Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Detroit Free Press:
Like its subject, Stone's Alexander travels on gut instinct and ego, but, unlike him, it seems to have little notion of exactly what it wants to conquer.
Often skates dangerously close to camp (less forgiving viewers will find the movie hysterical), but the director's daringness to play things so boldly has a grand appeal of its own.
Here's something I never expected to say about a big-budget Oliver Stone film starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer: It's dull.
Even if it doesn't conquer its world, Stone's Alexander is worth the battle. Like JFK and Fourth of July, it hot-wires history and politics into a wild, memorable, breathtaking ride.
San Francisco Chronicle:
Epic in scale but not epic in spirit, a wallow in carnage that fails to demonstrate what was so great about this conqueror, after all.
By summoning his inner classicist, [director] Stone has made an excruciating disaster for the ages.
I respect Stone as a filmmaker, but this movie is punishment rather than entertainment.
Alexander is pulled in so many directions that both Farrell's performance and the character are stretched thin.
Los Angeles Times:
There's nothing fresh about this plodding endeavor, nowhere it goes that other films have not gone before.
Stone's failures with this film are largely honorable, but occasionally he miscalculates and strikes so badly off-key that he seems tone deaf.
Paul Clinton (CNN.com),
A ponderous death march of a story that seemingly never ends.
Visually dramatic but persistently tepid, Alexander doesn't make a convincing argument for its extravagant resources.
Everything we're told about Alexander remains an abstraction, an index-card idea for a character pasted onto Farrell's less-than-mythic presence.
Globe and Mail:
Call it Alexander the Grate, because, over the marathon of its three-hour running time, this wonky epic really does get on your nerves.
Dallas Morning News:
Alexander has aspirations of greatness, hoping to be christened an intellectual super-spectacle for brainy moviegoers. The sad truth is that it will probably numb more brain cells than it will stimulate.
A thudding bore, when what it should have been is an operatic testament to unchecked ambition.
Oliver Stone's biopic of Alexander the Great is spectacular, earnest and a bit of a yawn.
New York Daily News:
Farrell plays all this as if he means it, but he seems slight in the role and without great physical presence.
New York Observer:
A lunk-headed train wreck that looks like a tag sale in a 323 B.C. supermarket in old Peking.
New York Times:
Puerile writing, confused plotting and shockingly off-note performances make Oliver Stone's epic film a disappointment.
New York Observer:
At a reported cost of $155 million, Alexander qualifies as a super-spectacle in every respect but one -- namely in its neurotic, confused and sexually ambidextrous hero.
Stone and his team of screenwriters paint an incomplete picture of the man and those he led.
Although some aspects of Oliver Stone's sword-and-sandals epic are worthy of mention (and even praise), they are dwarfed by the missteps and examples of bad judgment.
Seems too puny and fragmented for its mighty subject; it feels as if Stone, for the first time in his career, simply ran out of hot air.
A long, lumpy trip with a charismatic guide and some brilliant detours.
This is Stone's weakest movie of the past 20 years, and it's unlikely to make any kind of blip.
An intelligent and ambitious picture that crucially lacks dramatic flair and emotional involvement.
Stone seems to identify with the slaughterer general, in whatever era he's in.
Alexander, as expressed through the weepy histrionics of Colin Farrell, is more like a desperate housewife than a soldier.