Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
morganmcalister
Reviews
Alexander (2004)
Unbelievably, colossally bad
If not the worst movie I've ever seen, this was undoubtedly the most disappointing movie I've ever seen.
Alexander's actual history reads like a big budget Hollywood movie script - he even had an honest to god nemesis! Hardly anyone in real life ever has a single, life-long nemesis; to a filmmaker, it should have been like having a great movie delivered to him gift-wrapped with a silken bow, yet Stone manages to lose even this in the colossal mess he makes of this movie. Antigonus is presented as a virtually anonymous enemy commander, a far cry from the decades-long obsession that he actually represented to Alexander. When Alexander's men can't understand why he's willing to take such risks to kill the man, honestly neither can the audience.
This is but one example of how Oliver Stone managed to take a historical story that a mediocre film student should have been able to make into an enthralling movie, and turned it into a three hour travesty. Not one character is compelling - sadly, the most interesting character (aside from the four minutes or so of screen time that Sir Anthony Hopkins must have been tricked into providing) is Alexander's father, played by Val Kilmer. I say that it's sad, because WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO VAL KILMER?! Didn't he used to be able to act? Was he instructed to repress that talent for this particular role?
Another interesting dynamic that should have translated well to the big screen is Alexander's lifelong romantic relationship with Hephaistion, but Oliver apparently lacks the stones (ok, bad pun, sorry) to actually show any romance between them. Alexander takes an Eastern wife, and when Hephaistion walks in on the two of them working up to a sexual encounter, he gives what I assumed was a meaningful, jealous look, that would lead to an actual dramatic moment between the two of them. It didn't. All we got was another scene of them crying and giving each other a big IL' hug. And crying. And crying. I don't think there was a single scene where Leto wasn't at least tearing up, if not actually crying with his big, pretty eyes.
Speaking of which, when I first read some reviews that complained about how often Alexander broke into tears, I actually thought it might be a positive sign; that the reviewers were just expecting a big action movie, and couldn't deal with actual emotional content. To all of those reviewers: I apologize - you were right. Alexander reminded me of an ex-girlfriend of mine: the first couple times I saw him cry, I felt bad for him, and wanted to understand his feelings; but the 70th or 80th time I saw the tears welling up, I rolled my eyes and thought "oh god, here we go again...."
I could probably go on forever about how tremendously Stone screwed up the story of Alexander the Great, but I'll conclude with my biggest gripe, which is that apparently Stone thinks that his audience is slightly less intelligent than the typical sea-sponge. The metaphors and themes are presented with the subtlety of a train wreck. Let's say a character's situation suggests a parallel with the story of Oedipus. Just before you could draw that conclusion yourself, Stone will flash back to a big painting of Oedipus. Before you have a chance to notice that the hawk that had been flying around Alexander's battles is gone, Farrell says "hey, where did that hawk that was flying around my battles go?" If the movie wasn't so awful, I wouldn't be so infuriated that it also deigned to insult my intelligence.
Oh, and before I forget, I have now officially lost almost all of the respect I once had for Vangelis.
In conclusion, wait for this movie to come out on video. Then don't rent it.
Warlords of the Twenty-First Century (1982)
hideous
I had to see if I could remember the name of this movie, and I'm perversely thrilled to find it. I haven't actually seen this film in years, but it became something of a benchmark that I measure all other crap movies I've ever seen against. When I was only about 14 I rented this movie with my best friend, when we had the brilliant notion that maybe all those movies we'd never heard of really were worth watching, so we picked one that seemed to have a cool cover. It was the most perfect piece of evidence that our theory was flawed in the extreme. Everything about this movie, from the acting, to the sets, to the effects, were laughably awful. The climax of the film was when the protagonist built what was supposed to be some sort of unstoppable war machine, but looked more like an errector set experiment gone horribly wrong, and nailed to a $50 junk-yard reject of a vehicle. Anyway, if you want an example of awful film making, rent this movie; otherwise, run far and fast towards the other side of the store.
Six-String Samurai (1998)
Glorious originality
I just recently happened upon this movie, and was intrigued by the prospect of something original actually being produced in this country, so I rented it. At first, I thought that it actually might be too weird to be good, but after a while, it all seems to make a twisted sense. By the end, I was emotionally involved with these odd characters, and was awed throughout by Jeffery Falcon's grace and physical control. Overall, this was a wonderfully entertaining movie, which can be viewed either for mindless entertainment or on a fairly symbolic level. Highly recommended. Oh, and Buddy is possibly the coolest person in movie history...