A Bold and Authentic Alexander: the Cut

Rating: 9/10 (2 February 2007)

I first saw this film in theaters on opening day and I thought I wasted three hours of my life. But when Oliver Stone claimed that there would release a Director's cut version of Alexander, I was willing to give it another try. And I have to say it, I actual enjoyed it. It is hard to depict such a man as Alexander. This film, did the near impossible. In my opinion, it does not really have one specific genre, but multiple ones. I mean, the film had multiple story lines from Alexander's personal thoughts, his family, the journey, and his friends of warriors around him. I am totally impressed that Stone has squeezed this all in within three hours and forty minutes.
So, the film is done in past tense with Old Ptolemy, forty years after Alexander's death, telling the tale of him to a scribe, for historical purposes. So, the narration of Old Ptolemy played by the wonderful Anthony Hopkins, begins it with important, but non interfering information.
The film reveals (as the original) his two parents. His mother, Olympias brutally ambitious and rather paranoid, played by Jolie, (whom still could have had some make up to make her look older), and his father Philip, who was a one-eyed, drunk, and did not give into affection easily, played by the famous Val Kilmer. Both of these two cast members in my opinion were wisely chosen and helped the film greatly, making it believable.
The film jumps around from the young Alexander learning the cruelty of the myths and the wisdom of Aristotle, played by the ancient Chris Plummer, the adolescent who faces the trouble of not having the crown as king with his father, and the adult Alexander, played by Colin Farrel, who starts off already years into his campaign to rule the world meeting King Darius of Persia at the Battle of Gaugamela, one of the best battles I have ever seen! The film follows Alexander with all of these events, leading him from Perisa, to Bactria and India, marrying Roxanne (Rosario Dawson) and his relationships with his friends and comrades, especially his lover Hephestian (Jareed Leto) whom loses faith and question his purpose of his journey.
With this, I have to mention though there are frequent flashbacks that show his adolescence occurring during his adulthood. Many people criticze this for making the film choppy, out of order, and off topic and even confusing, but I find each flashback exactly timely and not confusing at all; for they usually occur after a serious event that has happened in his adulthood, bringing forth Alexander's past memories as an adolescent (which has been neatly placed together in the director's cut). Even more so, these flashbacks hold some powerful scenes that expresses the true natures of his parents, particularly the manipulation and deceit that Angelina Jolie played very well.
With this at hand, Stone reveals a more in-depth and psychological version of Alexander, who lives as the naive young boy who "puruse his dream heading east" and bases his glory off of the Greek myths, which were well incorporated into the film, expressing the "suffering and eternal glory".
A studier of Greek mythology myself, I found this to be fascinating of how well it aided in the ambivalence that Alexander felt. Unfortunately though, not everyone understands the morals and importance of myths and tragedies, especially Greek. Bottom line, I have to break some hearts, this is not a "popcorn loving" film like King Arthur or Troy, but more of a thought-provoking film (as was the original cut). And I also have to add that the homosexuality remains. This easily was another criticism upon the film, but I have to say that I found it rather touching and more emotional than before, (since Alexander had a male companion), it felt more realistic for the film, no let down there.
Everything in this new version held its true beauty, especially with the pretty and enhanced music of Vangelis, the colorful cinematography, (especially the India battle of turning red, revealing death and bloodshed), the costumes and settings were grand, and the acting was more believable (Colin Farrel still gave gave an actual adequate performance). And the few battles in the film were absolutely outstanding and longer. They are in the league of violence as Gladiator and more strategically based, rather than a bunch of men charging into their deaths as in Braveheart or Sparacus. because of the strategy and "choppyness" as the negative critics call it, makes them more exciting and intense than any battles I have seen since The Lord of the Rings films.
However, I wish the film expressed more with his journey, such as the Greek Nations and Egypt, but it is hard to do for such a grand epic in a specific amount of time, and the time of the film itself drags in places, making the film slow. Otherwise, i was deeply satisfied.
****1/2 out of ***** Thumbs up Stone! It disappoints me of how people can't just appreciate such a film.