An epic failure

Rating: 3/10 (9 January 2005)

Co-written and directed by: Oliver Stone
Starring: Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, Jared Leto, Rosario Dawson, Anthony Hopkins
Look, it's January, and it's time for the big studios to churn out their Oscar-baiting epics! What a great comeback it would be for Oliver Stone if Alexander, his take on the famous Macedonian conqueror, succeeded. Well, guess what. It doesn't. Worse than that, it's the worst film I've seen in a long time.
Deja vu. Those were among the first words that entered my head when I began to formulate my opinion of this film. Of course, it might just be historically inaccurate, but what do audiences care? Don't we simply go to epics to enjoy an impressive diversion, rather than to learn about history? The problem with Alexander is that it fails as even that. It may have fine costumes, great make-up, sumptuous sets, heroic speeches and some gigantic battles, but those have all been prepared better in the likes of The Lord Of The Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator and even The Last Samurai. Considering the potential that this story has, we really shouldn't settle for what comes our way here.
OK, let me bring you up to speed. Alexander attempts to chart certain aspects of the life and times of Alexander the Great (played as an adult by Colin Farrell) during its three-hour length. The film primarily focuses on his relationships with his parents (Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer) closest friend (Jared Leto) and first wife, Roxane (Rosario Dawson).
It also attempts to focus on his conquests and tries to show us what persuaded him to have such a constant drive for success, but it is ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. The most obvious reason for this is that large parts of the film are just boring - there is no life or meaning in the massive lines of expository dialogue that are thrown at us.
Stone is apparently renowned for his gigantic ego, and, sure enough, the film is overlong and narcissistic. In fairness to Stone, the film will alert people to an interesting historical moment, and he never really spares us from the horrors of war in his bloody battles. Yet how is the latter an advantage if the battles are tedious and incoherent? The Lord Of The Rings' battles might have been labelled as sanitised by some naysayers, but at least they were gripping.
I should also mention that Alexander (the character, that is) harbours potentially homoerotic tendencies. If you really want to see this film, then you may find yourself wondering afterwards why he really married Roxane and two other wives. That question is never fully answered, and putting such an issue aside reduces poor Rosario Dawson to the status of plot device. She isn't the only one - talented actors like Brian Blessed and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers are mere window dressing, and Anthony Hopkins is asked to do little more than tell the story in voice-over. (What a cliché.) Thus Stone has left the film in the hands of Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie, with Val Kilmer doing his best. What a terrible mistake. Farrell may have a knack for convincing in supporting roles (see Minority Report and Intermission) but if Alexander's anything to go by, he cannot carry a big Hollywood movie. Maybe it's the script, but not for one second did I believe his Alexander was a great leader. Still, at least he doesn't embarrass himself as much as Angelina Jolie. (What accent was she using again? Come to think of it, what accent were the actors supposed to use in general?) At least the likes of Blade: Trinity don't demand three hours of your time. I don't know about you, but Alexander has very nearly done enough to keep me from seeing another Oliver Stone film for life.
Rating: * (out of *****)