Dog's breakfast

Rating: 3/10 (16 August 2009)

This film moved me to register with IMDb just to say how awful it was. No, not because of the relationship with Hephaestion. That's historical. But because of the all-over-the-place direction. Platoon to the nth degree! right to the slo-mo encounter between stallion and elephant. Misdirected by Oliver Stone, "Alexander" spends most of his time either with his huge eyebrows slanted up in a worried direction, or bellowing like Joan of Arc in "The Messenger". Two basic expressions. Poor Val Kilmer gets to do a nice Oliver Reed impression. As far as history goes, we're provided with a quote from Virgil (70 bc or so) right at the start, which Alexander then repeats about 300 years earlier. (Virgil stole it from Alex, right?) Alexander was a truly amazing strategist. The first battle in this film was such a disorganized, overblown mess that this was hardly apparent. Also, the film made it seem as if that was it, one big battle, empire conquered. It was his continued consistent victorious streak against all odds that amazed people and kept his men with him for years on end. Yet hardly any of his other successes were mentioned. His continued brinksmanship with Darius was largely ignored. Where was the building of the bridge to the island? Where were the things that made him such a superstar of antiquity, such as the oracle from Zeus in Egypt, or the cutting of the Gordian knot? Instead we see him coaching his men with some new-agey pop psychology and multicultural idealism. (This didn't make sense either--on one hand he was all about the equality of all cultures, on the other he kept talking about bringing enlightenment to the barbarians) Not very likely for a Macedonian warrior, whose motives were more likely power, glory, and to outshine his father. I know it's hard to make a good movie, but this one was just a dog's breakfast.