Pro's and con's

Rating: 6/10 (7 June 2009)

Alexander the Great is perhaps one of the most well-known historical figures. His life has been recorded in detail by so many historians, and his exploits legendary. Considered divine during his lifetime, conquering a vast territory unrivaled until the Roman Empire...living a life reckless life...dying under mysterious circumstances -- a larger than life character.
Sounds like it would make a really epic movie, don't it? A perfect addition to the line of big-budget epics so prevalent in the early 2000s. Filmed in locations spanning three continents, featuring a cast that includes Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Plummer, costing over $155 million to make, and with the acclaimed director of "JFK" and "Platoon" -- it seemed like this would be the perfect film, a return to the glory of films like "Ben-Hur."
And yet it was a critical and commercial failure upon release.
What went wrong?
One problem is perhaps the use of accents. They range from the Irish/Scottish accents of Colin Farrell and other actors playing Macedonians to the most lambasted of all -- the pseudo-Eastern European accent of Angelina Jolie. I understand that this is a technique by Oliver Stone to distinguish each culture. The problem is, it can be quite distracting. The accents perhaps aren't TOO bad as to ruin the whole movie, and can be ignored.
Then there's the narration. Now, Anthony Hopkins is an excellent actor, and he is superb as an elderly Ptolemy narrating events from Alexander's life. His voice can be heard in this film a lot. However, ***perhaps too much***. There are some scenes where the narration is just not necessary or would be more effective without it. The old saying is, "Show...don't tell." This is a drama, not a documentary.
Another problem is the way Alexander's story is told. It does resemble a cliché melodrama, from the gay romance between Alexander and Hephaestion to the soap-opera family relationship between Alexander, his parents -- these should have been handled more carefully. A primary antagonist would have helped. Some characters are worth expanding upon (Darius, Roxanne). I personally didn't feel for any of the characters in this film -- whether to root for them or not.
And this brings us to another major problem in the film -- the portrayal of the main character, Alexander himself.
This film does attempt to make him into an complex, three-dimensional character. One can admire the filmmakers for doing that. Here, he is portrayed as an idealist, seeking to unite all the peoples and cultures of the world under a reign of tolerance and diversity. In the scene where he conquers Babylon, Alexander benevolently shows mercy to Darius' daughter ("that's how you'll be treated - a princess"). He is actually likable in that scene.
However, in trying to portray Alexander as complex, the filmmakers do go overboard with the soap-opera aspects. Alexander does seem like a wuss in some scenes. When he's criticized by one of his men, he goes into a temper tantrum ("Arrest him! Arrest him!"). Surely, a person of Alexander's reputation and esteem would sound more intimidating and commanding, not whiny. Such whininess reaches its peak during the death of Hephaestion scene. Alexander resembles a modern-day drama queen or emo kid.
Based on what historians say about the real Alexander, this movie counterpart should have been portrayed more as a modern-day jock. There should have should more scenes that show just what made him Alexander the GREAT.
These are what are perhaps the major flaws of "Alexander". But flaws aside, there is much to love (okay, LIKE) about this movie.
The actors are generally good, even Angelina (never mind the accent). It was nice to see Christopher Plummer as Aristole. And even Colin Farrell himself is actually decent. He may not be Oscar-material like some of the older actors, and he may not be the best choice to play Alexander, but he is adequate enough in the lead role (never mind the blonde wig).
There is some nice scenery in this film, like the majestic deserts of Asia lush jungles of India (actually, Thailand posing as India). The sets are nice, too. While the buildings in the Babylon scenes are clearly GCI and do look superficial, this movie has some excellent sets. The interiors of the Macedonian and Alexandrian palaces are beautiful, and the wall painting and mosaics are accurate. The sets and buildings in the Bactria and India, with their brown, earth walls and pillars, invoke the feel of that time and place.
The costumes are also nice, and they seem authentic. The armor, helmets, and equipment of Macedian/Greek and Persian soldiers during the Gaugamela Battle are elaborate and colorful. This movie shows many cultures, from the Macedonians, Greeks, Persians, etc., and numerous customs from these cultures -- from the dance of Alexander's future wife Roxanne and their wedding scene, the viewer is truly transported into a different time and place.
The battle scenes are very intense and pulse-pounding. Never mind that there are only TWO battle scenes, compared to the many battles fought by the real Alexander. The first battle depicted in this film, in Gaugamela, is very chaotic and confusing, and it has nice aerial shots. The battle in India is just as chaotic (even if the final confrontation between Alexander and the elephant may be bizarre and ridiculous).
There's also the score by Vangelis, which (despite maybe sounding a little formulatic) does sound nice.
In all, I was surprised to find out that I actually enjoyed "Alexander". Obviously, this is a flawed. Then again, it's not absolute trash either.