04:02 PM

doctorolorinbats1975

Posts: 6787
Joined: 30/10/2005
From: Harrow

Lame. We can't engage with the politics of a world long gone for one thing, and Colin Farrel is more cry baby than son of Zeus. Add some hammy acting, odd accents and a look too erotic. I am interested in Alexander the Great but this film offers no insight.

_____________________________

CG, stop motion, acting, animation, animatronics, whatever, it's 24 lies a second...

Critiquing words for dummies: Pretentious, overrated, sentimental, indulgent, populist.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 3

- 24/2/2006 1:41:20 AM

lulu karma

Posts: 6323
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: on the east coast of the US

I agree with doctor's review. This film is just horrible. I give it two stars instead of one because of the cinematography. It is lovely to look at but that's the whole film... the story is only of surface value and fairly hollow throughout. I find the acting hard to believe. Not once do I feel I am watching the actual character. It's acting and when you know you are watching acting, then it is poorly done.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 4

RE: - 24/2/2006 12:41:24 PM

MovieMisnomers

Posts: 51
Joined: 14/2/2006

Oliver Stone is a too literal director. I agree with the article, the movie is just one big disaster area. Anybody who could make such a mess of Tarantino's wonderful (and now disowned) script for natural Born Killers and who could make that historical debacle JFK, should not be allowed anywhere near a camera. You can't blame Farrell, although any actor worth his salt should've bowed out as soon as Stone is involved, so he should have known better.

_____________________________

For the amusingly odd movie puzzle visit: http://movie-misnomers.com

(in reply to lulu karma)

Post #: 5

RE: RE: - 24/2/2006 7:43:20 PM

doncopey1

Posts: 4982
Joined: 29/11/2005
From: Liverpool: Age 25

excellent costumes and an excellent vision. however i don't think it was the Stone's eye for political satire or his vulgar fast paced cinematography for the fight scenes, or even Farrells irish accent that made this film terrible. It was just overly long and dull because of uninteresting dialogue. I thought Farrell was good (apart from irish accent), i honestly thought Kilmer was excellent despite some minor criticism. But Jolie is really,really,reallly bad dyerly awful one of the worst performances ever. **

< Message edited by doncopey1 -- 24/2/2006 7:44:33 PM >

_____________________________

"Fake is as old as the Eden tree." Orson Welles

(in reply to MovieMisnomers)

Post #: 6

Meh - 7/4/2006 8:01:47 PM

Caster

Posts: 5608
Joined: 30/9/2005

Just scrapes in three stars thanks to some spectacular battles, but it's a bit of a muddle and never really connects.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 7

- 28/4/2006 12:33:44 PM

Ezra

Posts: 19
Joined: 29/10/2005
From: Cheshire

Giving it the benefit of the doubt I'd say bewteen 2 and 3 stars, but this is solely due to the visuals - it was just plain gorgeous. And then it was devoid of character development, the whole thing lacked a sturdy structure, and some of it came dangerously close to being - or was - just cliched. Take the elephant and the horse confronting each other in the battle in the Indian forest. What the hell was that all about. And the soundtrack too. Vangelis produced some pretty good pieces of music for it, namely some for some of the battle scenes. Note: some. Some bits of it quickly changed its tune to something that sounds like it came out of a cheap TV battle. And he got a lot of it in the wrong places too.

A mess, with a few odd gems.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 8

Never again. - 5/5/2006 12:40:17 AM

VincentHanna

Posts: 936
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: 30 minutes walk from Manchester city centre.

Got this from my online DVD club, which means I only watched it on my widescreen telly (still 28" though) and it was the director's cut.

Whether I would have enjoyed the ordeal any more at the cinema I don't know.

I switched it off after 45 minutes, I couldn't even get myself interested in a massive battle scene.

It looked beautiful and had a great cast but bored the crap out of me.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 9

oh dear - 17/5/2006 2:17:43 PM

alexisreaver2132

Posts: 83
Joined: 6/5/2006
From: UK

an average film could have had better lead role instead of colin farrel. And what was that dyed hair job about awful! Angelina jolie sounded like she was from an egyptian resort. An average film which had all the wrong cast for all the wrong reasons.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 10

Alexander - 6/6/2006 4:37:05 AM

spideyfan666

Posts: 88
Joined: 13/2/2006

Crap, crap , crap way out of context such a cool idea for a a film but done is o such a terrible fashion. Wrong casting, crappy action and a sloppy script. Take a look at gladiator if you want to see a cool ancient period flick this one blows big time!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 11

expert - 4/7/2006 6:28:36 PM

mrcritic123

Posts: 8
Joined: 26/6/2006

Superb.Why can't anyone see it has so much meaning and differing emotions.Farrel plays a tireless,dreaming,yet temperamental warrior king leading an army of normal humans to the end of the known world in three hours.Jolie is his scheming mother beautifully acted in an annoying way.The battle scenes as Alexander sweeps across Asia are visceral and authenticly shot.Stone makes sure his Alexander isn't perfect by interweving personal disaters all the way through Alexanders' life such as when he is driven to kill one of his most loyal friends.Added to this is the awe inspiring music by Vangelis and a series of battle hardened companions that Alexander is accopanied with in the film.Lastly it is fairly obvious that Stone has put his sole into this film and has made it like no other modern epic,bringing a great sense of originality to the movie.five stars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 12

expert - 4/7/2006 6:28:44 PM

mrcritic123

Posts: 8
Joined: 26/6/2006

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 13

Quite good - 7/7/2006 12:04:47 AM

CitizenKane

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/7/2006

If you think that this movie is boring you clearly have no taste. It was very accurate historacly, and with good performances too. I agree that it could have less sexual meaning, but the whole plot was well structered and developed. I liked it. But it desplised me in battle material. All the battles were messy.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 14

SUCKS - 19/4/2007 4:09:31 PM

minotaur3004

Posts: 46
Joined: 16/4/2007

I wanted to enjoy this movie but it was the worst war movie i have ever seen. In the first battle there was dust and sand everywhere and i could'nt see a thing and in the second battle the camera was moving rapidly and all over the place and i could'nt see a thing and the elephants were too fast. TERRIBLE EFFECTS!!! Another bad thing about this movie was that it made Alexander look like a total loser. This film could have been so much better.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 15

- 19/4/2007 4:12:16 PM

minotaur3004

Posts: 46
Joined: 16/4/2007

TERRIBLE, TRAGIC AND UNACCURATE

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 16

- 19/4/2007 4:13:34 PM

minotaur3004

Posts: 46
Joined: 16/4/2007

CRAP CRAP CRAP, what is wrong with the director, hes supposed to be good so why did he make asuch a crap movie!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 17

- 7/5/2007 11:45:05 PM

minotaur3004

Posts: 46
Joined: 16/4/2007

Since when was Alexander gay???????????????????????????????????????????

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 18

Boring and slow - 6/8/2007 11:41:04 AM

Big Alex

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2007

This was just crap, acting was crap, action, what action. Its mostly just talking and the story's ok. That's mainly the only reason and mabe the characters were alright why i gave this a two star. My personal opinion was that it was gonna be bloody and adventurous, whereas this just slack's on creating a slow and dismull effort. Stone, who is one of the best directors around these days has gone off and crafted a film of no potential nad he haasn't put enough effort in.

The Final Cut, whic is out soon on dvd mabe worth waiting for, or it'll just go on and on in story and if it does, i hope for people's sake the characters are brought to life instead of dull and speechless half the time.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 19

- 12/8/2007 11:55:56 AM

Eomer_King

Posts: 192
Joined: 18/5/2006

An ambitious, over the top project that ultimately fails to live up to its hype and, incredibly, lacks the sort of excitement and spectacle intrinsically linked to its subject matter.

While some scenes bristle with the intensity expected in an Oliver Stone film, the great majority of the time is spent dealing with Alexander's barmy parents, bizarre entourage and various, tiresome neuroses.

What should have been Stone's greatest masterpiece is instead a rambling and, unforgivably, boring mess.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 20

Sorry Ollie, Nothing Can Save This!!! - 18/1/2008 11:26:18 PM

cdjwfan

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/1/2007
From: Cork

I only saw about 40 minutes of it, and those 40 minutes were so terriable, i wanted to gouge my (and everyone elses in the room's) eyes out. This is the lemon in Stones basket!! Crap!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 21

Stunning And Beautiful To Look At. - 10/4/2008 9:25:49 AM

joanna likes films

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill

Alexander is a very good effort from the legend of Oliver Stone, he can bring you stunning shots and beautiful landscapes to look at. Yes, there is some flaws in the movie but I don't care, it's a good movie and people shouldn't be so nasty about it. Colin Farrell did a good job as Alexander, his charm and power controled the screen alongside Jared Leto with his beautiful blue eyes. Val Kilmer is quite disturbing as Alexander's dad and so was Angelina Jolie, boy she scares me! In all, a deep and emotional movie with a long running time and flaws that many people saw but I didn't.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 22

ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME. - 5/10/2008 3:14:31 PM

TheRiderSoMysterious

Posts: 3
Joined: 4/10/2008

It is a film about Alexander the Great and yet in the entire film there is honestly not one single decent battle scene worth talking about. Its not even a nice film to look at either. Considering where the film is set it is not as breathtaking as it should be. And it should be epic but it is most definitely not. Really pathetic attempt compared to a Kingdom Of Heaven or a Braveheart or a Hidalgo.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 23

alexander - 14/4/2010 12:38:09 PM

Saam3003

Posts: 9
Joined: 18/12/2009

Why the hell, do the persians in the first battle go "HOO-HAH! HOO-HAH!"?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 24

YAAAWWWWWWWNNN ! - 19/5/2010 2:14:57 AM

elimonator

Posts: 69
Joined: 30/4/2007

Its like one long BORING history lesson !