Dark and disturbing? Yes. Excellent movie? Yes, yes, yes!

Rating: 9/10 (21 November 2004)

I saw Alexander last night on a midnight screening in Zagreb, Croatia. Even though I'd usually be fast asleep at that time the film kept me wide awake every minute of it's long three hours. Going out of the theater, my verdict was: Mr. Stone, you have two thumbs up. Why is it than that I see mostly negative reviews from the few viewers who have posted their opinions so far? Allow me explain myself and venture a few guesses about that.
*Spoilers start*
Is this film dark and disturbing? Yes, it is. But such were the times and the circumstances in which Alexander lived. The myths he grew up were dark and disturbing (which is well portrayed in the movie when young Alexander is taken to a sort of crypt by his father Fillip, and shown the wall paintings representing those myths); seeing his father rape his mother when he was a young boy was disturbing; having grown up with a mother who was constantly afraid of being killed and replaced by another queen and who had his father assassinated to avoid such fate was disturbing; being rejected by his father at age of 19 when he decided to take on another queen (a Macedonian woman unlike his Greek mother) was disturbing; seeing his father behaving lewdly with both mean and women on drunken feasts was disturbing; being convinced by his mother that he is a son of Zeus, and therefore a god, was disturbing - but such were the circumstances in which he lived.
There was a lot of controversy related to this film pushing some kind of "homosexual agenda" from mainstream Hollywood. I think this film puts homosexuality well within the context of the Greek culture. Aristhoteles explains this in the movie when teaching young Alexander, Hephaestus and their peers. The context was the myth of Achilles and his lover Patroclus, whose death he had mourned and avenged (we know that Alexander was fascinated with this mythos more than any other, and saw himself and Hephaestus in such a relationship): for a man to lay down with another man driven by lust was considered inappropriate, without any merit for the men involved in such an act, and therefore shameful. On the other hand, for two men to lie down together when they were in a relationship of mutual love, respect and edification was considered appropriate and stimulative for the culture of the time. The mythos of Achilles (which was so badly misrepresented in the recent blockbuster "Troy") gives a great example of this: Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, not cousins as presented in "Troy", and that fact was acceptable by both the culture and their gods (obviously not acceptable for the Hollywood moviemakers). There was, however, an incident by which Achilles incurred the wrath of Apollo on himself, and it wasn't the killing of the Apollo's priests or desecrating his statue (as shown in "Troy"), but something else altogether. The old king Priam had numerous sons (about 20) with different wives, and not just Hector and Paris. One of the Trojan princes was Troilus for whom it has bean prophesized that if he lives to be 20, the city of Troy would never fall. Achilles saw the young prince and lusted after him. The prince fled to the temple of Apollo to seek sanctuary. Achilles followed the boy (who was 19 at the time) into the temple and after the boy refused to satisfy his lust, slew him right there on the Apollo's altar. That is why Apollo turned against Achilles and that's why he had to die. We find a parallel in Alexander: Alexander is portrayed as being in a love relationship with Hephaestus and he is not judged for it by his culture (although he is advised by his mother to marry and produce a successor to the throne), but only by his non-Greek wife. The film depicts the two men professing love to each other and hugging each other on numerous occasions, as well as Hephaestus massaging Alexander's neck and shoulders in one scene and giving him a ring in another, and Alexander inviting his lover to spend the night with him - none of which was unacceptable for Greek culture of the time. However, as Achilles gives into his lust, so does Alexander, as he is seduced by a male Persian exotic dancer/escort at one of the drunken feasts. The movie portrays Alexander kissing the dancer during the feast, and being tended by him the next morning when Hephaestus enters his tent to "straighten" him up.
*Spoilers end*
Can Mr. Stone be blamed for showing things as they were? Not in my opinion. He had courage to show what we know about Alexander's life without changing it to fit our present day (false) morality. Some may call it an "agenda"; I call it being true to his subject (both the culture of the time and particularities of Alexander's life). Could he have done it differently? Of course. He could have altered the facts as they did in Troy, or be more discriminate as to what he chose to portray. In either case we would have not been presented by the culture of the time or the facts of Alexander's life. If this is too disturbing for you, go and see sugar-coated Troy instead. This is one of the rare movies that Mr. Stone made where there is no Star-Spangled Banner waving and pampering to the America's national pride (for which I have very little respect, being a typical European) - but showing just ugly, dirty, disturbing story of one man's life and his time. Is it strange that he is being rejected by his American audience (that so loved his "patriotic" movies)? No, not at all.
What of the other aspects of this movie? I think acting was superb, especially that of Mr. Farrell and Mrs. Jolie. Brad Pitt (whom I personally like very much) as Achilles in "Troy" has nothing on Mr. Farrell (who is to me convincing both as 19 year old, and as a grown-up Alexander), and Mrs. Jolie has proved to be a really good actress - other than looking simply gorgeous.
One thing I was annoyed by was Mrs. Jolie's accent (other accents did not bother me as much as they seamed to bother some people); since it sticks out as a sore thumb (I guess they wanted to point out her being a foreigner and not a Macedonian woman).
I particularly like Sir. Anthony Hopkins's aged Ptholomeus who speaks of Alexander (at the end of the movie) both with adoration and a dose of cynicism which gives him a note of reality.
Finally, I am amazed by the people who bash on this movie because someone has a bad hairdo?! If we are to judge movies based on the hairdo than planetary popular original Star Wars would be a total dud (being renowned for some of the worst hairdos ever seen on the silver screen) - but it isn't.
Is Alexander a dark and disturbing movie? Yes. Is it for everybody's taste? No. Is it a good movie? Yes, yes, yes. I give it 9/10.