Unbelievably, colossally bad

Rating: 1/10 (18 December 2004)

If not the worst movie I've ever seen, this was undoubtedly the most disappointing movie I've ever seen.
Alexander's actual history reads like a big budget Hollywood movie script - he even had an honest to god nemesis! Hardly anyone in real life ever has a single, life-long nemesis; to a filmmaker, it should have been like having a great movie delivered to him gift-wrapped with a silken bow, yet Stone manages to lose even this in the colossal mess he makes of this movie. Antigonus is presented as a virtually anonymous enemy commander, a far cry from the decades-long obsession that he actually represented to Alexander. When Alexander's men can't understand why he's willing to take such risks to kill the man, honestly neither can the audience.
This is but one example of how Oliver Stone managed to take a historical story that a mediocre film student should have been able to make into an enthralling movie, and turned it into a three hour travesty. Not one character is compelling - sadly, the most interesting character (aside from the four minutes or so of screen time that Sir Anthony Hopkins must have been tricked into providing) is Alexander's father, played by Val Kilmer. I say that it's sad, because WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO VAL KILMER?! Didn't he used to be able to act? Was he instructed to repress that talent for this particular role?
Another interesting dynamic that should have translated well to the big screen is Alexander's lifelong romantic relationship with Hephaistion, but Oliver apparently lacks the stones (ok, bad pun, sorry) to actually show any romance between them. Alexander takes an Eastern wife, and when Hephaistion walks in on the two of them working up to a sexual encounter, he gives what I assumed was a meaningful, jealous look, that would lead to an actual dramatic moment between the two of them. It didn't. All we got was another scene of them crying and giving each other a big IL' hug. And crying. And crying. I don't think there was a single scene where Leto wasn't at least tearing up, if not actually crying with his big, pretty eyes.
Speaking of which, when I first read some reviews that complained about how often Alexander broke into tears, I actually thought it might be a positive sign; that the reviewers were just expecting a big action movie, and couldn't deal with actual emotional content. To all of those reviewers: I apologize - you were right. Alexander reminded me of an ex-girlfriend of mine: the first couple times I saw him cry, I felt bad for him, and wanted to understand his feelings; but the 70th or 80th time I saw the tears welling up, I rolled my eyes and thought "oh god, here we go again...."
I could probably go on forever about how tremendously Stone screwed up the story of Alexander the Great, but I'll conclude with my biggest gripe, which is that apparently Stone thinks that his audience is slightly less intelligent than the typical sea-sponge. The metaphors and themes are presented with the subtlety of a train wreck. Let's say a character's situation suggests a parallel with the story of Oedipus. Just before you could draw that conclusion yourself, Stone will flash back to a big painting of Oedipus. Before you have a chance to notice that the hawk that had been flying around Alexander's battles is gone, Farrell says "hey, where did that hawk that was flying around my battles go?" If the movie wasn't so awful, I wouldn't be so infuriated that it also deigned to insult my intelligence.
Oh, and before I forget, I have now officially lost almost all of the respect I once had for Vangelis.
In conclusion, wait for this movie to come out on video. Then don't rent it.