It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It's now almost 14 years ago since its release but while checking something else I stumbled on the only review the IMDB page shows on the main page which gives the flick 10 stars!!?? I'm not going to review or make comments on this ... movie?, (yes, I managed not to puke in the movie theater when I saw it) 'cause it's not worthy but if you're in the mood for a good laugh, here are some of the headlines that made me laugh too and I definitely concur with them. And believe me, 90% of them think this garbage masterpiece definitely sucks. Please let me know if I'm infringing any copyright.The Queen Who Wanted To Be KingYou've got to be kidding me...Oh, Oliver, where did you go wrong?An Insult to the ManHalf my brain died and can't read anymore.Alexander was Great, but this movie wasn'tI want the three hours of my life back please.Even Stone knew it was badI prayed for the end!Oliver Stone should be imprisoned for creating this film...This should not be considered film.Recommended, for a very limited audienceTroy was disappointing, this was infuriating.I didn't know the Greeks were all IrishDo you know who was Alexander, cause Stone wasn't sure?The film that will never end.I want to see the reviewers that actually liked this movieMovies can't get much worse than this film - unless they decide to make an Alexander II.Molasses-drenched and truly annoyingCrap-tacular FlambeThis movie will make Alexander turn over in his grave!Recommend this movie - to someone you hateWhen did Mel Brooks change his name to Oliver Stone?Eh...not good at allTalk talk talkOliver Stone has finally "lost it..."New way to Spell AwfulPoisoning the LegendAnd you thought Hollywood quit making epic clunkersSave Your DinarsOK, are we talking about Alexander the Great here or a gigolo philosopher?And those are not all. Now you have an idea of what was this movie?

The movie is quite faithful to the history - that's the good part. On the other hand as an action film is a failure, it is mostly tiresome and too long. Mr. Stone is obviously striving to show us everything or at least the most possible. Here comes the Greek saying - good is not too much (but less).

I wanted to watch this movie for far too long but I always delayed it to watch other movies because there wasn't an incentive to watch it, 5.5 points on IMDb? really? oh boy, i was so wrong.This movie totally satisfied me, as i wasn't expecting much from it.The story telling was great, I liked the switch between the past and the present(less past?) often. It really helped us to understand the character better.In my defense, I was always interested in Alexander the Great but I never fully had to chance to know about him. This movie managed to overcome my hunger.Same as during the battle scenes, it keeps us informed as "macedonian right" or "macedonian center" things like that. i wish all movies would do that so that i can grasp the battle really, totally in essence.I'm trying to understand people's mindset about this. I guess maybe it came out in the same year with Troy in 2004. Troy was also about history but the battle scenes were soo much more quality than Alexander for sure. Maybe people were expecting to see something similar.The character buildup is great, soon after i started to feel like i was there with Alexander or i felt like i was him, making the decisions and he always kept his calm and explained when he needed to. Maybe we got the characters so well because the movie is pretty long. According to IMDb its 2:55 but i watched a version which it was even longer 3:33. But I never felt bored. This movie is a must for history lovers. If you are looking for glorious battle scenes you might not find them.I'm a lover of maps and a sizable chunk of the movie passes on showing the maps during studies of young Alexander or in his chambers before battle and when the storyteller tells us. So it was not too much nor too less. Extremely adequate.In papers English was written in Greek style which was a nice touch.Music at the end (i knew it, but i didn't know the name so i shazamed it) was amazing (titans vangelis). It was a nice finishing touch for such a great movie.Also I had to like the movie, even though i wouldn't have liked the movie in general out of respect to the amazing actors i know from various movies and series:(i'll just type their names and most prominent acts in my eyes)Anthony Hopkins {Kidnapping Mr. Heineken, Noah, The Silence of the Lambs, Amistad}Angelina Jolie {Salt, Wanted, Kung Fu Panda, Mr. & Mrs. Smith}Val Kilmer {Hardwired, Felon, The Love Guru, Heat}Christopher Plummer {Inside Man, Syriana, A Beautiful Mind, Twelve Monkeys}Colin Farrell {True Detective, The Lobster, Seven Psychopaths, S.W.A.T., Hart's War, Tigerland}Jared Leto {Suicide Squad, Mr. Nobody, Lord of War, Fight Club}Jonathan Rhys Meyers {From Paris with Love}Rory McCann {Game of Thrones}Toby Kebbell {Gold, Warcraft: The Beginning, Black Mirror, War Horse, The Veteran, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time}Rosario Dawson {Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, Unstoppable, Seven Pounds, Clerks II, Sin City, 25th Hour}

Creative writing professors teach that stories should be told in chronological order. Past events make present events more meaningful. Withholding the past robs the audience of meaning; flashbacks inserted later fail to correct this but interrupt narrative flow. A jumbled order of events also makes it harder for an audience to follow what's happening. Again and again, writers flout this simple rule to the very great detriment of their work. This film is no exception. I cannot say that this film would be good if it were in chronological order, but at least it would be comprehensible.In addition to jumbled chronology, this film boasts horrible direction from a top-notch director, sound effects and music that drown out important speech, poor editing, cringeworthy makeup, cringeworthy hair: dye and styling, and a cringeworthy, histrionic performance from the lead Colin Farrell. None of the acting is good here; not even Angelina Jolie showed to advantage despite being stunningly beautiful. (Incidentally, being approximately Farrell's age doesn't make Jolie miscast, because she's sometimes shown with Alexander as a young boy, and although some people seem to want more signs of aging when she is shown with Farrell, I couldn't bring myself to care about that.) But so many actors in this film were miscast, it's tempting to think that the casting directors were utterly inept, or people were cast on the basis of blackmail material. I will leave it up to others to determine whether the cast blackmailed the production for roles or whether producers blackmailed the cast into appearing in this travesty. I hate to think that these were the performances Oliver Stone wanted and used his clout as an industry giant to force from his cast.The two battle scenes (that's right: only 2 in a 3.5 hour film about a man who spent his entire adult life conquering) were designed to show savagery in slow-motion close-ups, not to depict tactics, strategy, or outcome; they also used the overworked shaky-cam that is almost never a good idea (looking at you, Gladiator). It's difficult to tell who is being impaled, but the audience was never given any reason to care about any of them anyway. Such confusion might be realistic in depicting a common footsoldier's firsthand experience of battle, but it's not the way to tell the story of a military leader who was a tactical genius. The first battle shows Alexander's legendary strength and courage by having one of his men save Alexander from his own recklessness, making him look foolishly inept. The only other thing that these battle scenes convey is that war in ancient times was brutal. If that was news to you, go read some history before you watch any more movies. And if gore is all you want, horror flicks abound.The melodramatic music did little but remind me of the emotions the film had not invoked. And no one in Hollywood has ever come close to Shakespeare's St. Crispin's Day speech, but that doesn't keep the hacks from trying. A scene of the war leaders debating tactics would have been much more effective at both informing the audience and building character.For the people defending the accents: there are generic English accents – U.S. and British – that don't scream "I'm from this particular region." An RP English accent for Greeks and a generic U.S. accent for Macedonians wouldn't distract, so I could focus on what's being said. Farrell's accent makes it impossible to forget that he comes from Ireland. Say what you will, that accent rips me right out of a story about ancient Macedonians. Would you also defend a Texas twang or cockney?People defending this film claim that its detractors only like mindless action flicks, don't appreciate history, or don't appreciate drama. I like action epics – if they're well made. I enjoy historical documentaries and history books – if they're good quality and informative. I like drama in both films and classic novels – if it's well done. This film fails at all these. It fails as an action flick because nothing happens except for two, brief, gory battles in which no one can tell who's winning. The film fails as history, because it depicts none of the important events of Alexander's life, except perhaps for his dysfunctional family dynamic which is told so out of sequence that no one can follow it anyway. And finally, the film fails as drama because it never gives a genuine sense of who any of these people were, let alone why anyone should care about them. This film neither educates nor entertains. Nor is it artistic; a few allusions, a symbolic eagle, and some acid-trip coloring isn't enough to make a movie artistic. The film succeeds at nothing except perhaps production design and costumes.This film is more historically accurate than most historical movies, but then again, that isn't saying much. This film portrayed one of the greatest warriors, leaders, and military strategists of the ancient world as a neurotic, weirdly disingenuous, emo brat who is constantly blubbering and whining. Where is the young man whose quick wit and intelligence impressed Aristotle? Where is the young man whose courage, determination, and sound military strategy won the respect of all who fought with or against him? Where is the ambitious, ruthless young man who set out to conquer the world but was wise enough to recognize that actually ruling it required a different approach? As many reviewers have already stated, there is nothing in this film to explain why he is known as Alexander the Great.I can mostly forgive Braveheart for its historical inaccuracy and even its character assassination of Scotland's national hero. But I can forgive Braveheart, because it's a good movie. Oliver Stone's Alexander is a hatchet job on the man it claims to portray, and it doesn't even manage to be decently entertaining.It hurts to think of all the resources that were wasted on this.