So many inaccuracies, so little time

Rating: 1/10 (27 November 2004)

1. The blond hair. Portraying Hellenic peoples with blond hair was an invention of northern Europeans who wanted to find a way to associate themselves with the greatness that was ancient Greece. Hellenes were and are a Mediterranean people. As science classes have taught us, the skin and hair color of people around the world was determined by the land and climate in which people evolved. If we are to believe what we have been taught, sun and a dry climate mean dark skin and hair.
2. The homosexuality issue. I think the greatest amount of confusion regarding this issue arises due to the lack of proper translation of Ancient Greek texts. The mistakes in translation result in the misunderstanding of the semantic differences between such concepts as "agape" & "philia". What modern scholars have translated as "love" does not necessarily connote "sexual desire" as many today conclude.
3. The phalanx is portrayed all wrong. Starting with the front row of the phalanx, which held its spears parallel to the ground, each of the following rows held their spears at an increasing angle from the ground -- not straight up as they are portrayed in the movie.
4. Alexander did not sustain the wound that caused him to want to return home in the battle portrayed in the movie. The battle portrayed in the movie in which Alexander came face-to-face with the Indian Rajah on the elephant was won by Alexander. Historians write that Alexander had a similar conversation with this rajah as he had with the Persian princess Stateira, as portrayed in the movie. Asked how he would want to be treated, the rajah replied, "as a king."
Anyway, this movie was hardly the historical epic I expected it to be. It seemed more like left-wing Hollywood propaganda than anything else. I guess I was most disappointed by the fact that a man with the skill, fortitude, and ability to conquer the known world between the ages of 25 and 32 was portrayed as a whiner who, although educated by the greatest teacher known at that time, found himself questioning his beliefs and desires too often.
Instead of focusing on sexual innuendo, the film could have and should have focused on such issues as the reason for Alexander's desire to defeat the Persians, his countless battles, the good that he did (educating the people he defeated) along with the bad (sieges resulting in the massacre of thousands). Instead of showing inane conversations with Hephaestion, Alexander could have been shown visiting the oracle at Siwa where his ego became inflated upon being told that he was the son of Zeus/Ammon. The Battle of Issus and the Siege of Tyre would have made for fantastic cinema. Instead we were left with Ptolemy narrating such events, only so Olly Stone could focus, once again, on giving us a watered-down version of history.
The evolution of Alexander as a person was nowhere near being completely explored, and that fact is this movie's undoing.