worth my time

Rating: 10/10 (20 November 2004)

It's so difficult to convey the sense of the movie because while I loved the movie immensely, I know there was something off about it. I get the same feeling from watching Hero and Casshern, both excellent movies.
It sort of feels like if you have read Renault's fictional books on Alexander, then you'll have a greater understanding of what the movie was trying to get at. It is more about the nature of Alexander than his conquests or accomplishments-- in some ways, it's depressing and disappointing to see Alexander not portrayed with all his majesty and reputation, but then again, it's incredibly human to see a man who had accomplished so much be in so much misery. The average American audience will not like this movie because this is not a straightforward movie. It's not another Troy and it is not for the blockbuster audience. Much like Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49, it focuses on the aspect not visible, only hinted at. While people may think the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion was cheesy, it is actually a throwback to the Achilles/Patroclus relationship that confused scholars.
Is the exposition long? Yes, I think it is overly long. But Ptolemy's bitterness is very well conveyed by Hopkins, as well much of the cast. Farrell is surprisingly sentimental in this movie and pulls off an Alexander that people wouldn't be expecting-- a very ambitious and spirited man with a fragile psyche. The accents question is an example why average Americans won't understand-- if you bother to think about why there's so many accents, you need to reflect upon Ancient Greece where there was a myriad of accents, such as Macedonian highland/lowland, Thebes, Athens, and then moving onwards, the Greek mercenaries for the Persians, Persians, etc. The movie, if anything, is historically accurate to a fault, and anyone who denies obvious things like Alexander's "bisexuality" (as we call it now) is far too ignorant.