A Disappointment Literally of Epic Proportions

Rating: 3/10 (18 November 2012)

I really don't know where to begin to discuss what went wrong with this movie. Going into it, you would presume "Alexander" was in good hands with Oliver Stone and a sterling ensemble of performers. Before it hit theaters in 2004, the hype surrounding the premise was so overrated it was rumored to be a potential Oscar contender. After my first viewing, I could not comprehend the negative reception; all I came for was some history lesson and battle scenes. I certainly grew wiser about movies over the years since then so I decided to give it another go. Now, I have come to the conclusion "Alexander" is a bloated, lost mess even if superficially striking.
The history of Alexander the Great needs no extensive introduction for his legacy and impact of world conquest lasts to this very day. As I am typing this review, US military forces in Afghanistan look at the same mountains and landscape the young ruler beheld in his life. Because of Alexander, Greek culture reached as far as Persia to India and fostered the beginning of a Hellenistic civilization. The film is a biopic of Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) and his campaigns but I'm befuddled how Stone does not go into depth the effect the man had made in history. Instead he studies Alexander's personal life, something I'm not against. However, I would like films about historical leaders to touch base on the achievements of an individual, the contributions to whatever society is at stake. That being said, this film mentions the influence of Alexander scarcely.
To further elaborate on the protagonist, his intentions and motivations to conquer the known world become vague. At the start, Alexander justifies the Persian conquest as retribution; as he presses onward, he mentions freeing the people he encounters along his journeys. Then the objective becomes more idealistic and set upon glory. There was a point I wondered whether his mother Olympias (played by Angelina Jolie) served as a manipulator for Alexander's journey. The case I'm trying to make is Alexander never gives a clear, concise goal to accomplish and it only makes the audience feel isolated from the story.
One of the more sensitive topics Stone brings up is the alleged bisexuality of Alexander the Great. The implication of the king having an intimate relationship with his best friend Hephaistion (played by Jared Leto) does not bother me; my concern is towards the point of making his sexuality a recurrent topic. Is it a conflict the king struggles with? No, not really. Even when he marries a bride, the subject of his affections is hardly examined; it doesnÃ¢(TM)t warrant having a place in the plot. If a movie continues to remind us of a protagonist's sexuality, it ought to have a significant part.
The performers are given a script with lines akin to a re-election campaign speech of President Obama. Elegant wording yet you've heard it all before, yearning for something new. Remember this is Oliver Stone who has penned fantastic screenplays from "Midnight Express" to "Scarface" to "Platoon". As for the performances themselves, it is a disaster listening to respected actors use varying accents from Colin Farrell's authentic Irish to Angelina Jolie's faux Russian. Jolie has the weirdest role of the cast as the snake fetish mother of Alexander whom she gives the impression of having an Oedipus relationship with. Accents aside, the speeches, monologues, and dialogues are either dull as Anthony Hopkins' narration or plain atrocious as Farrell's "Braveheart" address to his troops.
Apart from all the faults, "Alexander" is, on its surface, pretty. The costumes and set pieces are appropriately exotic in Babylon while the battles fought are both kinetic and brutal. The Indian fight wages men on horses against opponents riding war-equipped elephants, then unknown to the Macedonians. Impaling, hacking, dismemberment, and stomping do not hesitate in this particular battle. While these bloody feuds won't be revered or remembered like the clashes in "Gladiator" or "Lord of the Rings", they will not disappoint the ardent admirers of warfare.
If "Alexander" wasn't the worst movie of 2004, it was the most over-hyped one. Since then, it has undergone different cuts for the home release. I found the movie more disappointing than embarrassing to watch given the credentials of the people on board. The lesson of this review is simple: never prejudge a movie by its credits. Alexander the Great will always be remembered, Oliver Stone's "Alexander"? Not so much.
My Rating: 3/10