WHY!? Bad script, award-worthy performance, breathtaking scenery.

Rating: Null/10 (11 December 2004)

I agree with many people in saying that the script for Alexander was terrible compared to the performances given by actors, effects, extras, etc.
Why were there SO MANY scenes focused on Alexander's borderline homosexual interactions with his men? If there weren't exchanges of lustful looks between he and a few pretty-faced, pretty-haired men, there was a man-whore fireside dance, with two guys entangled, all greasy-looking. Even the native Nepalese (Himalayan) were disgusted, and did a good job of acting thoroughly grossed out when Alexander french-kissed that dancer.
It seemed like Oliver Stone (et al) was trying to use this blockbuster film as a vessel for another controversial film where an historical figure is portrayed as homosexual. Such a Hollywood stunt sickens me.
Maybe it was just me and everyone else in the theatre I attended, but the snickering, and whispering turned into people saying "aw, gross!" out loud.
Besides that, the film was epic. It was the ONLY very long movie (more than 2 1/2 hrs) I have EVER sat through WITHOUT looking at my watch, or wondering, "man, how long IS this?" In fact, this movie had me glued to the edge of my seat. The battle scenes rivaled those from such movies as Braveheart, Lord of The Rings, Gladiator and others. The scenery was immense and thick with lushness or flat desert or endless snowy mountains.
Colin was simply Great. I noticed that the story and script failed to point out a few important parts of Alexander's life, most importantly, his epilepsy. That Irishman, Colin, did Oscar-worthy performances in each scene.
The scenes with Rosario Dawson were intense, as were those with Jolie. Just the way movie conflicts should be.
I give it an 8 out of 10.