Review of Alexander (2004) by Pasha A — 24 Aug 2009

1-Content:

"The history is written by the victors.".

I'm a Persian, not a patriot one, maybe a traitor!

I also know that Iranians and Iran are now is sunk in garbage.

But I think all the people know about Persian History and culture.

This film is about a history period of Persians which was the most brilliant one of all times. "Oliver Stone" calls Persians as Barbarians.

If anybody wants to see is it correct or not he can just google two words together: "Achaemenian dynasty" and "culture".

"Oliver Stone" tells: Persians "mated in public" and "couldn't read or write". try to read about history of "infrastructure of Human Rights" and "Persian great universities in Achaemenian dynasty".

"Oliver Stone" tries to show Persians some Carmel Riders and Belly Dancers. They talk Arabic in some scenes of his film. I have to tell him "WE ARE NOT ARABS dear director. try to read your school history books before making a historical film.".

"Oliver Stone" shows the great Persian army loose and non-organized. The soldiers are almost weak, ugly, bearded and wild with a funny costume and armors. Try to search a picture in google with a title "Achaemenian soldier" and have a comparison.

I used to appreciate "Alexander the Great" as a brave, stalwart and patrician. If Alexander is something that this film shows us, I should change point of view about him!

---------.

2- Performance:

"Alexander" is one of the worst films of Stone. The directing is awful. The story telling and none-linear narration of it is inappropriate and unfit. The casting is terrible and the whole movie is boring.

The war scenes aren't made properly so they are not impressive enough.

Anyway, if this is a epic movie about knowing Alexander the Great better, it's a poor one, because it makes us to hate him instead of loving him.