And you thought Hollywood quit making epic clunkers

Rating: 1/10 (27 November 2004)

Oliver Stone finally did it. He made a boring movie.
Any screen writing book will tell you the first basic rule of writing a good script is show, don't tell. But Stone decided the best way to tell Alexander the Great's life was tell, don't show.
No matter want you thought of Stone as a filmmaker and storyteller, his movies never were dull. Even his lesser works, "U-Turn" (1997) and "Any Given Sunday" (1999) had energy. Not "Alexander." Clumsy, overblown and leaden, this three-hour exercise in banal, mind-numbing exposition should have been an exciting and intriguing epic adventure about one of history's most fascinating and enigmatic figures. Instead, it's a tedious, laborious soap opera.
Stone reduces Alexander's exploits to Ptolemy's (Anthony Hopkins) narrations and shows us just two battles - at Guagamela and India. We hear of Alexander's other advances, but see none. The two battles aren't spectacular. They're so disorganized and confusing that Stone relies on Ptolemy to tell us what happened after one battle. When we get to the film's big moment - Alexander facing up to a warring elephant in India - it has no impact because we've lost interest in this clunker. We're then treated to what seems like an acid flashback.
"The film takes a bold, honest look at Alexander's life," its Web site boasts. Poppycock. Stone wants to emphasize Alexander's bisexuality, yet doesn't have the guts to give us an honest depiction. The love affair between Alexander (Colin Farrell) loves his commander and childhood friend, Hephaestion (Jared Leto), is limited to laughable glances, an occasional shoulder rub. Give me a break! Not once do these lovers even consider a peck on the cheek. They do hug a lot, though. That's about as bold as Stone gets.
Vangelis' overbearing score gives the film more dramatic weight than it deserves. From its opening - a "Rosebud"-like moment - "Alexander" plods along, never once finding the right mood or tone. The story whizzes all over the place, jumping from one scene to another without clarity or purpose. There's no passion or pathos anywhere. Instead of being touching, a scene where Philip of Macedonia (Val Kilmer) teaches a young Alexander about Greek legends - Oedipus, Achilles, Prometheus - drags on because neither actor can summon any enthusiasm.
Colin Farrell does not make a convincing Alexander. He's more Alexander the Adorable than Alexander the Great. He whines and mopes rather than inspires and threatens. Though, Alexander never seems to have a bad hair day.
Farrell makes no attempt to hide his Irish brogue and, with an international cast, the smörgåsbord of accents quickly turns absurd. At one point, when Alexander argues with one of his commanders, one actor sounds Irish, the other like Sean Connery. It's priceless.
Farrell's woefully miscast. His Alexander lacks passion. There's no madness to his method. Farrell's limited acting range becomes clearly evident in a scene when Alexander rallies his troops before a battle. Stone means to draw comparisons to Shakespearean Prince Hal's famous battle cry. But watch Farrell fall flat and then go watch Kenneth Branagh's mesmerizing Crispin's Day speech in "Henry V" (1989), and you'll realize Farrell's limitations as an actor.
Leto proves yet again what a wooden performer he is. Though, the poor chap's given little to do other than to make goo-goo eyes at Alexander. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers barely registers as Cassander, and Kilmer staggers about as if he's still playing Jim Morrison.
With various accents pummeling the screen, it's surprising Angelina Jolie decided Alexander's mother, Olympias, should have some weird, mock Transylvanian accent. It makes it impossible to take anything she says seriously. Never mind Jolie's just a year younger than Farrell, she never ages even though Alexander, at one point, ages from 4 to 19.
Just when you thought you couldn't hear a more ridiculous accent, along comes Rosario Dawson as Roxanne, Alexander's Bactrian wife. The first time we hear Roxanne speak, she stumbles on to a "tender" moment between Alexander and Hephaestion - they're about to hug, again - glares at Alexander and asks, "You luvf heem?" These women's accents make Kate Beckinsale's preposterous Eastern European tone in "Van Helsing" seem genuine.
If a silly accent wasn't embarrassing enough, poor Dawson then engages in a love scene where Alexander actually growls. At least, she looks magnificent in the nude. Too bad there wasn't more of that and less of everything else.
Of course, no Oliver Stone film would be complete without conspiracy theories and allusions to contemporary politics. Alexander conquers Persia, part of which is now modern Iraq, because, he says, people want change and to live free. There's also mention - because showing us would make sense - of a guerrilla war the Persians waged after Alexander took Babylon.
The film's packed with so many pointless scenes you wonder if Stone left anything on the cutting room floor. There's an unbearably long, terribly written shouting match between Alexander and Cleitus, needless cuts back to an older Ptolemy and a superfluous moment involving Aristotle (Christopher Plummer).
A prime example of Hollywood excess, this dud cost $150 million. Just think of how many wonderful, worthy smaller-budget films could have been made, instead. And don't tell me there aren't countless terrific scripts floating around Hollywood not being read because the writers don't have the right connections.
Greeks shouldn't be upset that Stone depicted Alexander as bisexual. They should be outraged he turned Alexander into a gargantuan bore.