What a disappointment. What was the point?

Rating: Null/10 (24 November 2004)

I found Stone's Alexander to be a real disappointment. It was just so sadly... mediocre.
Specifics: first, the acting generally rated an average. Jolie and
Kilmer were entertaining compared to the rest of the overacting cast.
Second, the cinematography was inconsistent. Crystal clear, grainy; different exposures of light and color; slow motions and fast editing; all of these were used, but for no apparent purpose to further the story line.
Third, having read the biography of Alexander by the film's historical consultant I was prepared to recognize specific events in Alexander's life. I wasn't prepared for the many events skipped over, the obvious dramatic inserts, and the lack of purpose this story was not building up to.
Fourth, as much as I have liked Vangelis's work in the past, his music in Alexander just didn't do it. It was a wrong fit. Vangelis's music so often, for me, communicates the ethereal and cosmic. Here it added to the overacting, almost campy feel of much of the movie. (Just a note- I heard a riff from the Moroder Metropolis.)
Fifth, the homosexual aspect of Alexander's bisexuality seemed... strangely? half-hearted? portrayed. This is the kind of treatment of a highly politicized topic that rile both extremes.
To summarize, comparisons to cheesy sword and sandal flics of the
past are warranted here. When you get to the middle of the movie and are becoming impatient that the main character hasn't died yet, I think there's a problem.