Unremarkable potential...added comments about directors cut

Rating: 6/10 (9 December 2004)

I will begin by saying that I have been a fan of Alexander the Great since my early teens. For the better part of a decade he has been my ancient history hero. I have read many books, seen every documentary and I had an incredible teacher walk me step by step through his incredible life. So knowing that I entered into "Alexander." The film is the story of the Great Macedonian Conqueror and leader Alexander. Son of King Phillip and rumored to be the son of a God. The film walks us through early stories of his childhood, his friends, and the major events that turned him into a man. Early scenes focus on his father played quite well, and remarkably unrecognizable by Val Kilmer. The film than jumps to Alexander's later years although he only lived to be 33. We see his first amazing battle against Darius, King of The Persians which in essence was his first and greatest victory opening gateways to the Eastern world and eventually his entire takeover of the known world. Throughout the movie we see major events that shaped him, changed him, hurt him, and made him stronger and eventually leading to his untimely death. Every character you would expect to be in the film is there, his mother Olympias, he closest dearest friend Hephastian, Ptolemy, Darius, Aristotle.
The film really had so much to live up to in my expectations which makes it a difficult movie for me to watch. This film was one of my most anticipated of all times. However I do not believe I am being harsh on it because of that. I truly believe there were horrible mistakes made. However I also disagree on many fronts with the issues had by many other people watching this film. I do believe Colin Farrell had his best role in Alexander. His dialect was dry, and speeches unappealing but I don't chock that up to him whatsoever. His performance as Alexander was moving and dead on and I have never seen him in a more passionate role. I did buy Angelina Jolie as his mother because Olympias was rumored to be a conniving, evil woman who toyed with Alexander's emotions and was a twisted, young woman. Jolie plays twisted quite well. Kilmer was excellent as the overbearing, abusive, King.
The cast was not the issue. The script played a heavy part on this film and the script and direction quite honestly sucked!! It hurts me to say that being Oliver Stone has delivered some of the most passionate and honest, politically incorrect films (that's a good thing) we've ever seen. JFK, NIXON, Platoon etc. Alexander had Stone's style, he held no punches and he battles the Homosexuality rumors head on, and in his perfect style leaves Alexander's death a complete mystery with a line of suspects and ways that he could have died...broken heart, assassination, disease. One of the biggest misfortunes of this film was the battles...oh I mean BATTLE..single....perhaps one and a half. You cannot do a grand Epic least of all about Alexander and not have each of his amazing battles and how he won them. Instead Stone recreated brilliantly mind you with all the goriness his one great battle. The rest of the film dragged and left certain aspects to the imagination. It's a disappointing film and Stone is unfortunately to blame for poor writing, and poor directing. The film does capture the essence of the Greek culture of the time and perhaps does capture the emotion of Alexander without ever showing his accomplishments. I understand why this film is bombing and I don't recommend it to anyone who isn't just a big history fan. 5/10
**************New comments after seeing Alexander: Directors Cut***** I don't know if it was the additions and changes that director Oliver Stone hesitantly made to the DVD release of Alexander but it felt to be different in my second viewing. I still stand by the fact that the film has awesome potential that was left untapped. It's very true that some of the acting in the film was severely over-acted, campy even which for a big budget (HUGE) Historical Epic is rather out of place but I think everyone did what they could. I do think another actor could have grabbed onto the role of the young King Alexander better than Farrell did. I don't know if he has the acting ability to pull of this role but he does try damn hard!!! Unfortunately it does come off as a bit campy at times. I still stand by the fact that Val Kilmer's portrayal as King Phillip is brilliant!!! Razzies aside (I hate those awards!!) I give Alexander (directors cut at least) a bump in ratings because it's still very slow paced and the action is few and far between but I think it will become a classic and history buffs will enjoy it. I would just like to have seen a better time line, I don't think it was necessary to have flashbacks and it would have made the film fit together if everything was in chronological order. More battles were an absolute must. The two battles in the film were so brilliantly done than even one more in the middle would have been welcomed. This was the greatest general in history!! And I think Stone's attempt at being controversial was overused in the constant reference to Alexander's sexuality. It was good that he brought it up, but it was overused intensely!! I think in the directors cut too that they made it seem more suspicious that Alexander's death was the work of his own men and I thought the ending was better originally. Check it out for yourself!! It's not as bad as one might think. 6.5/10