Alexander... hmmm...

Rating: 5/10 (3 June 2006)

I found this movie to be better than Troy. The latter took the traditional approach, burley men fighting for country, love, pride, and greed. Troy has a lot of eye candy and some great battle scenes. But, there really is no true character development nor any reason to connect to the characters.
Alexander, on the other hand, is an entire cinematic presentation that delves into the development and drama of the characters. It evokes the melodrama of the troubled soul that is presented in modern interpretations of Greek tragedies. Just as Shakespeare used words, Oliver Stone uses cinematography and other cinematic licenses to draw the viewer into the turmoil of the protagonist's mind.
For the most part, Stone's movies annoy me. It's not that they are not done well, it's just I don't need symbolisms, metaphors, or the purpose of the flick to be drilled into my head. However, like he does with most of his movies, he seeks out facts to cover carefully. He approaches the acts of sex as it was, not as something that people spent hours pondering and questioning if men sharing beds with other men was a dilemma of morality. He gives a rather accurate portrayal of Babylon. He also presents the battle scene of the armored elephants, a topic that has been sketchy in most representations, either cinematically or literary. But with his accurate presentations, he leaves out Alexander's essential conquering of the Persians. This pursuit is what drove Alexander east of Babylon.
So, is Alexander a great movie? Not really, but nor is it a bad movie. It is mostly eye candy that makes you think. You think "did Stone really have to slap us face and say "look, look, symbolism, everything is RED"? Did Alexander really have to have blonde hair and make you ponder images of the foppish Caligula? Did Jolie, have to use that funky accent? Finally, it makes you go to the history books to relearn what you think know about Alexander the Great.