Excellent, like an undervalued stock.

Rating: 10/10 (29 November 2004)

So, I have been warned to expect some sort of "subtle homoerotic (however way homoeroticism can be perceived as 'subtle') scenes" even before I crossed the newly polished cinema threshold. See, I read the papers and I know history, unlike explosive characters out there who bloody expected Alexander to be straight. Simply, I had an idea what was going to be shown before me.
I entered that frosty theatre, bound to be coated in hard icicles since I forgot my sweater, intrigued by the well-known story of the film, driven by being a Farrell Fanatic, and anxious to see how Oliver Stone made this movie - liking his previous works. And I sat down.
Dear God.
What I think brought distraught to many, is the fact that Alexander's sexuality was played out in the open field. Silly, the bloody people of this earth. They were too held up in the controversy.
Someone even mentioned that the movie made him/her see that men are better lovers and women are just for legal purposes - DUDE, that was 2,500 years ago. MAYBE, just MAYBE, those were the ways of their royalties.
PLEASE, people, find it in you to consider the time gap. 323 B.C., OK?
And funnier is the outrage that seemed to overflow within individuals concerning legalizing gay marriages of today. Seriously. Alexander lived way before Christ was conceived. Alexander liked women and men, not too much of a tumultuous reality in their times, now was it?
In short, for the 'sex scandals', SO WHAT?!
Really, the movie, as I realized it, was meant to portray the determination Alexander had in him to reach the end of the world. He wanted something and he went all those miles, literally, to go and get it. That's what Oliver Stone wanted to get thru. Though he seemed to have failed congregating the audience to follow his focus having put in the same picture Alexander's sexual preferences - or people are just plain stupid.
But then again, I don't think it was too much of an issue, this sexuality of his. Again, so what? Open your minds, his sexual escapades were not the only reasons this movie was rendered hence it must not be the only thing you're allowed to notice (and bash).
Oh yeah, the acting. To be fair, and as a learning actress myself, the acting was over done but fine enough. The actors had been able to convey their emotions and I'm sure, I felt the love and fear during the war scenes. Colin Farrell and Jared Leto proved themselves, as Angelina Jolie made herself into a whole of perfection.
And the different accents. Yes, that was off-putting, but the acting made up for it - ADMIT IT, you conservative, over-underestimating, biased flock of human degradation.
Behind the scandals, this film is actually laudable. It's a flow of the significance of why and how Alexander was able to almost conquer the world. And I think, in the bottom of everything, that was what should have been made to matter. And somehow, Stone was able to make us understand but in such a way that confounded the other masses.