view all comments (3) - add your comments

Alexander Movie Review

Alexander Review

'ALEXANDER' GETS STONED TO DEATH

Director skips huge chunks of vivid history to tell a boring story of the legendary Macedonian conqueror

A scene from 'Alexander'

"ALEXANDER" Overview

*1/2 star

165 minutes | Rated: R
WIDE: Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Cast and Crew

Directed by Oliver Stone


Starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, Rosario Dawson, Jared Leto, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Ian Beattie, Elliot Cowan, Rory McCann, Joseph Morgan, Gary Stretch

It's anybody's guess what Oliver Stone was thinking by making a film about Alexander the Great that skips over nearly every historical event that earned him that moniker. Whatever his intent, in "Alexander" the director has concocted little more than a surface-skimming soap opera bloated with professorial exposition.

Star Colin Farrell, his hair dyed blonde and given a poufty 1970s "dry look," doesn't have much to work with in terms of character development because every event that shaped Alexander as a man, a leader and a warrior happens off-screen.

The film skips over his first battle commanding at his father's side, and skips over his pivotal creativity in that victory, which established his natural instincts on the battlefield. It skips over his father's murder (although two hours later Stone returns to it in a flashback), skips his ascent to the throne, pays only lip service to his mother's orders to execute his half-brother, and gets the facts wrong about the death of that boy's mother -- his father's more favored wife.

Legendary battles at Granicus, Issus and Tyre are absent from the movie, as are the Macedonian conqueror's conquests of the future Holy Lands, his founding of several cities in his name, and his being made Pharaoh and declared the son of a god by Egyptian priests.

In fact, after a first reel of heavily narrated establishing episodes of Alexander's teens, Stone leaps forward several years, to a time after his hero has annexed half the known world and is pushing deep into Asia, facing King Darius III of Persia (for the second time) in a 331 B.C. battle Alexander won despite his army being out numbered 47,000 to 250,000.

This is one of just two battle scenes (both effectively gripping but not excessively graphic), and for a moment it seems Stone might unbridle the movie's restless spirit, showing a little innovation by following an eagle into the sky for a legitimate bird's-eye view that could make clear the swift, large-scale military maneuvering that made Alexander such a formidable foe. But the director completely fails to take advantage of the technique, even in a battle in which a flanking maneuver was the decisive blow.

The other battle scene -- late in the picture, when Alexander is nearly killed during his conquest of India -- takes place in thick jungle terrain with poor visibility where no general would ever lead his troops. This battle actually took place at a city wall, but Stone clearly wanted a scene in which the enemy's sometimes-CGI-rendered elephants could seem to come thundering out of nowhere.

The rest of "Alexander" is almost nothing but exposition. Anthony Hopkins, as Greek historian Ptolemy, narrates laboriously to his scribes on an obvious soundstage full of fake gold statues, meant to be the Great Library at Alexandria. Characters drone on about the victories Stone doesn't bother to show. Conversations between Alexander and Hephaistion (Jared Leto), a childhood friend and military compatriot, skirt vaguely around their life-long homosexual relationship, as they declare their undying devotion to each other (with their eyes full of emotional implication), but then embrace only in solid-pat-on-the-back man hugs.

Meanwhile, Stone gets ridiculous in an animalistic sex scene (complete with growls) between Alexander and his first wife Roxane (Rosario Dawson), a Bactrian princess whose hand in marriage had little strategic value and thus helped stir dissent among Alexander's generals. Neither of his other two wives, or the mistress who bore him a son, are even mentioned, and Stone barely touches on Alexander's decent into debauchery once he returned to his primary home in Babylon -- although being a filmmaker forever obsessed with intrigue and subterfuge (a la "JFK") Stone does use it as a springboard to a conspiracy theory about Alexander's death.

"Alexander" does have two saving graces. One is Val Kilmer, who embodies bitter gruffness but devotion and world-weary strength as King Phillip, Alexander's father. The other is Angelina Jolie, who is perfectly cast as Olympias, his indomitable, deliciously dangerous mother who never seems to age (due to some immortal blood perhaps?). Jolie appears to be the only actor on screen willing to embrace the film's unintended camp value.

But the true story of Alexander the Great is so much deeper and more interesting than this underwhelming two-and-a-half-hour catalog of second-rate highlights, and these secondary performances can't begin to make up the difference. Anyone even vaguely interested in the life, loves, and astounding conquests of this important figure in world history would do well to skip this flick and just hunker down with the History Channel.




Review (c) Rob Blackwelder


click here - Write for us - get your reviews published on Contactmusic

Comments

screen name:

Angel_Eyes42 Click for more info ( 1)

posted on 23/11/2005 09:46


comments:

Sean O'Connell's review of Alexander is complete and utter tripe. It is trash reviews like his that cause alot of great movies to go unseen. I have seen Alexander (both the theatrical and director's cut versions) and they are both excellent. I will admit however that the theactrical version does not flow as good as the director's cut (see both of them and you'll see why), but it is still equally as enjoyable. Thank goodness there are some people out there that still have a brain to think for themselves, as I would urge anyone who reads O'Connell's article to do. Watch Alexander and see for yourself.




screen name:

Psylocke Click for more info ( 1)

posted on 26/08/2007 00:25


comments:

I agree with most of the review. Alexander has done so many things and fought countless of battles, and it's a shame to neglect that in order to drag on with the boring-to-death scenes with Hopkins. However, it's impossible to fit Alexander's life into one movie. They should have done it as a series instead, like Rome, with (mostly) the same cast, ofcourse. That would have been more fair to Alexander - and to Stone. I don't recommend the theatrical version or the Director's Cut, though. Final Cut is where it's at. A longer version of the film always improves it; too bad movie goers don't have the patience for a long film, or Alexander would have had more success. The same fate struck Kingdom of Heaven as well; as Fox ordered it to be cut down (the action scenes are what matters; the rest they don't give a rat's ass about) the movie turned out hideous and nothing made any sense what so ever. But the Director's Cut really turned it into a whole new movie, but unfortunately most people won't see it. Back to Alexander; despite its faults it should have gotten atleast 2 stars. They gave it a good try (although a kiss or a more intimate moment between Alexander and Hephaistion shouldn't have been that hard to add in the movie, now would it?), and most of the actors were amazing. I had my doubts about Colin Farrell in the beginning, but he covinced me throughout the movie that he could do a good job. Jared Leto is gorgeous and managed to pull off Hephaistion very well. Kilmer is *perfect*. The boy playing young Alexander did an amazing job, too bad he doesn't seem to get enough credit for it. If you haven't seen the film yet, or is willing to give it another try, get your hands on the Final Cut. (the Director's Cut is shorter than the original version, and has also cut off most of the homoerotic scenes, which is a great shame.)





view all comments (3) - add your comments




©2008 Contactmusic.com Ltd, all rights reserved