A mess of a film...too bad, because it could have been so much better

Rating: 4/10 (24 February 2005)

The latest effort from Oliver Stone - an epic film biography of one of history's greatest figures, Alexander the Great - held much promise prior to its release. Finally, an epic history, as told by an epic filmmaker.
Unfortunately, with its release - and subsequent departure from U.S. theaters just five weeks later - "Alexander" failed to live up to its lofty expectations. My (honestly) unbiased opinion: It was a mess, and I can see why it faded so quickly.
First off, let me say that I maintained an open mind going into the film - prepared to accept whatever depictions of homosexuality were depicted. That was neither my motive for going to the film, nor my source of disappointment in it.
Secondly, I am not a Stone-basher. Like most directors ... well, like most highly-acclaimed directors anyway... he has shown streaks of brilliance ("Nixon," to my mind, is his most underrated work in that it actually depicts one of the 20th century's most controversial public figures in a sympathetic light, at once tragic and touching) as well as the occasional streak of over-importance (yes, I was one of those people who found "JFK" overbearing and too pretentious). I've even congratulated him for his occasional forays into blatantly controversial topics, especially when they carry such a satiric relevance to modern society ("Natural Born Killers" comes to mind).
Thus, it was with great disappointment that I exited the theater having watched the mess that was "Alexander." I really wanted to like this film and I guess that was why I was so disappointed with it - if anything, perhaps my expectations were too high.
My chief disappointments were as follows:
1) Dialogue. There was entirely too much narration; even for an exceptional vocal talent like Anthony Hopkins. Good films explain themselves through implied or indirect action and/or dialog - those which resort to an inordinate amount of narration or title screens are making up for those deficiencies. Also, what actual dialog there was was extremely superficial - aside from Alexander himself, there seemed to be little or no character development amongst the central figures of this film (meaning: I had little or no interest in the fates of any of these characters by the end of the film - other than that of the actual historic record, of course).
2) Psudo-accents. The polyglot of accents employed was mind-boggling - from Alexander's (read: Farrell's) Irish brogue (?!?), to Val Kilmer's bland American as Philip, to Angelina Jolie's "Natascha" (a la Boris & Natascha of Rocky & Bulwinkle fame) impersonation - and everything in between, including the occasional "Scottish" hoplite, of all things. For our international readers here, I would think this would be the most upsetting to you - it is merely the latest "Hollywoodization," depicting foreign-speaking peoples by using broken-English or, primarily, British actors. This is one area where I think Mel Gibson's "Passion" had it right - I would much rather hear a foreign tongue being spoken on film and read subtitles than watch a dubbed or oddly-accented film like this. Anything else, to me, is an insult to my intelligence.
3) Plot. Not that I'm opposed to the occasional cleverly-constructed non-linear plot line in film -- David Lynch remains one of the most brilliant directors of all time -- but when the film in question is a large-scale historical epic like this, I appreciate following the progression of the plot along its actual historical timeline. Without giving away too many spoilers here, by the time in "Alexander" where we learn - finally - what happened to his father, it is way too late in the film to even care that it happened.
4) Action/battle sequences. OK - for a big, epic historical film like "Alexander," this should be the bread-and-butter of the story - the icing on the cake, if you will. Instead, we're left here with only two big epic battle scenes....TWO - out of the multitude of dramatic, epic battles and campaigns waged by Alexander during his reign - and this in a nearly 3-hour film! Of the two battles depicted, the first, Gaugemela, employed so much CGI that it looked more like a computer game - really, I enjoyed the History Channel's recent "Decisive Battles" series more than this scene. And the other battle scene - where the Macedonians are fighting the Indians - had entirely too many close-ups and quick cutaways to even follow the action. Not to mention the climactic scene where Alexander encounters the war elephants - I nearly laughed out loud when Stone kept cutting back and forth between the elephant and Farrell's ever-widening eyes! It reminded me of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail, where the castle guard keeps watching in the distance for the approaching knight...watching...watching...until the final cutaway when the knight has already stabbed the guard and is on his way into the castle.
Ultimately, I found much of this film to be indefensible, if not unwatchable. Not to say that it didn't have any redeeming qualities -- I thought the use of Vangelis for the soundtrack was both brilliant and appropriate (Vangelis is Greek); and the recreation of ancient Babylon was almost breathtaking in its beauty - one example of where the CGI actually worked in this film.
But, in general, it seemed as though an awful lot of exceptional actors were wasted and/or mis-directed in this film - including, quite possibly, one of Colin Farrell's poorest efforts.
Rating: 4 out of 10.