Oh, dear... where to start? >< CONTAINS SPOILERS!

Rating: Null/10 (19 November 2004)

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!
This film wasn't terrible, but it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, good.
I'll start with the good, however... the cast (especially Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, and Angelina Jolie) were quite good. I don't think I've actually ever seen Angelina is a role that allows her to act, as opposed to just toting really big guns. And as for Colin, he steps up to the hero role magnificently... I expect to see some good things in the future from him.
Also, the scenic designers and costume designers have outdone themselves. The worlds that we are treated to are so convincing (like the initial shot of Ptolemy's balcony overlooking the harbor) that I was almost convinced that they actually had built these sweeping vistas and filmed them.
Of course, as I have said, I believe that a significantly large group of people are going to dislike this movie, and here's why:

Too much exposition! For this first 45 minutes or so we intercut back and forth between Ptolemy and Alexander growing up. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good story, but it is ridiculous to spend so much time showing Alexander's childhood, and then have Ptolemy tell us about some of Alex's great initial battles without even showing so much as 2 minutes of them in a flashback.

The movie's timeframe. I realize that Oliver Stone is a very unique filmmaker, but I feel this film is not served at all by huge jumps in time during the movie. I know that this film is portraying a man's entire life, so it needs to have gaps in time, but we really don't need to skip forward and then backward and then forward again. I am a big fan of films that are able to convey time changes without having to resort to "8 years later," etc.

Poor cinematography. This movie does nothing unique, and actually takes a step backwards from other movies in the epic vein. The battle sequences are shot on hand-held camera, and are cut so fast it's impossible to tell what's going on. Also, in the main battle in the desert, the fighting kicks up so much dust, we literally cannot see the battle for most of it. The thing is, we (the audience) are supposed see what a great general Alexander was, along with seeing his emotional turmoil. We can't see any strategy due to te editing of the battles. Also on this subject, at the end of the last battle, Alexander is shot by an arrow, and suddenly the entire world is turning red (or, at least, that is what the audience sees). However, whoever made the choice to use this filter should have thought of it while they were filming, as the red filter turns all the blood yellow (and there's a lot of blood), and just adds to the general ridiculousness of the scene. If you're going to use a color filter, you should always adjust the color of the stage "blood" so it still shows up crimson in the final print.

The gay portrayal. I am all for gay rights/gay marriage, etc. Three of my best friends are gay. But I think this movie did a strong disservice to the gay population. One of my friends who went to the screening with me is gay, and he was appalled at the melodramatic (soap-opera-ish) feelings of love. For the straight love story, we get Alexander as a passionate animal, growling at Rosario Dawson; yet for the gay story, we get many (waaaay too many) "meaningful looks" and dialog that is so melodramatic that it caused unintended laughter in our audience. Yet if it had been handled like Hollywood handles straight romance, it would have been perfectly fine, and in fact, a wonderful addition to this story.

Screenwriter. I have a huge issue with the screenwriter for this movie, and it goes like this: What were you thinking? I expected epic speeches, etc. What I did not expect was how many "shouting to the crowd" speeches we would get. It just dragged on... and on....

Accents. You would think for the reported $175 million budget, Stone could have hired some dialect coaches. There is no excuse for you Macedonians/Greeks to be talking in varied accents of Scottish, English, and Irish, with a little bit of Transylvanian (Thank you, Angelina) on the side.

I don't really care what accent they use (I'm not one who has to have perfect historical accuracy, but pick one and keep all your people of the same ethnicity and region using the same one).

Length. Someone needs an editor. Seriously. As I said before, much of Anthony Hopkins has to go. I love the man, but a narrator was not necessary for this film, and cutting him could have shortened it by 30 minutes or so, a necessity for a film that just seems to drag on and on. Someone in our audience literally said (to Alexander) "Die already!" Yet even after he dies, we have another 15 minutes of useless exposition about who killed him/how he's remembered. Note to Oliver Stone: We don't care. A biographical picture should always end when the person in question dies. It serves no purpose to keep the film going.

Anti-Climatic. This is probably my biggest issue with the film. After the first 45 minutes of exposition, we launch into the 15-20 minute desert battle. Then the troops reach the lavish city of Babylon. Instead of building the story from here, however, Stone makes each battle after this smaller and (in my opinion) less impressive, as well as having a succession of camps and small villages. To me, this entire movie is assembled backwards. You are supposed to build towards a climax, not put one near the beginning, and fall off from there.

All-in-all, the acting and lush eye-candy saved this one somewhat for me, but I still think, unfortunately, you will be disappointed when you see the whole film. Overall, this movie gets 1.5/4 stars from me.