Action / Adventure / Biography / Drama / History / Romance / War

IMDb Rating 5.6 10 153,506


Downloaded 185,302 times
April 16, 2019



Jared Leto as Tobias Jacobs
Rosario Dawson as Andy Fox
Val Kilmer as Montgomery
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1022.59 MB
23.976 fps
175 min
P/S N/A / N/A
3.31 GB
23.976 fps
175 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by eekeeley 3 / 10 / 10

So bad it (almost) borders on being good

Wow, it's been a long time since I giggled so much watching an epic. For starters, we have Alexander, with his golden hair and Irish accent that makes you wonder whether he's looking for the ends of earth or his lucky charms, whose tale is narrated by Anthony Hopkins in his Hannibal Lector voice. They lead us through a dizzying, poorly structured epic tale that wanders over what feels like six hours but apparently is just under three. Along the way we meet his psychotic parents played as cartoons by Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer. (seriously, was Angelina Jolie supposed to be a vampire?) He's also supported by his band of merry men, all wigged and eye-shadowed out. There's some particularly bad acting provided by Jonathan Rhys Meyers (shouting his way in an apparent audition for his role on the Tudors), but everyone basically spends a lot of time screaming at each other or making meaningless loud speeches. There are a lot of pretty shots, some interesting dance and party scenes, and numerous really bad sex/romance scenes. In the meantime to fill the endless spaces in the movie we get to seen teen angst, sexual frustration, Rosario Dawson in more eye make-up than all her other movies combined, way too much of Colin Ferrel (who oddly does not look good in sheer fabric), several death scenes so overwrought you wonder if the actors were just giddy that the movie was finally over for them. And the truest sign of any great film? The use of a red filter over battle scenes, together with overwrought music. I suppose I should just be glad Stone didn't rent Our Lady of Soundtrack Sorrow to wail over all the final scenes.

Reviewed by pcernea-1 5 / 10 / 10

Not Good Enough

The movie itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy as characters warn about sacrificing traditional austerity for wealth and pomp: Perhaps this happened to the filmmakers who had upwards of a hundred million dollars to work with. So maybe they felt they had to make it over-the-top instead of relying on a decent solid script. There are good things about this movie, but it is outweighed by negatives. The good is that there are many historically accurate facts: Aristotle was Alexander's tutor. Olympias raised Alexander to think he's a son of Zeus. Although the Greeks won by masterly employment of cavalry, the Persians also used cavalry. Cleitus and Parmenion were indeed killed. But the focus is somehow off. There is too much talking, too much reiteration, not enough action (there was a wealth of battles to choose from). That would be fine if the talking taught us more about history, but it usually happened in a totally unrealistic way. For instance, the scene where Philip is drunk and attacks Alexander. It was too verbose, and why was Olympias watching from afar? Why not keep it simple and true to the account? Why not have Alexander say simply and proudly, "What am I then, a bastard?" Then have Philip rush at Alexander immediately and trip--that would be spontaneous, interesting. For that matter, why rename Attalus' daughter from Cleopatra to Euterpe? Is it because Oliver Stone felt audiences would confuse her with the queen of Egypt? Why use the word 'guerilla' in a BC film unless the film was consistently anachronistic (like Shakespeare)? The worst part of the movie was Alexander himself. It is true that Alexander was sensitive, intelligent, brave, and disturbed. They tried to show his sensitive side too much, and as the movie went on he got more and more whiny, and this is where I turned the movie off. I think it would have been much more compelling to portray him as a narcissist who snaps without warning. Take the scene where he kills Cleitus: Alexander was blubbering a lot, and you could tell exactly what was going to happen. It would be far more compelling if Cleitus talked to him like that thinking that Alexander wouldn't get mad. Then suddenly Alexander snaps and throws the spear at him. Only then Alexander bursts out crying realizing what he's done. Also, going back and forth in time was really irritating and destroyed a lot of suspense that could've built up. Sorry for such a longwinded review on my part, but it is a really interesting story that needs to be done right. This and the film "W" confirm my impression that Oliver Stone is overrated. The best thing about this movie is that it made me want to cross-check it with the real historical facts.

Reviewed by buystuff-1 5 / 10 / 10

A muddled story of what could have been an epic

Alexander is one of those movies that people either love or hate, and while I see a few glimmers of what could have been a great epic, in summary it's a mess. I could write a small book about the issues I had with the movie, but here's the highlights: Alexander's motivation- Why did he want to conquer? In Stone's view it was his mother pushing him, to be accepted after death by his father, to avenge his father, to reach the end of the earth and conquer anyone in his way, and to unite Asia and Greece. Any of these would have sufficed, instead we have too many to see a strong influence. Of them all, the uniting of Greece and Asia was perhaps the most profound and the one he most likely was unaware of in real life. A lot of the audience probably didn't know that Babylon was in modern Iraq, and Bactria was in Afghanistan. If they had truly been united in one empire, the world would be a very different place. Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship- Depending on who's talking they were either lovers or the truest of friends. I won't step into the argument over which version was most likely true, just that you never really see the two being friends or particularly close until a scene where they start professing their undying....very-good-friendship to each other. Hephaestion is instead one of many lovers Alexander takes, male and female, and it was hard to see any real bond between them. Historical trimming- Alexander did an awful lot in a short time, still Stone left out some parts that were essential, such as the untying of the Gordian Knot. Bagoas was a manipulator in Darius's court, and a power behind the throne. He was also the only person named as a beloved of Alexander and was eventually suspected of being involved in Philip's murder. Instead, Stone presents Bagoas as another pretty face lounging in the harem. General inaccuracies/stupidity- In Stone's view of the ancient world, Greeks spoke with Irish accents, assassins would always stand before their victims and give long and guilty looks, and Macedonian kings would casually toss servant boys at their wedding over the table and rape them. I've usually heard that Alexander was dark haired, but if Stone wanted to make him blonde, why a color that looks deliberately dyed? Who are you supposed to like?- True, the ancient world was another place, where views on sexuality and the male use of eyeliner were seen differently. Stone revels in trying to push these differences in our face (many of which are debatable) but never gives us characters we identify with or root for. Gladiator took even more liberties with history, yet the character of Maximus was very sympathetic. Alexander is presented by Stone as amoral, destructive, and more than a little weird. Even more ironic is that the story arc of Alexander is, despite the trappings, incredibly conventional. Boy is born seeming destined for greatness, rises high, falters, loses friends, and ends in tragedy. That pretty much describes most of the hero epics out there. If all of us who don't like the persona of Alexander Stone presented just "don't get it" or aren't open minded enough, that's more Stone's failure as a director than our lack of appreciation for his work.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment