a good addition to the growing list of historical epics

Rating: 7/10 (9 August 2005)

I followed the story of Alexander from production to completion. During filming, the general feeling was that it was going to be average at best. Despite the legendary director, strong cast and huge budget, cynics claimed Aleaxander would flop
Alexander flopped in America, and Britain. It did however make a slight profit on its 150million dollar budget worldwide, so it can be said that all was not lost. Except some of the respect people had for Oliver Stone.
I recently bought the Directors Cut of Alexander. I'd read the scathing reviews, and seen its disappointing grosses. I have to admit I've never seen any other Oliver Stone movie, so my judgement of this film might be at pains to other people who've seen his past films. I have to say i enjoyed this movie, despite the big flaws.
I'm a fan of Farrell, Jolie and Kilmer. Any criticisms of their performances is unfair. Farrell, playing the King who conquered the planet, does what he can with the material available. Remember Alexander lived years ago, so it can never be completely defined what made him charge across the globe. Farrell displays all of the necessary emotions and character nuances to help us decide why Alexander did what he did. Alexander is presented as a king who sometimes begged his troops in desperation to fight for him, as a strong willed leader who took an army of 40,000 to victory against an army of 250,000, and as a cultured man who tried and failed to unite different nationalities and cultures together. Remember that this film covers his ENTIRE LIFE, so his reasons and beliefs might have changed as the years passed.
Questions were asked as to why Alexander begged his troops to fight in India. Well, would you want to fight another battle after doing so for eight years? Alexander knew his men were tired and scared so he begged. His willingness to lower himself from King to the equal of these men took a lot of courage. People ask armies fought and died for a man who weeped and begged them to. The answer is so blindingly obvious its surprising nobody has brought it up before. HE WAS KING! He was their ruler, so they had to fight for him regardless of whether he inspired them. If they didn't fight, they were executed (like the doctor at the end of the film).
Jolie is bizarre draped in snakes and speaking in a weird accent. Why? Remember, they were nuts in those days, so a woman like her was nothing new. What's clear from history and legends is that the ancient times were FULL of strange characters like Olympius. What about Hercules, the man who could pick up a house? Achilles, the man who killed hundreds whilst never getting injured (at least according to Troy). Why couldn't a woman be covered in snakes? As Olympius, Jolie has fun being as weird and wonderful as like in real life.
Val Kilmer is great as the drunken lout of a King who was(or wasn't in Olympius's eyes) the father of Alexander. People criticise him saying he was one dimensional. Well, how many dimensions does an alcoholic have? He was fine as Phillip, playing him well. The scene in which he banishes Alexander from his court is extremely well played by Kilmer (and Farrell).
The battle scenes are the most visceral and astounding ever put to film. The first, at guagmela, is the best I've ever seen beating anything in Troy because it just seems more real. Whereas the two armies stood battering each other without any skill or tactics in Troy, the essence of Guagmela is the skill of Alexander while leading his incredibly outnumbered army to victory. The blood flows, unlike in Troy and the abysmal KIng Arthur, and the furious devastating blows exchanged give this battle something that these other epics lacked. Guagmela is hard to follow at first, but when watched again, it's clear how the battle unfolds. Alexander charges his cavalry down the right flank, waiting for King Darius to advance the front of his army towards the Macedonion phalanxes. Alexander, with the order "LEFT TURN!" charges into the 'bridge' (gap between the Persian front and back lines) assaulting the troops directly in front of Darius himself. A spectacular engagement just like the battle in India which features stampeding elephants and even more carnage. It also features the glorious sequence in which the injured Alexander is carried away from his final victory, with Vangelis magnificent score playing in the background.
Flaws- the battles can be confusing. Anthony Hopkins is annoying as Ptolmey. Jared Leto is wasted as Hepthastion. His homosexual scenes with Alexander are underplayed. Leto wears eyeliner. Rosario Dawson is wasted, although her sex scene with Alexander is surprisingly graphic. And yes, some of the dialogue is literally written monologue. It needed another battle in the middle of the film, instead of one at the beginning and end.
But the score from Vangelis, astounding battle scenes, superb individual sequences such as Alexander taming his horse, being carried off the battlefield in India, and superb end credits mean that this is a missed opportunity yes, but not the complete failure it has been called.
One more thing. The bisexuality of Alexander is dealt with maturely, but repeatedly. Why the problem with this? Homosexuality isn't outlawed. Its not like Farrell has sex with Leto. If you're going to make a film based on someones life, make sure you don't lose too many details. Alexander and Hepthiastion are soulmates and in the directors cut at least, this is shown. Nothing graphic, just love they could never reveal to the world.
There is more to say about Alexander but I've said enough. The directors cut is enjoyable, don't be put off by bad reviews and negative press. this is a good film!