Oliver Stone’s Alexander wants to be the definitive telling of one of history’s most famous conquerors. It fails to deliver. At 176 minutes, it’s a bloated, confused mess that sacrifices clarity for spectacle. The result is a film that feels less like a biography and more like a fever dream about power, fate, and the price of greatness.
Alexander the Great, the ruler of Macedonia who took his forces across the known world to overcome the Persian Empire and reach India, is played by Colin Farrell. Around him, the supporting cast reads like a list of names from Hollywood’s top ranks: Angelina Jolie appears as Olympias, Val Kilmer as Philip II of Macedon, Jared Leto as Hephaestion, Anthony Hopkins as Old Ptolemy, and Christopher Plummer as Aristotle. Jessie Kamm and Connor Paolo play young Alexander, while Peter Williamson takes on Young Nearchus and Morgan Christopher Ferris plays Young Cassander.
Trailer, via Warner On Demand.
The Story That Doesn’t Stick
This story tracks Alexander’s life from childhood to the peak of his power and his conquests. He is raised in Macedonia alongside his mother Olympias, under the tutelage of Aristotle, cultivating a passion for love, honor, music, exploration, poetry, and military combat. His bond with his father Philip II strains after Philip marries Attalus’s niece, Eurydice, which Alexander sees as a betrayal. He insults Philip after disowning Attalus as his kinsman, leading to his banishment from Philip’, who rules over Attalus’s palace.
Alexander takes over as King of Macedonia after Philip’s death. The film follows a punishing campaign against Thebes, his proclamation as the son of Zeus by the Oracle of Amun at Siwa Oasis, a major battle against the Persian Emperor Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela, and an eight-year campaign across Asia. His personal life is also part of the narrative, with his childhood friends Glaucos, Hephaestion, Bagoas, and later his wife Roxana all figuring into it.
Alexander likens himself to Achilles, and Hephaestion responds by saying that Alexander must be his Patroclus, the friend and possible lover of Achilles. When Hephaestion notes that Patroclus died before Achilles, Alexander promises that, if Hephaestion dies first, he will join him in death, just as Achilles had followed Patroclus. The film depicts Hephaestion’s jealousy over Alexander’s marriage to Roxana, along with his efforts to keep Roxana away from Alexander following Alexander’s murder of Cleitus the Black in India, an act committed in a drunken rage.
The narrative is dense and often confusing. Stone tries to fit centuries of conquest into a single film, and the pacing suffers. Scenes run together, and the audience is left wondering where they are and what just happened. The film’s structure is also strange. Ptolemy I Soter, basileus and pharaoh of Ptolemaic Egypt, narrates Alexander’s life from around 285 BC, but the narration is sparse and often ignored. This framing device adds nothing to the story and only confuses things further.
Farrell’s Problematic Lead
Colin Farrell is miscast as Alexander. He lacks the physical presence and charisma needed to play a legendary conqueror. His performance is wooden, and he never fully inhabits the role. Farrell’s Alexander is a blank slate, a man of action but no depth. When the film tries to explore Alexander’s inner turmoil, Farrell simply stares off into the distance.
Philip II fares better than Alexander does under Val Kilmer’s performance. The actor brings a weary, calculating energy to the part, even though his scenes are limited. Jared Leto stands out as Hephaestion, capturing the character’s loyalty, jealousy, and vulnerability to give the film its emotional core. Anthony Hopkins is reliable as Old Ptolemy, and Christopher Plummer brings warmth to Aristotle. Angelina Jolie is fine as Olympias, though the role is underwritten.
The younger actors stand out too. Jessie Kamm and Connor Paolo deliver strong turns as young Alexander, while Peter Williamson and Morgan Christopher Ferris perform well as Young Nearchus and Young Cassander. Still, since the film centers on adult Alexander, these performances end up going largely unused.
The Battle of Gaugamela and Its Problems
The Battle of Gaugamela stands out as a high point, and the film does a striking job of bringing the clash between Alexander’s Macedonian army and the Persian Empire with impressive scale and intensity. The choreography is chaotic, and the camera work is kinetic. It’ to life, delivering a visually stunning sequence that truly captures the chaos of war.
But the battle also illustrates the film’s biggest problem: historical inaccuracy. The film takes creative liberties with the source material, drawing in part from Robin Lane Fox’s 1973 book Alexander the Great. Stone’s screenplay alters events, timelines, and character motivations, turning the story into a blend of fact and fiction that’s hard to follow.
The film also includes a scene where Glaucos receives a mercy killing from Alexander when wounded at Gaugamela. This moment is meant to show Alexander’s compassion, but it’s poorly executed. The scene feels tacked-on and doesn’t land emotionally. The film’s handling of the burning of Persepolis is similarly uneven. It’s mentioned in passing, but its significance is never explained.
The Running Time and Its Cost
The 176-minute runtime is a serious flaw. The film drags in its middle sections, especially during the campaign across Asia. Long stretches of marching and sieges are tedious, and the film never builds momentum. By the time Alexander reaches India, the audience is exhausted.
The movie features grand landscapes and ornate costumes, but its visual ambition frequently takes over the story, leaving audiences bewildered by all the spectacle. Stone’s direction is competent but unremarkable. He knows how to stage a battle, but he’s less skilled at character development, which makes the film feel more like a parade of settings than a narrative about people.
The film’s sound design is also problematic. The score, while occasionally effective, is overbearing. It drowns out dialogue and creates a sense of constant tension that doesn’t serve the story. The sound mix is muddy, and lines are frequently inaudible. This is a technical issue that undermines the film’s effectiveness.
The Legacy of the Home Video Cuts
The film’s legacy is complicated. It performed well in Europe, but the American critical reaction was mixed to negative. Critics targeted Farrell’s casting, the runtime, and historical inaccuracies. The film also grossed $167.3 million worldwide against a $155 million budget, making it a box-office bomb.
Four versions of the film exist: the initial theatrical cut and three home video director’s cuts. The “Director’s Cut” was released in 2005, the “Final Cut” in 2007, and the “Ultimate Cut” in 2014. The two earlier DVD versions of Alexander sold over 3.5 million copies in the United States. Stone’s third version, Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut (2007), sold nearly a million copies and became one of the highest-selling catalog items from Warner Bros. Pictures (as of 2012).
These home video releases allowed audiences to see the film in its fullest form. But they didn’t fix the fundamental problems. The cuts simply rearranged the same flawed material. The film remains a curiosity for fans of epic cinema, but it’s not a great movie.
A Failed Ambition
Stone attempted to create a grand, definitive portrait of one of history’s greatest figures. What emerged instead was a bloated, confusing mess that fails to capture what made Alexander great. The film is a technical showcase with a weak center. Its battles are impressive, its performances are occasionally strong, but its storytelling is fatally flawed.
The film’s score, while occasionally effective, is overbearing and drowns out dialogue. The sound mix is muddy, and lines are frequently inaudible. These technical issues undermine the film’s effectiveness. The film’s historical liberties are also troubling. Stone’s screenplay alters events, timelines, and character motivations, turning the story into a blend of fact and fiction that’s hard to follow.
| Version | Release Year | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Theatrical Cut | 2004 | Theatrical |
| Director’s Cut | 2005 | DVD |
| Final Cut | 2007 | DVD |
| Ultimate Cut | 2014 | DVD |
The film’s reception is telling. It performed well in Europe, but the American critical reaction was mixed to negative. Critics targeted Farrell’s casting, the runtime, and historical inaccuracies. The film also grossed $167.3 million worldwide against a $155 million budget, making it a box-office bomb.
Our score is 4 of 10. The film is not worth seeing in theaters. The home video cuts offer a more complete experience, but they’re still a waste of time. If you’re a fan of epic cinema, you can skip this one. There are better biopics, better war movies, and better films about Alexander the Great. Alexander is a missed opportunity, a monument to ambition that never quite gets built.
The film’s worst sin is its lack of clarity. It’s a movie about a conqueror that can’t even conquer its own narrative. That’s a tragedy, not a triumph.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
