Good but Lacking

Rating: 7/10 (8 July 2014)

I don't want to alienate anyone, because essentially there are many components to the movie that people on both sides of the spectrum disagree with. It took me 10 years to watch it again and really see something worth liking. And as such, I actually started to appreciate some parts of the movie. However, one must admit that some parts and components really take away from the focus of the film. To be honest I watched it only once in 2004 and didn't watch it until it came on HBO. One thing that really turned me off was the homosexual part of the film. It wasn't because I hate gays, but because the warriors of the film were presented as girly men. I have no problem with a gay story as long as the story is realistic. I thought Colin Ferrel did okay... But one must think of the age they are in, in which these are actual rough warriors and not cute stars that know how to fight in combat more. I view the type of warrior I was looking for as something resembling 300 or Troy. But the characters were not realistic and completely flamboyant for veteran/rough warriors. The gay component actually had an interesting part to the story because it was referred and compared to Achilles in The Iliad. And as such, reflects differently as a show to demonstrate passion guided by selfishness or that of brotherhood. The Aeneid also tried to compare the differences, which I thought was interesting to point out on this film. I also think this is the main reason why people dislike this movie. There are many gay movies before this that have been rated better, but its the fact that we have hardcore warriors who are girly men. So in that sense, there was a bad selection of characters.
Another thing that took away from the main point was Angelina Jolie as his mother and Van Kilmer as his father being relived in his memory to explain his actions as a leader. Frankly, I thought the acting was poorly acted and most of the time unnecessary. I thought that this was a key reason along with the flamboyancy of the characters to distract from the main themes.
There were some neat parts to the film. The budget can be seen with the accuracy of the make up and designs, along with the battle scenes. The battle scenes were definitely better than I remember and relatively accurate. The only problem is that at times it was kind of confusing to tell what was going on. The relations between Alexander and Hephaistus along with Achilles and Patriclus is also something pretty neat to explain the difference between how a great warrior can self defeat himself with is own passions as well as contrary where they can rule the world. The props and customs through the film are very accurate and realistic, and the only thing that prevents this form being noticed and appreciated is the acting and distraction from the major points in the film.
I don't like acting single minded, however it does seem like this was a film that showed the biggest problem and yet folly of Oliver Stones career. With a great story available to him and a large budget, it shows that his creativity is to disorganized. I went from grading it originally from a 4 to an 8 because I really appreciated the military conquest more as well as the comparison with mythology. I also like the realistic approach to how his soldiers felt about over conquest and intermingling with other peoples. This is where the story really shines. However, for me the difference between a 7 and an 8 is usually opinion, which I fear may have reflected in my new decision. As such, I put it as a seven. It deserves over a 5 because it is entertaining, and even if you dislike the film, it still makes you watch at times. But there is also a good story there somewhere that was underdeveloped and deserved the 7.