Why did Oliver Stone make this movie?

Rating: 3/10 (11 December 2004)

Oliver Stone has made some very powerful movies, tightly scripted, brilliantly acted. He has the ability to make a seemingly boring subject gripping and, why not, entertaining. But not so in this case. The story goes nowhere, the people move around aimlessly, the camera work looks like sloppy MTV. One big problem is of course the choice of actors. Many already commented on that. A bigger problem is the script. How do you hope to catch the viewer's attention if you start your movie with 10 minutes of a mumbling Anthony Hopkins saying nothing of interest? And, for good measure, you add on another 10 minutes of empty mumbling at the end? Not to speak of the 3 hours of boredom in between. Maybe someone thought the flashbacks within flashbacks were clever. But they simply were inept attempts to hide that there was no plot line. Which brings me to the biggest problem of all. Why on earth did Oliver Stone decide to make this film? He has made good films, he has made bad films, but never indifferent films. He always had something relevant to communicate. I would say that most films of Oliver Stone are historical films, but if i'm not mistaken, this is his first "historical" film, in the sense of classical times, peplum etc. Maybe that's the reason. This is not his usual turf. I wonder though what Ridley Scott would have made of Alexander.