Joyless battle royale

Rating: 4/10 (29 January 2005)

Oliver Stone stages this battle epic with his usual aplomb. His film isn't as cynical as one might expect; it has pomp and pageantry, and some kinky roundelay that shows most of the men to be accepting of homosexuality but the women to feel somewhat slighted. Does Stone portray Alexander the Great as sexually ambiguous? Yes, but it's not a heavy presentation and the sexual asides are actually a welcome relief after the bloody battle sequences. A whole lot of talent went into this picture and it shows: it looks expensive and expansive, and the horrors of war are shown in incredible detail. Colin Farrell turned out to be a good choice for the lead--his hair is a flagrant mess, but he's adept as a leader and his voice is surprisingly powerful. So what's the problem with "Alexander"? I think post-production woes crept in and undermined Oliver Stone's confidence. The editing is messy, with far too much of Anthony Hopkins as our storyteller(Hopkins is aged quite well--he looks depressingly decrepit--but he has no role to play and just serves as a mouth-piece, our Guide through the soap opera entanglements of the plot); likewise, Val Kilmer as Alexander's estranged father and Angelina Jolie as his mother struggle with underwritten roles and look desperate not to appear foolish. Stone has never worked easily with women, and Jolie doesn't appear to be the kind of actress who'll turn dormant for a director, so the culprit here is the screenplay--which gives neither filmmaker nor actress a chance to be at their best. The film has sweep and it is focused(despite some flashbacks), earnest and intense. I just wish it had more heart and imagination. ** from ****