Alexander

Though many have had very negative things to say about it, I felt that it was a good movie. Watching that Colin, I forgot that he was Colin and started to see Alexander. Just for that I felt that this movie is of some worth. I have to admit some of the lines sent chills down my spin, but the movie on the whole was good. Historically this movie could not have been far off. Pertaining to Alexander's death, I liked how the cause was left ambiguis. Those that say that Stone butchered History in making this movie I find to be wrong. Though Alexander might not have been blond, why not by the way, much of what was portrayed went against common belief but true to what we have learned of the great conqueror. I guess summed up, this was a GOOD movie, I enjoyed myself, and was able to immerse myself in Stone's interpretation of the life of a GREAT man.

The story of Alexander the great, the King of Macedonia who sweep across much of the world as it was known at the time. With flashbacks to his relationship with his father King Philip and mother Olympias, we follow Alexander as a boy taught by Aristotle and his rise to power and first conquers all of Persia before moving eastward into deeper Asia as he attempts to reach the Ocean to return to Macedonia. However this road is tough and his men struggle with his methods of ruling his conquered territories and with the seemingly never-ending quest.

Despite the fact that this was slated (maybe because it was slated) I decided to give a try for myself. The only option available to me for rental was the slightly shorter Director's Cut, so I took that one and my comments are based around that – how different it is from the original release into cinemas I'm unsure but it was what I had. Taking the eagle of the early scenes as my guide and looking at film from a great height, it is actually not too bad. Cosmetically it all looks good with lots of money spent on the CGI, the battle scenes, the cast, the costumes and so on. However the reality is that every audience must watch this scene by scene and deal with it line by line and it is at this level where the film doesn't really work.

To give it its dues though, the overall sweep is good and the battle scenes are impressive even to this post-Lord of the Rings viewer and it is fair to say that the money is right up on there on the screen. Talk about the narrative, the script, the performances, the delivery though and it is a different story. Whether the story is historically accurate or not I cannot say but, like with many of these things, I am happy to take the overall story as reasonably educational while also recognising that much of it will have been either made up for the sake of the telling or simplified for the same reason. The problem for me was not with the accuracy but more with the script. It is written like speeches rather than conversations; nobody seems to talk so much as proclaim. This makes the characters harder to get into and comes over like the writers were forcing themes rather than building them into their characters.

I actually liked the flashback structure as it gave us both elements of Alexander building towards the conclusion of the film. That said though, it is a bit laboured at times and not every timeshift works as well as it should have done or contributes as much as I suspect it was supposed to. Stone's direction is impressive in regards the battle scenes but it is as writer and deliverer of the story that he falls down; even his "cut" contains structural problems and failings.

Without a good script the starry cast mostly struggle. It doesn't help that the themes are mostly handed to the cast in clumps rather than being woven into the dialogue and the characters. Unlike many reviewers I didn't really mind the use of Irish accents; it was a bit funny at first but I got used to the device of the accents representing a certain people. Farrell is left exposed by his director. I do not mean the shot of his balls but more the fact that he seems rudderless in his performance, never being consistent and swinging wildly with each scene. It doesn't help that each line he says is delivered like it is "the most important thing ever™" – with this in mind I didn't care what he looked like, it was more fundamental issues I had with him. Leto, Meyers, Beattie and others provide unremarkable support but the bigger worry is in the A-list names that misfire. Contrary to what some have said, I thought Jolie did a pretty good job with her manipulative character; it is not her fault that she is too young for the role and I'm not entirely sure why she was cast as I can think of a handful of older actresses who could have risen to the role. More disappointing was Dawson who offers little apart from a nude scene (which is an absurdly comic sex scene in itself). Contrary to what my girlfriend might say, I do think Dawson is a good actress and although the male part of me appreciated seeing her naked, I cannot help but wonder why her real talents were wasted in a role that gave her nothing to work with and very little to do anyway. Hopkins is a good narrator and as a device he holds the film together well. Blessed provides a slice of his usual ham then disappears, Plummer likewise while Kilmer does an OK job as the father of the piece.

Overall then this is not as terrible a film as the critics would have led you to believe but this is not to be confused with me saying that it is "good". The overall sweep of the film is OK while technically it is professional and impressive but the script is poor, the characters delivered on a basic "and here's the theme for this scene" level, while the performances are either weak or, at best, well-meaning. Like I say it isn't as totally valueless as some have claimed but what potential there is, is mostly missed.

At first, I didn't feel much of a need to comment on the film, since so many others have written and have said so many things. But I think there are some really important points to made, and I haven't seen anyone make them. So here I am writing.

In my opinion, almost everyone misunderstood the relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander. In the modern world, especially in the West, two men are either very close to each other, sleep together, and have sex, or they keep a good comfortable distance from each other and, if they're friendly, might punch each other on the arm. In this film, we see a relationship that is hard for most people today to understand, namely a passionate love relationship between two men in which sex is not very important and possibly even absent.

Aristotle essentially explained the whole film near the beginning when he told the young couple something like the following, as best I can remember it, "When two men lie together in lust, it is over indulgence. But when two men lie together in purity, they can perform wonders." Or something like that. Given what I know of that culture, I am sure that "in purity" means no sex, or at least very little. That's why we never see them kiss. In the film, as in many older films, kissing is a metaphor for sex. Even when Alexander kisses his mother, it refers to the idea of sex. That's why Alexander kisses Bagoas, but not Hephaistion.

Now I'm not sure if the real historical Aristotle would have made that remark. That's not exactly what he says about homosexuality in the Nicomachean Ethics. But the remark is plausible enough since Alexander could easily have heard such an idea during his youth. Plato (before Aristotle) expressed that idea, and Zeno of Citium (after Aristotle) did too. So even if Aristotle never said this to Alexander, it is plausible enough that the idea was in the air and that Alexander heard it from someone or other.

Some have complained that the "homosexuality" (assuming that A's relationship with Heph. should even be called that) was thrown in their faces too much. But it's crucial to the plot. Stone is hypothesizing that Hephaistion was essential for what Alexander did. Further, it's a standard Hollywood convention to juxtapose a love story with some great political, military, or otherwise grand event. There are tons of examples. Titanic, Enemy at the Gates, Gone with the Wind, ... the list could go on forever. It really is homophobic to complain about Stone continually going back to this theme, because he has a perfectly good artistic reason to do it.

A few more details: Alexander's hair. I think that Stone was trying to make Alexander look like Martin Potter in Satyricon -- a nod to Fellini.

Alexander's accent and soft appearance. Another nod to a great director passed on, this time Stanley Kubrick. Farrel really looks a lot like Ryan O'Neil in Barry Lyndon. In fact, he really looks like a Ryan O'Neill / Martin Potter coalescence. I think it's deliberate.

The softness of Alexander's personality. In a lot of scenes it made sense. He was gentle enough to know how to approach Bucephalus and tame him without scaring him. He was open minded enough to adopt a lot of Persian culture and encourage intermarriage, while the other more "he-man" folks around him were less comfortable with the idea.

Yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I do like the film. People's hatred of the film is hard for me to understand.

This film is balancing on a thin line between artistic movie-making or pretentious failure. I watched it only once in its Ultimate Cut entirety and what I've witnessed is a bold epic, but besides that, much more of a character study film. The film has few shots with outdated CGI that are minimal and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The acting is quite well for what the actors are trying to portray. Everyone's saying Alexander is miscast, laughable, and weak. But that's what this movie's going for; uncovering the man behind the legend. Was that man perfect? Did he appear perfect? None of us are, but he was clever, brave beyond measure, and had the wit for war and diplomatic leadership. His speeches portrayed as motivating and convincing are also at times awkward and frail. The action is sometimes too shaky, but the battles still deliver the intensity and violent nature of death in war. The last battle, although shorter, is a marvel to behold. Full of colors, intricate designs, ferocious imagery, and artistic moments. The music by Vangelis might be his best; it lifts this whole ancient world to life and elevates certain scenes to haunting heights of craftsmanship.

Some characters could have been more fleshed out as they have paramount roles. Some of the accents are kind of overdone, but there is a meaning behind some of them. Rosario Dawson and Angelina Jolie are gorgeous and enchanting. Symbolism and the visual language of this film functioned remarkably well. The film's philosophy is very much about genders and sexism, racism and xenophobia, frailty and ego and myths, and their effect on people. A passionate man and a dreamer can only go so far, and that's what brought Alexander's downfall.

The film finishes strongly with Anthony Hopkins's narration, where he goes back on his words and scraps them, cementing the element of an unreliable narrator. That being the main point of this film, history and its validity, and how some larger-than-life figures can be very much like us, mere mortals.

I didn't even mention the elephant in the room (no pun intended), Alexander's homosexuality, or bisexuality. The film rarely presents it as some big problem or talking point. Kind of like it used to be more acceptable to feel the greatest love for a man. Now, this film is still getting condemned for that. How much more progressed are we today, ay?

Hollywood star power and tons of money can't save this overwrought, melodramatic story of the life and times of Alexander The Great (Colin Farrell), the Greek warrior who conquered lands in times B.C.

The single biggest problem here is the script, and in particular the plot structure. Just as viewers are getting familiar with a plot sequence, the time period of the story shifts backward to a previous era, or forward to a future era. Displayed on the screen as "10 Years Earlier" or "40 Years Later" or "9 Years Earlier" or "8 Years Later", back and forth we go. It's maddening. It makes the story, which already contains too many characters with strange names, muddled and hard to follow. Director Oliver Stone apparently tries to cram in too much information; as such, the story's scope is too broad. Another possibility is that the time-shifts were necessitated in post-production editing. But whatever the cause, the screen story's convoluted plot is a huge barrier to understanding Alexander and the people in his life.

In addition, the script's dialogue contains too much exposition, mostly from Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) who, via numerous monologues, lectures us about Greek history. Again, one gets the impression that Stone is trying too hard to make the film a comprehensive history lesson.

Non-script elements are not much better. Casting for the main parts is poor. I like Angelina Jolie, but she is no Olympias. And Colin Farrell, with his golden locks, would fit better in a modern day romantic comedy. Acting is hammy, at times almost laughably so. Actors don't communicate with each other so much as they speechify. Every line of dialogue is heavy with import. Even the film's makeup is overdone. Jared Leto, with all that eyeliner, looks like a drag queen.

Perhaps the best element of the film is the color cinematography. It's quite good. Some of the landscapes are visually sweeping and majestic. And I liked that ethereal background music from Vangelis. Also, the costumes are colorful and apparently quite authentic.

I like Oliver Stone. But I have never cared for sword and sandal movies. They always seem pretentious, so proud of themselves, in their extended runtimes and sweeping scope. "Alexander" is no exception; it muddles along for nearly three hours, and covers most of one man's lifetime as he conquers lands from the Mediterranean to the Far East.

Maybe Oliver Stone would have been better advised to confine his saga to a smaller, more restricted story, one wherein viewers can get to know the protagonist and his inspirations and challenges. In its present form, "Alexander" is just too sprawling and epical to warrant any enthusiasm from me.