|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
Le commentaire favorable le plus utile
Le commentaire critique le plus utile
4 internautes sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Five Stars for the Theatrical Version
I liked this movie so much when I saw it in the theatre I went back and saw it again a few days later. This is not just another war movie. By the time you see Alexander standing at the top of the Hindu Kush telling Ptolemy that every time he goes to a new country he peels away another layer of illusion, it is obvious that this movie is portraying Alexander's conquest as a...
Publié le Aoû 31 2005 par Astraea
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 5 étoiles, 4 étoiles |
 |
This Alexander ain't all that great
So, according to Oliver Stone, who's never met a piece of history he didn't want to distort, Alexander the Great was a girly man crybaby who let his own men insult and belittle him throughout his whole quest for greatness. The very fact that Stone sensationalized the homosexual malarkey of his Alexander cut the rug out from under this film's feet before it ever hit...
Publié le Nov. 7 2005 par Daniel Jolley
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 3 étoiles, 2 étoiles, 1 étoiles |
|
|
4 internautes sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Five Stars for the Theatrical Version, Aoû 31 2005
I liked this movie so much when I saw it in the theatre I went back and saw it again a few days later. This is not just another war movie. By the time you see Alexander standing at the top of the Hindu Kush telling Ptolemy that every time he goes to a new country he peels away another layer of illusion, it is obvious that this movie is portraying Alexander's conquest as a creative and spiritual quest driven by deep personal needs. I liked the feeling of destiny, the exhilaration of vicariously enjoying the success of someone who is not afraid to go after what he wants, tempered by the awareness that everything has its limits and that ultimately "all men reach and fail."Another thing I liked was how Alexander's mother Olympias puts her own strength and ambition into him. In her intense love for him, as well as her horrible manipulativeness the movie shows (whether Oliver Stone intended to or not) what can happen to the energies of a strong woman in a society where she has no outlet for her ambitions except through her son. I liked too how Alexander's relationship with Hephaistion provides him with a balancing factor to his obsessive need for achievement. Hephaistion reminds him that love is important too. He is very supportive of Alexander, but provides a balancing perspective. Theirs is as close to an equal relationship as a king at that time could have, a spiritual-sexual friendship of the kind approved in the movie by their teacher Aristotle. I like a lot of things about this movie but I'll only mention one more. I liked the way the symbolism of the eagle appears throughout the movie and underlines the major themes. I give the Theatrical Release version five stars. I give the new Director's Cut only four stars because of excessive flashbacks that interrupt the flow and shape of the story, and some things taken out that I think should have been left in.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directionless, Déc 12 2008
Alexander is a biopic of the legendary warrior who, by the age of 25, ruled most of the known world and died -- not with a bang but a whimper -- at 32.
Yet, in this interpretation, it is unclear exactly what made Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) a great leader. He may have conquered the world, but it was a world indifferent to conquest. His troops followed for the sake of Macedonia, as well as the legacy of his father, but they never believed in Alexander's vision. That comes as no wonder -- even his pre-battle pep talks lack any motivation.
Alexander's success began with the destruction of the Persian forces, and ended with his own defeat in India, but these two battle scenes are marred by extreme close-ups and butchered editing. Director Oliver Stone seems so desperate to create art, his usual flair degenerates into a psychedelic nightmare with the Indian sequence tinted shocking pink. Further, with the now prevalent cinematic armies enhanced by CGI, the scope of these scenes fails to impress and inadvertently slows the film's pace.
Despite much publicity, the film is not any more homo-erotic than Spartacus was 44 years ago. Though Alexander and his childhood friend Hephaestion (Jared Leto) vow their eternal love for one another, they never consummate their feelings. More questionable is Alexander's Oedipal relationship with his conniving stage mother (Angelina Jolie), who urged him to "take the world". Perhaps he pushed relentlessly eastward in an effort to distance himself from her.
The pointless screenplay is filled with innumerable monologues of pensive thought and rationale, while the narration (by Anthony Hopkins) is not chronological, weaving forwards and backwards more than once.
Thus, Hollywood's Golden Boy Farrell seems lost in the muddled storyline; he also looks ridiculous with platinum-blond hair. Jolie's performance is made all the more campy by her character's obsession with snakes, and Leto is ineffective at anything more than being fey. A bored Val Kilmer also appears as Alexander's drunken father, whose sole purpose is to spew misguided rhetoric.
Curiously, the large cast represent enough different accents to fill the United Nations, but not one sounds Greek. And there are an unusual number of both unnervingly pretty men and scarred-eyed soldiers. Lastly, the new-age score by Vangelis is entirely inappropriate.
Alexander starts out on a promising note, but becomes much less interesting when it tries to define his greatness. While idolizing Achilles (played earlier this year by Brad Pitt in an equally dreary film), Alexander himself aspired to God-hood. Sadly, happiness is one thing he never found. And neither will the audience. Rating: 3 out of 10.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
not bad, Déc 25 2007
This film has been much maligned but I don't quite understand why. While I wouldn't say that it's among Stone's best, it is still a pretty good movie. Colin Farrell plays a pretty low key Alexander. One might argue that his is a lackluster performance, but I think somewhat low key was Stone's intent. I must say that I didn't like Anthony Hopkins' role that much, but Val Kilmer had a memorable one. The battle scenes played out well, but may have been a bit perfunctory. Maybe the main reason the film didn't do well is timing, namely coming on the heels of other ancient battle movies such as Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. Author of Adjust Your Brain: A Practical Theory for Maximizing Mental Health.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
"CONQUER YOUR FEAR! AND I PROMISE YOU'LL CONQUER DEATH!", Jui 8 2006
I really enjoyed this movie but this should really only be four and a half because of the annoying, sometimes pointless flashbacks, but this is definetly Alexander the Great brought to life. When I went back and read some books on Greece I enjoyed it even more than the first time I watched it! It is really a great Oliver Stone movie.
I will warn some people, this movie isn't all war scenes. There is a lot of talking and a lot of strtegic moves BEFORE and AFTER war scenes, and some is just about Alexander's life itself. All in all, though, I really enjoyed this movie and it is definetly worth a look-see.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The greatest Alexander, brought down to real life, Fév 13 2006
I must confess at the outset that I am picky with most historical films; being an historian of sorts, it bothers me when the story deviates too far from the historical record. Given that the character of Ptolemy (played by the always-good Anthony Hopkins) speaks at length in the prologue and epilogue about stripping away the myth and leaving the true tale of the man, this cannot but set up a bit of disappointment. Ultimately, it wasn't so much disappointment as a lack of satisfaction, on several fronts. Before I go much further, I must say that I found the film to be good on the whole. I would probably grade it overall a 'B'; the acting for the most part would be a little less than this, and the effects a bit more (particularly the battle scenes, which for computer-generation, were very well done, especially the battle at Gaugamela, and the battle near the Ganges). The music, done by Vangelis (think 'Chariots of Fire'), was superb. As entertainment, the film was a good evening's outing, and I didn't find myself squirming in my seat as much as I thought I might at the prospect of a three-hour film. The computer-generated scenes in Babylon, and the on-location settings of Morocco and Thailand were glorious cinematography. The character of Alexander in history is one of mythology, one that was so powerful that it inspired the Roman leaders from Julius Caesar forward to global conquest (an irony of history is that the Roman Empire, which supposedly covered the 'known world', didn't cover half of Alexander's empire). Colin Farrell's performance here was not one that is inspiring; his speeches to the troops lack the kind of power that an Olivier or Brannagh might have in a performance of Henry V -- yet this is precisely what was needed. Alexander is a man who inspired tens of thousands of men to follow him beyond the ends of the known world, but that doesn't quite come across on the film. We don't get the power of Alexander's personality either at Gaugamela or at the Ganges. Angelina Jolie is lovely as ever, but her part as an abused woman who uses quasi-supernatural sorcery to bring about her ends (Alexander's rise to the throne) is melodramatic -- one gets the sense that this might have been the writing or directing as much as it was Jolie's own performance. As Olympias, Alexander's mother, she seems a bit too young (Jolie is probably better cast as Farrell's love interest, rather than his matron figure). The other women in Alexander's life are portrayed as rather flat characters too, even the high-spirited Asian tribeswoman he takes as a wife. There's lots of innuendo, but not much sexual content here. Philip of Macedon, Alexander's father (played by a barely recognisable Val Kilmer), has an almost-rape scene with Olympias, while the boy Alexander watches from behind the bedding; Alexander almost repeats this scene at one point, and has an interesting wedding night with his Asian bride, but nothing ever really seems consummated; Alexander's affections for many of his male friends is a bit overplayed in some respects, and greatly wanting in others. Again there is a lack of satisfaction all around. This is a very different film for Oliver Stone. Perhaps one constant theme (given that Alexander's decision to stop going forward toward the East comes after a terrible battle in which his force loses) Stone seems to work into everything is that there is no way to win a war in Southeast Asia, even back in Alexander's time. There are hints at a political agenda here as well -- Alexander is constantly praised, and constantly praising himself, for not asking others to do in battle what he himself wouldn't do. Is this an indirect slap at the current administration? With Oliver Stone, one never knows. There are a few interesting cameos -- Christopher Plummer plays the philosopher Aristotle, recruited to teach the young Alexander, and who despite being on screen but a few minutes at the beginning of the tale is referred to again and again. Brian Blessed has an even smaller role, essentially just to walk on and separate two wrestlers, telling the child Alexander that he must win on his own merits. For this thirty-second scene, Blessed received a primary credit in the film! Good work if you can get it. Costuming was great, very appropriate to the time, and resisting temptation to add modernisations to all the outfits. The choreography for the battle scenes, both computer-generated and real-life stunts, were well played. The battle against the Persian king Darius was in real-life the last battle in which the chariot played a major offensive function, due to tactics developed by Philip and Alexander's Greek armies which are displayed in the goings on here. Thus, this is a hard film to categorise. Good in parts, and not so hot in others, it is still well worth seeing. The history doesn't deviate too far from the known path to be too distracting, and the film, while not quite living up to its larger-than-life subject, does provide some entertainment. Some judicious editing might make it a bit more palatable. I'd give it three-and-a-half stars, were such permitted. As it is, I'll round up to four.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Alexander ain't all that great, Nov. 7 2005
So, according to Oliver Stone, who's never met a piece of history he didn't want to distort, Alexander the Great was a girly man crybaby who let his own men insult and belittle him throughout his whole quest for greatness. The very fact that Stone sensationalized the homosexual malarkey of his Alexander cut the rug out from under this film's feet before it ever hit theatres. Alexander the Great is a name that has resounded throughout history for over two millennia - but the history of that story somehow wasn't good enough for Stone. I think even Freud would shudder at the thought of someone who is not a psychologist or even an historian trying to psychoanalyze a man who died over three hundred years before the birth of Christ. It's unfortunate because this could have been a powerful film.
Skipping back and forth across Alexander's life (Stone apparently thinks is a devilishly clever way to tell a story), we follow the great conqueror's story from his childhood to his death through the eyes of Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins). Born to Philip of Macedon and his exotic first wife Olympias (Angelina Jolie) -who claimed Alexander was the son of Zeus -Alexander (Colin Farrell) had a complicated childhood. Olympias groomed him to be the next king, worrying all the while that Philip would not recognize him as the legitimate heir. Interestingly, Olympias doesn't seem to age a day between Alexander's birth and his ascendancy to the throne at the age of nineteen. We're talking about Angelina Jolie here, so I couldn't get past the thought that this is an Oedipus complex just waiting to happen. Anyway, Alexander replaces his murdered father, sets off north to establish his control over the tribes there, and then just keeps heading east conquering everything that gets in his way. After his daring defeat of Persia's King Darius, he fights his way all the way into India, farther than anyone before him had ever gone. If he had known those Indian tribes had war elephants, I daresay Alexander might have just turned around at the border and headed back home early. Instead, his military exploits extend over seven years. We hear him talk about assimilating the conquered peoples, and he certainly likes to build Alexandrias all over the place, but this grand vision theme of Alexander's life doesn't get enough play in the movie to sufficiently explain his motives.
The movie does have some strengths. The battle scenes are very impressive (except the end of the final one, when Stone decides to get artistic with it), especially Alexander's ill-fated fight with the elephant-equipped Indian tribes. Blood and guts are spilled on an epic scale. Angelina Jolie is mesmerizing as Alexander's devious, snake-loving mother - but I have no idea where that accent of hers was supposed to have come from. Speaking of strange accents, Colin Farrell sometimes sounded to me like he should have been leading Braveheart's forces. He never became Alexander in my eyes - there just wasn't enough substance to his character. If the film had been nothing but battle scenes, Farrell would have been more convincing; it's the scenes taking place between battles that leads this film astray. Most of this time is spent watching Alexander exchange meaningful glances with pretty boys wearing more makeup than Jezebel. The rest of the time consists of all those loyal men who supposedly adore their brave king whining about the length of the campaign, criticizing Alexander's motives and strategy, and making snide remarks about his heritage. There's no way Alexander the Great let his men talk to him the way they do throughout this film. There's really not much leadership on display by here. Alexander's brave, certainly, but he's no Patton.
Basically, Oliver Stone does a great disservice to Alexander the Great, passing him off as a dandy with little strategic genius and even less control over men who supposedly loved and respected him enough to fight and die for him thousands of miles from home. Stone's characterization of Alexander is just plain weird - and that's the whole problem with this movie. Let's hope that the youth of today and tomorrow don't see this film and actually believe they're seeing an accurate picture of Alexander the Great because Stone's Alexander ain't all that great.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Alexander, si riche qu'un seul visionnement ne suffit pas.., Aoû 26 2005
Certainement le film le plus incompris et sous-estimé de 2004! Quel dommage!Je lui donne 4 1/2 étoiles sur 5! Oui, j'ai beaucoup aimé ce film. Il est resté dans ma mémoire et mon imaginaire des jours entiers. Il y est encore. Je l'ai vu et revu, en langue originale et en français, et j'ai aimé un peu plus à chaque fois. Beaucoup de détails échappent à un premier visionnement, il ne faut pas hésiter à le revoir donc. Je ne l'ai pas trouvé long un seul instant! Captivé, ému et exhalté, je le fus, de la première seconde à la dernière!
Naturellement, il faut aimer les épopées, l'Histoire, l'Antiquité grecque, être sensible au destin d'Alexandre, et ne pas avoir d'antipathie pour Colin Farrell qui porte le film sur ses épaules, solidement encadré par les Jolie, Kilmer, Leto, Hopkins, etc. D'ailleurs, plus on connaît Alexandre, plus ce film nous paraît proche du personnage et riche de détails pertinents. Comme chez Shakespeare, ce film aurait pu être intitulé «La tragédie d'Alexandre», puisque c'est le cheminement tortueux vers la gloire et la déchéance du héros antique qui intéressaient Oliver Stone plus que le côté resplendissant et victorieux du mythique Alexandre le Grand. Donc, un film à caractère psychologique plus qu'un film d'action, malgré l'impressionnant faste visuel (meilleures batailles jamais filmées!) qui sied à une telle saga. Avec la parution sur DVD, le cinéphile a maintenant le choix entre 2 versions : la version originale de 173 minutes «Special Widescreen», telle que présentée dans les cinémas, répartie sur 2 disques, avec piste sonore originale anglaise et (au choix) piste française très bien réalisée au Québec, et la seconde version dite «Director's Cut», de 167 minutes présentée pour la première fois sur DVD, sans piste sonore française (sous-titres anglais et français disponibles). Il s'agit d'un nouveau montage d'Oliver Stone, avec plusieurs coupures (6 minutes) pour donner un rythme plus soutenu, et - de l'avis même du «director» - un compromis (exigé par les producteurs?) pour tenir compte des principales critiques que ce film a injustement récoltées. Malgré ses qualités, cette version censurée est à éviter. J'ai comparé les 2 versions, et la version originale est de beaucoup préférable. Les coupures rendent certaines scènes et certains agissements des protagonistes incompréhensibles. Je recommande sans hésiter la version originale étiquetée «Special Widescreen», la seule qui reflète fidèlement la vision d'Oliver Stone. Chacun pourra se faire sa propre opinion là-dessus, car, heureusement, le prix des DVDs est très abordable. Et (dans l'une et l'autre version), le bonus de plus de 90 minutes sur le tournage du film s'avère captivant (avec sous-titres français dans la version originale) : documentaires passionnants du fils d'Oliver Stone sur les origines du film et le tournage, avec des commentaires des acteurs (Hopkins, Farrell, Leto, Jolie, Kilmer) et du directeur. Seul point faible de cette magnifique saga : la musique de Vangelis. Assez efficace dans les scènes de danses et les combats, elle devient sirupeuse, grandiloquente et simpliste dans les moments grandioses (entrée à Babylone, passage des montagnes); parfois même, elle rappelle - avec ses trompettes en quintes - la pompe hollywoodienne des peplums des années 50. Rien à voir malheureusement avec la qualité de la musique que composa Howard Shore pour Le Seigneur des Anneaux. La qualité visuelle et sonore du DVD est irréprochable, et on a décidé - Zeus, merci! - de garder le format original dans un format 16/9, ce qui donne un résultat absolument magnifique sur un téléviseur grand écran. Pour ceux qui tiendraient à une image réduite, tronquée et rognée, il existe une version «Fool Screen», mais ce n'est plus le film d'Oliver Stone. À proscrire! Ma conclusion, Alexander d'Oliver Stone, malgré quelques faiblesses, reste bien supérieur à Gladiateur et Troie, pour ne mentionner que les plus récents péplums à gros budget.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Terrible disjointed film, Aoû 23 2005
Par Un client
This is a terrible movie. Not only is the makeup atrocious on the actors - way too much eye liner and the blonde hair doesn't work, but the film jumps all over the place, going back and forth in Alexander's life at the most inopportune places. This is a waste of time. It makes Troy (which was also not very good) look like an Oscar contender!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 internautes sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
It made me very CRANKY!, Sep 15 2005
Perhaps the WORST movie I've seen in the last 15 years; not only poorly and over dramatically acted, but simply a BAD flick. It includes everything a decent screenplay should NOT have: tons and tons of soap-opera-like close-ups (talkig heads make me sick), heavy narration (oh poor Hopkins), cheesy lines, LOADS of flashbacks, EXTREME exposition...talk talk, blah blah...and for a WAR flick, really, only 2 battle scenes...and the last one in a JUNGGLE...with ELEPHANTS...you can't even see the damn fights with so many trees all over the place.
I'm sorry, but there's not even a "taste" per se for this type of junk, it's just that bad. Whoever says he likes this picture must..I dunno, have a huge crush on Farrell or something - he's a competent actor, really - but has nothing to work with here...damn is it ever poorly written....
Seriously...it's that bad.i mean it.....
BAD!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 internautes sur 9 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Tried to hard, Sep 21 2005
Par Un client
This movie came off as trying too hard to win an oscar. The reviewer "Rod Beilfuss from Canada" said it best: Seriously...it's that bad. i mean it.....
BAD!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ce produit
|
|
CDN$ 14.73 CDN$ 13.49
En stock
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Les clients qui ont vu cet article ont aussi vu
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
