The Problem with Alexander

Rating: 4/10 (30 April 2006)

The historical epic is trying to make a comeback, and failing horribly. Just as Emmerich failed with the enduring legend of Achilles and the Trojan war, Stone fails miserably with Alexander.
In the 60s, in the era of Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia, audiences knew what they wanted and expected from a historical film--good history, a sympathetic hero (and hopefully heroine), lots of action. In many ways, our expectations have become much more sophisticated. We want convincing costumes and sets, special effects that make the action absolutely believable, and acting and dialog that allows us to get inside the characters' heads.
I submit that Alexander and Troy bombed because the directors threw buckets of effects and money onto stories that they didn't understand themselves--they used overwhelmingly broad strokes and declamatory speeches when nuances and realism would do much more.
We never understand the title character in Alexander. He's driven to conquer the world, but why? What's going on inside his head? Millions of dollars were spent on battle scenes, but almost nothing on a realistic portrayal of the man, his family, or friends. Olympia and Bagoas are not remotely believable in their femme fatale roles. Olympia, in particular, is nothing more than a caricature--she is never seen without at least one snake being present--is that subtle or what?
Stone obviously doesn't understand Alexander, and so portrays him as an enigma. But as an enigma film, it fails as well! Rent "Donnie Darko" or "Mulholland Drive" instead