Oliver the Unforgivable

Rating: 6/10 (29 January 2005)

One hundred and fifty million dollars? Check. Notable cast? Check. Well-loved hero? Check. No wonder Warner Bros thought they were sitting on a sure thing with Oliver Stone's Alexander, what famous director could go wrong with that material? Had the crew at Warner Bros actually watched Natural Born Killers then there would have been less tragic premature celebrations and more MAYDAY MAYDAY ABORT FILM! WE HAVE A TURKEY ON THE 2004 SCANNERS!
This film is reportedly the film of Stone's career. He stated himself during pre-production that it had been his lifelong obsession to depict Alexander the Great cinematic ally. The obsession shines through as the film suffers from trying to capture too big a story into three hours. The plot is disjointed and poorly paced, the chunks of plot that we see are awkward and without clear motivation. These two are the only real flaws of the film, but they add up in so many areas that they effect all aspects of the film. Otherwise, the bulk of the film -which is centered around Alexander (Colin Farrell) conquering the barbarians- is enjoyable simply because of the extraordinary production value. It had realistic and convincing battles, costuming and sets.
However, I cannot see past the inclusion of the sequence of terrible narration scenes centered around an older Ptolemy (Hopkins). Older Ptolemy prances around in a courtyard full of earthly delights, recounting tales of his life fighting for Alexander and offering his views on what made Alexander the Great an icon of human triumph. These scenes are hammy and awkward; they are so artistically contrary to the constructed reality present in the bulk of the film that they are almost unbearable to watch. Stone couldn't think of a better way to express time passing and events happening than an old fart flouncing around a ridiculous set explaining what's going on from 30 years later. Logically, I can understand that it serves to link together the disjointed plot, but it takes deus-ex-machina to a horrible extreme; Ptolemy is so obviously a plot device rather than a constructed character that the scenes simply amplify Stone's poor vision and style. That Stone included these scenes is unforgivable; they embody a real nadir of film-making.
Whilst Stone has been financially punished in the poor box office performance of Alexander, a lot of the influential reviews attack the film for petty uneducated reasons. The lazy pop media critics took the negative reviews of more educated reviewers and amplified the scathing comments to create a distorted persona of Alexander in the world press. No doubt you've heard media associated with the film with key phrases such as 'bad blonde dye job' and 'Alexander the Gay'. These comments are misleading; the screenplay of Alexander is frankly disturbing, and calls for more contempt and attention than the trivial subject of Alexander's hair and sexuality.