How would you rate Oliver Stone
2.7515 ratings - 8 reviews
Distribution of 8 reviews per note2 reviews1 review2 reviews2 reviews1 review0 review
Most helpful reviews
I've seen the Final Cut again and then rate the film. I once saw Alexander when he appeared in the cinema. At the time, I liked it quite a lot, simply because the film has spectacular viewing values to offer. However, after watching it several times (I also saw the original film again later on DVD), one notices the weaknesses. The Final Cut can iron out a lot of that, because it makes the film longer, illuminates the characters more closely (especially Alexander's Lustknaben from Babylon) and becomes more brutal at the same time. Especially in the last battle in India heads mashed, arms and legs broken and, and, and ...! - Regardless of which version, it is on the one hand boring not to have an opponent (or with Dareios one who leaves relatively early). On the other hand, however, this illustrates the dilemma with which Alexander has to struggle: There is no opponent who stands in his way. But where he is a brilliant general and warrior, he can hardly manage his empire and quite naively and dreamily follows his visions that no one else wants to share. Colin Farell plays him pretty well in that regard. Jared Leto as Hephaestion has a somewhat ungrateful part that doesn't really come into its own (if you saw him fighting more often, more would be possible). Val Kilmer as Philipp plays his version well according to the script, but one could have been more differentiated (because historically Philipp was at least able to do all the preparations for the invasion of Persia). But this - and this also speaks for Angelinas Jolie's overacting - you have to consider that you see the flashbacks from Alexander's perspective. Good thing that clashes with the idea of the voice-over narrator. But with reference to the numerous myths etc. that Alexander fears on one side and admires on the other, it makes sense to characterize father and mother as such extreme characters. - Negative points, however, remain in addition to the aforementioned, the sometimes somewhat too pompous dialogues in their comparisons between gods and humans (even if it underlines Alexander's ideas, that's just too much of a good thing) as well as, especially for the final cut, the re-cut with the great battle at Gaugamela, which comes relatively early. Before that there was more tension until it led to this. - CONCLUSION: For me, Alexander is a very good film in places, but rather boring in other places. It's hard to rate him because sometimes I would give him a straight 5/5, in other places only 1/5. That's why 4 stars!
No question about it: really, really big cinema. The effort made here is enormous, especially since the film with Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, Rosari Dawson, Jared Leto and Val Kilmer has a very interesting cast of stars - nevertheless, the film ultimately falls by the wayside. That may also have something to do with the fact that it was not long before we could see “Troy” and the work of Oliver Stone lags far behind. Whereby one has to say, to be fair, that "Troja" still passes through as a popcorn movie somewhere and has high action and entertainment value, while Stone devotes himself entirely to his character Alexander and also deviates from the mainstream level. Fabulously embodied by the divinely acting Colin Farrell, we experience Alexander as a military leader, hinted bisexual and traumatized soul with an occasional tendency to madness - but does such a bulky work keep it interesting for over 3 hours? No, unfortunately not! The imposing equipment is great, but it is not entertaining, action is few and far between and is limited to 2 major battles (the battle in which Alexander's army takes on an army of elephants, however, is visually very interesting) which turn out inhumanly brutal and bloody - and one notices very quickly that the celebrities listed on the poster only play supporting roles and are so big on it for advertising purposes. Stone probably noticed that too, which is why he built in a scream at one point during the elephant fight that made you sit upright in your seat - because you probably lost interest beforehand and are threatened with falling asleep. Ok, the film is not what I particularly prefer to watch and I also don't have the historical background to evaluate the authenticity. Ultimately, I can only comment on the entertainment value, which is all in all rather sparse. Conclusion: Breathtaking effort and a great Colin Farrell unfortunately do not save this 3-hour epic epic from total stimulus overload and boredom - all in all, simply lengthy and sometimes very brutal! 2
Although I kept hearing that this film shouldn't be that great, in my opinion “Alexander” could easily keep up with “Troy”. It was wise that the plot was not reduced to just a few battles, but that the person, Alexander, was the focus. I liked the narrative retrospect that traced the most important stages in his life very much. The focus was particularly on Alexander's ideas, wishes, but also worries ("The more myths surround us, the more lonely we become."). Val Kilmer was barely recognizable as the ruthless and irascible King Philip. Although you already knew the whole plot from history class, it was a great movie experience.
This epic certainly doesn’t match other period films like Braveheart, but nevertheless the film is definitely worth seeing. It was tried to orientate itself on the story and also implemented well on a large scale. If you want to buy the film, you should definitely turn to the Final Cut, which is a lot more informative with a good half an hour more content. Most of the bad reviews I can't understand. Certainly not a film that you want to see several times a year, but I would definitely watch it again someday. Even if it is quite lengthy in places. Fans of bygone times will still get their money's worth.
First of all: Good film, tip: watch twice because it can be a bit confusing the first time. Length: Quite long, over 2 1/2 hours about Alexander. But positive when you look at the content. Cast: Colin Farrell - just great - great acting, believable, appropriate. Angelina Jolie - suitable for this role, also convinces. Strengths: Pleasant atmosphere, you like to see a second time, tension is built up, strong acting performance by Colin Farrell, interesting insight into love of the same sex (or bisexuality with Alexander himself) for example in "Troy" completely under and was reduced to family love, but not in this film and was appropriately distributed [even more ... see for yourself!] Weaknesses: The battle drags on in some places where one loses the overview and the camera is not aimed at a specific target. Slightly opaque at first glance. Tends towards the typical American drama kitsch (when the main characters die). Conclusion: All in all a good historical film, far better than "Troy" or "Gladiator", because these films had less depth and belonged to the 'popcorn cinema' category . "Alexander" is different, no popcorn cinema, no focus on the violence and fighting scenes. "Alexander" is more believable and the characters have depth. This film is for those people who prefer historical epic to any battle epic. Recommendable!
First of all: I love visually powerful battle and historical films and am e.g. a big fan of films like Gladiator, Braveheart or Troy. But Alexander is just tough, cheesy, with no hero or villain. Well, the latter doesn't have to be bad. But a film like this needs someone to identify with. Somehow all the characters in this film seem unsympathetic, the constantly hinted at homosexuality may have been a brave decision, but somehow it doesn't work. The battles are reasonably violent, but sometimes too jerky and hectic for your eyes to hurt. I am one of those people who can watch some films over and over again, but I have never been able to see Alexander from cover to cover. The overly long scenarios and tough dialogues were so tiring that this only happened in stages. Advice for a beginner: watch the three films mentioned above, this is popcorn cinema at its finest! And don't waste your time on this ham, it's tough than history lesson.
So for ME one of the best films I've seen. Unbelievable what some see in them. You can see how the world is receding, everything is criticized until it stops.
The film simply thrilled me and sparked my interest in Alexander! If you deal with Alexander, you actually have to admit that the content is very concentrated and therefore his deeds and successes are not even shown, but what the film wants is to show his outstanding personality and you get a picture of this, so far this is even possible. I find the film deeply moving from the first to the last second, the actors, especially Alexander, great and the dialogues moving and essential everywhere. Of course, even a film of this length cannot achieve what a written biography, e.g. B. Robin Lane Fox's, but he gives an overview and has captivated and moved me! 5 stars for the feeling! 3 stars for the rest!
Do you wish to view more reviews?
- The latest FILMSTARTS reviews
- The best films of all time: user opinion
- The best films of all time: press opinion
All the best films in the cinema
The most anticipated filmsMore top films to come
- Why isn't C dead yet
- Can Jeff Bezos get too rich
- Prepare for a hurricane
- Why is C C Sharp
- Are you happy with your body transformation
- Are animals happy in good zoos?
- How old is Karan Aujla
- You can share your training plan
- What are some good mixes for Hennessy
- How can you do a PhD
- What's wrong with my fuel gauge
- What are compressible gases
- Are public gardens important in China?
- How do predators catch prey
- Deer antlers grow back
- What was Austria before it was Austria?
- What is Accounting Beta
- Which value promises remain unfulfilled in SaaS
- Why are there animals in the world
- What is 55 11
- Why are we not restoring pyramids
- What is NATA input
- What's your rapper name