Good effort, but misses the mark, Rent the Richard Burton version.

Rating: Null/10 (27 May 2006)

The story of Alexander is a tough one to tackle. There is much that is known about Alexander's campaign's and the Generals who fought alongside him. But Alexander himself remains an enigma in many ways and Mr. Stone does little to help us. Why after all does Alexander spend so many years dragging his armies across to the far lands of India and Asia, when he has already conquered the long-time enemy of Greece, the Perisan empire? There had to be something more than conquest. Alexander was the pupil of Aristotle. This is no small point. Aristotle is a man who influenced thought for over two thousand years and still does today. Can we imagine that his pupil Alexander was not influenced by such a man to do something more than be a conquerer? It is true that there was a great deal of (for the time) scientific research done. Species of animals and plants were sent back to Aristotle's school for study and many of the conquered lands had schools of philosophy established that lasted for many hundreds of years. Alexander and Aristotle spent much time corresponding to one another while Alexander was away campaigning. There were recorded discussions that including a great deal about learning as well as religious and mysterious rites. Perhaps something could have been made out of this?
It is hard to sustain the story because we really don't get a sense in the film about why Alexander needs to continue. Glory is not enough of a reason. In a similar vein this is also such in the recent film version of Troy. Achilles' desire for glory and a short life seems silly and superficial in context of the actual size and heroics of the actual characters of Homer's tale. So it is with Alexander and after a while our interest is lost.
Many of the special effects, especially in the eagle-eye shots in the battle against the Persians are imaginative and inspired. The Persian palace and gardens seem like they are from a world of long ago and retain a mystery that is compelling.
Anthony Hopkins turns in his usually good performance as old Ptolomy. Val Kilmer does a good turn as Philip in spite of some heavy scene-chewing. Angelina Joli is way out of her depth in the role of Alexander's powerful mother. She seems to be doing a bad Bela Lugosi impression most of the time. Christopher Plummer is wasted as Aristotle. In this film he is treated as a run-of-the-mill tutor of a royal pupil.
Colin Ferrel seems lost in a role that is also not written very well. This is a part that requires an actor of size and also one well-versed in portraying classical roles. For example, there is an early 1950's version of the life of Alexander with a young Richard Burton as the golden-haired conquerer. The plot is similar and the special effects are of course nothing compared to today, but the film is far better in large part due to Mr. Burton's charismatic portrayal. The storyline in this film suggests Alexander almost as a precursor of the Christian era to come and works far better than Stone's version.
Stone should have spent more time working out the story and gotten an Alexander that could really carry a film of this size. (But who?)