Typical Good and Bad.

Rating: Null/10 (4 December 2004)

First off, I just have to say, I am still undecided whether I really liked this movie or not, so making judgments from this review would be futile...anyhoo.
This was Oliver Stone's 21st work as a director and 22nd as a writer. Some parallels can be made to his previous work, in particular, Scarface. Tony Montana was not unlike Alexander. Both came from rough backgrounds, and both grew to hold dominating, yet dangerous power. But that is another discussion. As for Alexander...
I enjoyed the movie, overall, but it is not a flick I would take my friends out to for a good guy movie....The battle scenes were few and far apart, and Angelina Jolie kept her clothes on. Oh yeah, and that whole homosexuality thing...but we'll get to that later.
I would probably want to take a female to see this movie (Colin Farrel and Jared Leto stole the show). A female that enjoyed movies for their character development and artistry. The film oozed of the former, and had an adequate, but improvable dosage of the latter. There is probably a 50/50 chance I'd see this movie again....here is a breakdown:
It's Strengths: The best (and most numerous) scenes consisted of a two person dialogue, usually involving Alexander. These dialogues were well done and brought a lot of depth to the characters involved. I thought Colin Farrel was fantastic and that he really gave this movie a monkey's chance on a water slide to be any good at all. All eyes were on him and he really performed. As Alexander, he was inspiring and captivating, but not too much so that he seemed super human. Despite supposedly being the son of Zeus, he was still all too human. Flawed, emotional and mortal. As you mythology nerds may know, this is a reoccurring theme in Greek legend.
Another thing, there were a couple good motifs and camera techniques. One was the eagle. The eagle symbolized Alexander's soaring dreams of flying eastward and uniting the people under Greece. During a battle scene, the camera view was from high up above, as if we were the eagle. It then swooped down, getting right in with the action. I thought that was well done, but I think the eagle was a little over-used in the film. Another great shot *spoiler* was when Alexander was facing off with the elephant, the spear going through him, and then the view of him looking up at the sky and blood filtering through the field of vision. This was analogous to the opening of james bond movies and the scene in Hero. You may or may not know what I'm talking about, but anyways, like the eagle, I thought it was well done, but over-used. They continued the battle scene using the red filter. I thought this was good because it showed that, at that moment, everyone else had the same view and vision as Alexander, and would fight to the death to avenge him, but none-the-less, I would have liked it better if they kept the filter exclusive to that one shot of Alexander looking up at the sky and not over-use it. This theme of "over-using" segues nicely into..
It's Weaknesses: A series of scenes that, in my opinion, were over-used and only added unnecessary length to the movie, were, what I call, the "round-table" scenes. After every area Alexander and his men conquered, they would sit around, drink, and talk about the present situation and what they should do next. Some may argue that this reoccuring scene type showed a great progression of the characters from ambitious, to weary and nostalgic. In case you are confused what i mean by "reoccuring scenes to show a progression in a character" a great analogy is in The Shawshank Redemption and the reoccuring event of Red in the parole room. If you are still confused, we can talk later. ANYWAYS, i thought there were enough reoccuring scenes (like the one-on-one dialogues) which provided the character progression aspect I think Stone was going for.
Speaking of beating to death a certain aspect of the film, I have to admit, the homosexuality undertones were laid on a bit too thick. It was slightly distracting and had me thinking, "What exactly does this mean?" I thought for a second, maybe Ollie was trying to make some kinda statement against the Bush administration and their policy with same-sex marriage.
Another weakness, is that I thought the score could have been better. I also would have liked to see more Anthony Hopkins, though his role was unique. He played a feeble, and seemingly unimportant man, narrating the story. But it turns out, in his younger days, he was right there next to Alexander.
overall i give it around a 6/10, but like i said, i'm still pretty undecided..