Oliver Stone is surprising,as always

Rating: 9/10 (17 January 2005)

I am a very big fan of Oliver Stone. One of the things I like about him is that he always surprises me,no matter how "predictable" he may seem. Here are my comments: 1. I didn't read any comments here on IMDb that said this is not a typical 100% historical movie.I am surprised,because a lot has been said about this movie. Some of Alexander's and Ptolemy's monologues and some ideas that come from this movie have references on very actual issues: East meets West,tolerance to other cultures (mainly Eastern culture).Stone risks a lot here by trying to add this kind of ideas to an already very complex subject.He may have overdone it a bit,but it would be nice to imagine Alexander having Gandhi or Martin Luther King type of ideas.Of course,it is extremely hard to imagine a ruthless military leader preaching racial and cultural tolerance to his battle-hardened generals,but hey, Napoleon is also an example that such peculiar personalities do exist.So, it seems plausible,and historical facts do support this theory about Alexander. 2. About casting: I think Colin Farell was a good choice.A lot have said that he was too today-looking and lacked the greatness of Alexander.But who really knows what Alexander was like? Stone and Farell delivered a perfectly believable character. Kilmer and Jolie were excellent, and also the others were good choices, as far as I am concerned. 3. About the bisexuality theme: no comments here, except that maybe Americans should try to be a little less puritan (it is the 21-st century,grow up!) 4.Screenplay and story were excellent.Very original and very dramatic.The subject was extremely demanding and Stone did a very good job. 5. I think it is a shame that the movie was so criticized. Very underrated movie. 6.Allthough overall Vangelis' music was OK, I do think that he could have done a better job. The battle scenes music (esp.the one at Gaugamela) is a bit too common. 7.The Oscars and the Golden Globes have proved, one more time, that they are sometimes blind. This movie definitely deserved more recognition. The comparison with "Gladiator is mostly incorrect. Ridley Scott is very different from Oliver Stone. Of course, you can make some comparisons (afterall, it is about antiquity, emotions, heroics, love and so on). I thought Gladiator was a great movie, and so is Alexander. But Alexander was about a very known figure and it set itself a higher target. And Gladiator does have a big flaw in the story, which is Commodus in the arena (that was uninspired, Mr. Scott), just like another excellent Scott film, Black Hawk Dawn, with those last dialogs btw soldiers (cheesy!). But that's just the point. Stone, in most of his movies, is unable (I think he does that on purpose) to deliver a final punch. So, for those viewers that want an ending, no matter how absurd, Scott makes it better (but loses its artistic value in the process). So 2 great directors, but different, Stone takes more risks and usually has a very personal agenda. My rating is 9/10, because of 2 minuses: didn't really enjoy Vangelis and those Hopkins monologues were a bit forced. Overall, wonderful.