मैसेडोनिया का राजा और युद्ध के इतिहास में सबसे महान सेना नायकों में से एक, अलेक्जेंडर ज्ञात दुनिया के अधिकांश भाग को जीतता है.मैसेडोनिया का राजा और युद्ध के इतिहास में सबसे महान सेना नायकों में से एक, अलेक्जेंडर ज्ञात दुनिया के अधिकांश भाग को जीतता है.मैसेडोनिया का राजा और युद्ध के इतिहास में सबसे महान सेना नायकों में से एक, अलेक्जेंडर ज्ञात दुनिया के अधिकांश भाग को जीतता है.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 6 जीत और कुल 19 नामांकन
- Young Ptolemy
- (as Robert Earley)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The single biggest problem here is the script, and in particular the plot structure. Just as viewers are getting familiar with a plot sequence, the time period of the story shifts backward to a previous era, or forward to a future era. Displayed on the screen as "10 Years Earlier" or "40 Years Later" or "9 Years Earlier" or "8 Years Later", back and forth we go. It's maddening. It makes the story, which already contains too many characters with strange names, muddled and hard to follow. Director Oliver Stone apparently tries to cram in too much information; as such, the story's scope is too broad. Another possibility is that the time-shifts were necessitated in post-production editing. But whatever the cause, the screen story's convoluted plot is a huge barrier to understanding Alexander and the people in his life.
In addition, the script's dialogue contains too much exposition, mostly from Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) who, via numerous monologues, lectures us about Greek history. Again, one gets the impression that Stone is trying too hard to make the film a comprehensive history lesson.
Non-script elements are not much better. Casting for the main parts is poor. I like Angelina Jolie, but she is no Olympias. And Colin Farrell, with his golden locks, would fit better in a modern day romantic comedy. Acting is hammy, at times almost laughably so. Actors don't communicate with each other so much as they speechify. Every line of dialogue is heavy with import. Even the film's makeup is overdone. Jared Leto, with all that eyeliner, looks like a drag queen.
Perhaps the best element of the film is the color cinematography. It's quite good. Some of the landscapes are visually sweeping and majestic. And I liked that ethereal background music from Vangelis. Also, the costumes are colorful and apparently quite authentic.
I like Oliver Stone. But I have never cared for sword and sandal movies. They always seem pretentious, so proud of themselves, in their extended runtimes and sweeping scope. "Alexander" is no exception; it muddles along for nearly three hours, and covers most of one man's lifetime as he conquers lands from the Mediterranean to the Far East.
Maybe Oliver Stone would have been better advised to confine his saga to a smaller, more restricted story, one wherein viewers can get to know the protagonist and his inspirations and challenges. In its present form, "Alexander" is just too sprawling and epical to warrant any enthusiasm from me.
Some characters could have been more fleshed out as they have paramount roles. Some of the accents are kind of overdone, but there is a meaning behind some of them. Rosario Dawson and Angelina Jolie are gorgeous and enchanting. Symbolism and the visual language of this film functioned remarkably well. The film's philosophy is very much about genders and sexism, racism and xenophobia, frailty and ego and myths, and their effect on people. A passionate man and a dreamer can only go so far, and that's what brought Alexander's downfall.
The film finishes strongly with Anthony Hopkins's narration, where he goes back on his words and scraps them, cementing the element of an unreliable narrator. That being the main point of this film, history and its validity, and how some larger-than-life figures can be very much like us, mere mortals.
I didn't even mention the elephant in the room (no pun intended), Alexander's homosexuality, or bisexuality. The film rarely presents it as some big problem or talking point. Kind of like it used to be more acceptable to feel the greatest love for a man. Now, this film is still getting condemned for that. How much more progressed are we today, ay?
Alexander is an historical epic based on the life of Alexander the Great. Off the bat I have to say that this "Final Cut" version of the film is the only one I have seen. Upon its initial home format release - the first theatrical version - I lasted an hour and 15 minutes before growing restless and sought enjoyment elsewhere. Consequently as a massive fan of historical epics through the years, it has been a constant nagging itch for me to see Alexander in its entirety. So with Oliver Stone tinkering away with versions - convinced he has made a worthwhile epic - I finally delved in.
The Final Cut, as far as I'm aware, is a vast improvement on that savagely received theatrical release, well that is said by those who tried again instead of calling quits at the first production. Straight away I could see the difference, where once was a plodding first hour, now sits a vibrancy, with Stone seemingly saying that he can do great action and drama, just please hang around during all the historical chatter, sexual connotation, family strife and conquering machinations, and I will enthral you as a whole.
By his own admission, Stone reveals he took on a most complex historical character and in his eyes has made a film to befit such complexity. We get a splintered narrative, as we kick off with the crux of Alexander the Great, the leader, while Alexander's childhood and family forming is interspersed at various junctures. The battles are high in intensity and blood letting - exhilarating at times - but more crucially they let us engage with the tactical "ahead of their time" manoeuvres of Alexander the Great. This version mostly flows alright, and I got to feel how Alexander's mind was working in the process, even if come pics closure I didn't fully know the man.
Epically cast of course, some of them work, others not so much. Farrell's looked odd, in the way that Pitt's was in Troy (released this same year as Alexander), but apart from the accent issue he grows into the role and is fiercely committed. Jolie is just wrong for the role of domineering Olympias, worse still the scenes she does with Farrell are damp and threaten to derail the drama already built up. This latter point is more annoying given a great thread involving Dawson as Alexander's wife Roxanne is built up superbly, only to not be pulled until some drama very late in the play. The rest of the cast come through as ok for period flavours (expected for Hopkins, Plummer and Meyers, interesting as regards Leto).
This is not the life ambition masterpiece Stone wanted to make, even if he proclaims on the extras that he's happy and content with The Final Cut version. This cut still shows some cracks, but these are not seismic enough to hurt the film. For there's a lot of grandeur, blood stirring and thought gone into the production, and there's a lot to be said for that in this day and age of soulless cash making filmic exercises. Honourable failure then? Yes for sure, but a better film in this form than some may have thought possible back in 2004. 7/10
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe biography of Alexander by Oxford University professor Robin Lane Fox was an original inspiration and source of information for writer and director Oliver Stone. As a historical advisor, Professor Fox didn't get on-screen credit. His price for giving his advice was to be allowed to take a place at the head of what is one of the largest cavalry charges ever filmed. Professor Fox was used to riding around the English countryside, but gladly dressed up as a Macedonean cavalry officer to live his dream of charging for Alexander.
- गूफ़Ptolemy I is depicted recounting the story of Alexander in 283 B.C. The Lighthouse at Alexandria, seen in the background, was built during the reign of his son Ptolemy II, around 270 B.C.
- भाव
Old Ptolemy: The truth is never simple and yet it is. The truth is we did kill him. By silence we consented... because we couldn't go on. But by Ares, what did we have to look forward to but to be discarded in the end like Cleitus? After all this time, to give away our wealth to Asian sycophants we despised? Mixing the races? Harmony? Oh, he talked of these things. I never believe in his dream. None of us did. That's the truth of his life. The dreamers exhaust us. They must die before they kill us with their blasted dreams.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe Director's Cut is 9 minutes shorter than the 175-minute theatrical version. It is a reworked version although seamless to many. 18 minutes were cut and 9 added. Many of the added or extended sequences involve Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie's characters. The battle of Gaugamela now starts earlier. Taking a cue from classic movie epics, the opening reel now set up the basic themes with greater economy: Alexander's Oedipal relationship with his parents, Olympias' ambitions for her son, the boy's need to surpass his father, and the entirely natural way in which myth/religion is shown as integral to the ancients' behavior. Oliver Stone reworked the third act, too, juxtaposing events in India and Greece. Jolie's Olympias emerges now more as a genuinely pathetic figure in the whole tragedy. Ptolemy's final scene was edited. Stone also slightly reworked Alexander's death scene because of audience feedback, adding 17 seconds to the scene.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Charging for Alexander (2004)
टॉप पसंद
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Alejandro Magno
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $15,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $3,42,97,191
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,36,87,087
- 28 नव॰ 2004
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $16,72,98,192
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 55 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1