I'm no expert, but...(Plot points revealed)

Rating: 5/10 (29 November 2004)

if Alexander was from the Mediterranean(sp.?), why was he blond? And why did all of the warlords have anglo features? Although I am a minority, I am not one to play the race card with movies if it is a great film. And although 'Alexander' wasn't awful, Stone could have done so much more with the movie and his casting choices.
In his casting he is basically perpetuating what many have asserted for years: that Anglos play the role of conquerer, hero, liberator, educator, etc. to "barbaric", dark-skinned people. Couldn't Stone have chosen a cast more representative of the region (more people of color)?
Anthony Hopkins (Ptoloemy) was under-utilized in his role as narrator. He starts out with some gibberish (mumbling) monologue about Alexander which draws my attention away from the story and onto the fact that I'm listening to a bumbling old man. Instead of using visuals (maps) to set a scene, Hopkins should have guided us to each place. Lastly, young Ptoloemy(sp.?) said almost nothing and was nothing more of than a yes man. But all of a sudden he's capable of being pharaoh of Egypt and a man of letters? I can't reconcile that.
The love scene between Farrell and Rosario Dawson. WHAT.WAS.THAT? Gratuitous is the only word I can think of. I hope Ms. Dawson will be more careful in her choices of nudity as part of storytelling. I was embarrassed for her. Stone basically pulled an old Hollywood trick out of his bag showing a non-compliant woman become automatically submissive to a man trying to take her body by force. This is 2004. Stone spent three hours telling the story; couldn't he have woven her initial resistance to Alexander's advances with an eventual copulation instead of showing us an attempted rape that turns into lovemaking? Love scenes usually don't bother me, but I have a daughter to whom I'm trying to teach self-efficacy. How do I explain that one of the world's greatest men, who was able to persuade millions to follow him not by force but by intellect, had to force himself upon his women?
Some of the visuals, while definitely different than your run of the mill epic, were terribly misplaced. Stone would show you horse hooves to convey what? How fast the horse was running? We know he's running fast; pan from the trotting to the battlefield or something that advances the story. Many shots were useless in the big scheme of things.
I have never worked on a movie nor am I a paid critic. However, I do know a good movie when I see one and this ain't it. Colin Ferrell, given the right movie, can definitely act and he did an excellent job. But just because he's an 'It Boy' doesn't mean he should be given an epic before he's paid his dues (See Russell Crowe in "The Insider" BEFORE "Gladiator"). Angelina Jolie was very good, but I'd love to see her in a movie without an accent. Val Kilmer didn't inspire any hatred or love; his character, as it was cast, was a throwaway character, yet very essential to Alexander's background. Maybe Alec Baldwin or Mel Gibson instead?
SEE THE MOVIE FOR YOURSELF. I may be criticizing the film, but I respect that fact that everyone has their own perception of what makes a good movie.