Rating: 5.4. Are you kidding me? Do you people need any Anti-Motion Sickness pills whilst riding that the hating bandwagon?

Rating: 7/10 (19 August 2006)

I may like Oliver Stone a great deal, but I am no fawning fanboy (-girl?) of his and am still able to spot poor quality in his films. This is not one of them. Alexander is a flawed masterpiece. It is an original fare, not really relying on any hackneyed formulas or stunning visual effects to get the message across or else mask poor writing. Everything is out in the open--bold, blunt and vivid. It moves back into storytelling mode, exploring the character of Alexander and what drives him to set out on the Persian Crusades. What is the force behind his insatiable conquering hunger?
The film never technically answers this question but it offers several explanations. Alexander's bruised relationship with his father. Alexander's mother complex. Alexander's inherent love for people and Greece. Alexander's wish to unite these two under the banner of his idealism.
Putting forth these explanations, Alexander zooms in on the aging Ptolemy I (Hopkins) who retells the story of Alexander the Great for history students. He often drones in memories; when the story he tells is exciting it regrettably cuts back to Ptolemy; there is too much philosophizing, but it still works. About the philosophy part - this is a negative aspect in Alexander (2004). There is far too much philosophizing and inner monologue in the dialogue to be effective. The film itself is introspective enough, so there is absolutely no need to take that approach in dialogue too.
So much like its character, Alexander (2004) has its ups and downs. The deep necks of Asia and its artistic portrayal being an up and Angelina Jolie's freaky acting and Translyvanian-sounding accent being a down. The pseudo-philosophy being another. Other than this, however, I think this is a masterful film with beautiful portrayals of history and settings. It is patient and careful -- at times falling prey to epic scenarios, giving us a taste of dramatic battles, emotions and landscapes only to jerk it away again and go into delicate mode. It entices the viewer with epic elements, instead of dishing out huge doses of gore galore in battle to keep one's interest Bruckheimer-style. It's refined and assured direction.
And lastly, because it is impossible to get away from this controversy...the gay portrayal issue:
I liked the fact that Oliver Stone shied away from the strongest homosexual elements in Alexander. Why? Because including daring rapports with his lover would have been a cop-out, crammed in to shock audiences and thereby get some free publicity and praise for being outspoken. Stone didn't feel as if he needed to do this, so he focused on other things instead. He still kept the gay elements to stay true to the historical account, but he never bothered to give them much importance. I think that is the best thing he can do, because it shows he does not think homosexuality is an issue -- it is a natural thing. It should be given no more screen time than any other aspect of Alexander's life.
7.5/10