THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN 11AM AND 3PM

The film Alexander has just entered its second agonising hour...
Me: "God, this film is awful."
Richard: "It's not. It's just not. There's plenty."
Me: "I think I see where they're going with this."
Richard: "What?"
Me: "Jared Leto is in love with Alexander, and he's looking at him marrying his new wife. So, here's what's gonna happen..."
Richard: "What's gonna happen?"
Me: "Alexander is going to find his wife with her neck slit open in bed, and written in blood on the wall above will be 'MEET ME AT THE MOUNTAIN TOP, so Alexander will have to fight Jared Leto on the mountain where they trained as kids. There will be…

I have watched 39 movies starring Colin Farrell. I don't know what possessed me to rewatch this particular one - and not just this one, but 205-minute long Final Cut of it. Maybe it was to laugh. Or because I love it when it's clear that an obscene amount of drugs was consumed while making a film. I'm actually quite certain that Oliver Stone kept snorting cocaine even after it was released because he made THREE more versions of this movie.

I'm 75% sure Colin banged Angelina, 25% sure he banged Leto and 100% sure they were all stoned out of their minds while making this movie. This is from imdb trivia - "Colin Farrell broke his ankle and arm…

Every movie enthusiast is familiar with the feeling of admiring a movie that everybody else seems to despise. Most of us have quite a few of those. I certainly have my fair share, but the movie that immediately pops into my mind in such discussions is Oliver Stone’s "Alexander".

Most critics panned the theatrical version, the box office was a letdown and it even got 6 Razzie Award nominations. This movie was on almost every level a complete failure. Flawed as it was, I did not quite get why. But then again I was only a teenager, what did I know?

In 2007, Oliver Stone released his Final Cut, which he called "Alexander Revisited". I only got around to watch…

Oliver Stone has been a controversy magnet since he popped out of his mummy's front bottom back in 1946. He's a complex character is Mr. Stone, now in his seventies but still able and willing to poke the hornet's nest at every opportunity. A genuine Vietnam War hero, this guy volunteered and requested combat duty in 1967 just as the American casualty figures were starting to escalate, so when he gets something into his head, he's going to see it through. A Bronze Star and a Purple Heart gives you an idea of what Stone went through during his tours in Nam, which incidentally gave him an insight for what would be become his most critically well received film, Platoon.…

[Ultimate Cut.] Consider me a fan -- of Oliver Stone, one of our most energetic and resourceful filmmakers, and even of this, which is of course as much of a mess as everyone says it is, but one full of more ideas about its hero, its own context, and its maker than the vast majority of other historical epics and/or biopics in recent memory. There's a great deal of psychological interest. Maybe the drama unfolds in fits and starts at some points, but the emotional logic Stone goes for, here and always, has a wonderful match in his method, in his love of filling the screen with texts from cultural and historical archives, of storytellers and stories that unravel as…

A suitably rousing epic that compels despite its issues with script and production, Oliver Stone's "Alexander" provides a full-bodied cinematic experience. Sweeping and, on occasion, stirring, Stone's film appeals as a solid observation of the deeds of a larger-than-life conqueror.

Beginning three centuries before the so-called common era, "Alexander" tells the story of the Macedonian King who led his armies through Asia, piecing together an empire for the ages. The film splits its narrative focus between the youth of Alexander and his conquest of the much of the known world.

Starring Colin Farrell as Alexander, Stone is never able to get under the King's skin. Though the film attempts to pay attention to Alexander's bed-hopping internal turmoil, the audience is…

The further back into history you delve, the more mythical some figures become. Stories about legends handed down through the ages that get embellished until the waters about what is truth and what is fiction get murkier and murkier.
Alexander The Great was a military leader and King Of Macedonia who conquered large parts of Asia Minor, Egypt, and the ancient Persian Empire. This account of his more famous exploits including his fractious relationship with his father and his quest to conquer the known world is at times thrilling, but historically suspect to say the least. Oliver Stone's film came in for criticism from all fronts. From Colin Farrell's performance as the bi-sexual Alexander, to the casting of Angelina Jolie…

Jesus, this movie makes no sense. It's visually stunning, you got to give director Stone that. It's the story of the greatest battle leader that ever lived, I guess. Im no history student or history buff from that era but I never understood the reason behind the fighting. He's a Macedonian, a Greek, a son of Zeus, I don't know. He grows into a great military leader, born to fight the Persians just because...there's no reason given, they're weak so they should be conquered, he conquers them in order to give them freedom or something like that. Can anyone explain to me why? I don't get it! Long scenes of dialogue that makes no sense to me. Then there's a…