Alexander 2004

Critics score:
16 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Terry Lawson, 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. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: 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. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: 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. Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: 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. Read more

Mick LaSalle, 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. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: It's just a wild, glorious, wacky mess that I found really entertaining. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: A sprawling epic that truly sprawls. Read more

Scott Tobias, AV Club: By summoning his inner classicist, [director] Stone has made an excruciating disaster for the ages. Read more

Bill Muller, Arizona Republic: I respect Stone as a filmmaker, but this movie is punishment rather than entertainment. Read more

Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: Alexander is pulled in so many directions that both Farrell's performance and the character are stretched thin. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: There's nothing fresh about this plodding endeavor, nowhere it goes that other films have not gone before. Read more

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: Stone's failures with this film are largely honorable, but occasionally he miscalculates and strikes so badly off-key that he seems tone deaf. Read more

Paul Clinton (, A ponderous death march of a story that seemingly never ends. Read more

Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post: Visually dramatic but persistently tepid, Alexander doesn't make a convincing argument for its extravagant resources. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Everything we're told about Alexander remains an abstraction, an index-card idea for a character pasted onto Farrell's less-than-mythic presence. Read more

Rick Groen, 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. Read more

Philip Wuntch, 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. Read more

Scott Foundas, L.A. Weekly: A thudding bore, when what it should have been is an operatic testament to unchecked ambition. Read more

Jan Stuart, Newsday: Oliver Stone's biopic of Alexander the Great is spectacular, earnest and a bit of a yawn. Read more

Logan Hill, New York Magazine/Vulture: Stone rises to his own challenge. Read more

Jack Mathews, 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. Read more

Rex Reed, New York Observer: A lunk-headed train wreck that looks like a tag sale in a 323 B.C. supermarket in old Peking. Read more

Manohla Dargis, New York Times: Puerile writing, confused plotting and shockingly off-note performances make Oliver Stone's epic film a disappointment. Read more

Andrew Sarris, 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. Read more

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Stone and his team of screenwriters paint an incomplete picture of the man and those he led. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: 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. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: An ambitious and sincere film that fails to find a focus for its elusive subject. Read more

David Edelstein, Slate: 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. Read more

Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune: This movie does everything to the max. Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Geoff Pevere, Toronto Star: Not just a bad movie but a bad movie of truly epic proportions. Read more

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: A long, lumpy trip with a charismatic guide and some brilliant detours. Read more

Time Out: Read more

Time Out: Read more

Mike Clark, USA Today: This is Stone's weakest movie of the past 20 years, and it's unlikely to make any kind of blip. Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: An intelligent and ambitious picture that crucially lacks dramatic flair and emotional involvement. Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: Stone seems to identify with the slaughterer general, in whatever era he's in. Read more

Stephen Hunter, Washington Post: Alexander, as expressed through the weepy histrionics of Colin Farrell, is more like a desperate housewife than a soldier. Read more

Desson Thomson, Washington Post: It's boring here and exciting there. And it's almost always goofy. Read more