With apologies to Brad Pitt.

Rating: 1/10 (2 December 2004)

My Summary refers to my rather unkind comments about Mr. Pitt in reference to the Other Greek Epic That Came Out This Year, *Troy*. Not only was *Troy* significantly better than *Alexander*, but Brad Pitt suddenly seems credible as Achilles when compared to Colin Farrell as the Macedonian empire-builder. And in the Old-Codger-From-The-U.K. category, Peter O'Toole at least brought moments of humanity to *Troy* . . . Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy of Egypt (one of Alexander's generals), on the other hand, is stuck with doddering around a bad set with a matte behind it, and otherwise narrating events that might've proved worthy of an actual presentation by the director.
But Oliver Stone is not interested in narrative; he seems to be making some sort of half-baked critique about George W. Bush via historical allegory. He fails. If I want critiques of Bush, I'll turn to Michael Moore. If Oliver Stone really wanted to tell a story about an idealistic idiot who thought he could re-fashion the Orient in his own Hellenized (i.e., Western) image, why not simply offer up Yet Another Documentary About Bush?
This would've at least served a practical purpose. Instead, Stone holds his nose and tries to sneak his allegory in under the lead weight of the Hollywood Blockbuster, an institution that simply will not brook iconoclasts who don't know how to be subtle.
Setting aside the folly of Stone's aims in *Alexander*, the movie itself is poorly made to a really shocking degree (or perhaps NOT so shocking a degree, when one recalls *Natural Born Killers*, *U-Turn*, and other choice bits from Stone's oeuvre). Stone has apparently forgotten how to stage even the simplest scene: the actors are poorly blocked; there's far too much cutting back and forth between close-ups, resulting in spatial confusion (meaning, we get no realistic sense of setting during an individual scene). The narrative arc is out-of-whack: two-thirds of the way through, we suddenly flashback eight years earlier, apropos of nothing. (I've heard arguments defending this particular misstep, but they're unconvincing.) The voice-over narration is, of course, a dead giveaway of storytelling desperation. And the acting! Poor Oliver Stone, forced to deal with the likes of Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie. Because I always feel a little shameful when speaking poorly of actors -- whose trade is a difficult one -- I'll keep my remarks about their efforts focused strictly on their accents. Farrell sounds like a Belfast tough; Jolie sounds like Anna Magnani with a hangover.
Excitable heteros, *Matrix*-nerds, and other assorted teenage males seeking action in *Alexander* will be positively freaked out by all the chit-chat and Big Speeches, to say nothing of the overt bisexual swing to the movie. (Where's dour, safely sexless Russell Crowe when you need him?) But even the latter element, which presumably should've stoked this "controversial" director's interest, is hilariously G-rated. I would be amused to hear a gay reviewer's opinion of all the scenes involving Colin Farrell and Jared Leto (as Alexander's lover Hephaestion) hugging each other and staring dreamily into each other's eyes while they talk about Democracy, Freedom, and whatnot. This movie will furnish capital for gay satire for years to come, I suspect. Alexander the Fabulous! And his Boyfriend! Stone wasn't exactly Keeping it Real, here.
Those seeking intelligence, rather than the typical pumped-up action of a Hollywood historical epic, will also be disappointed. All the Big Speeches I referred to earlier aren't really about anything. Stone confuses volume with content: most of the dialog involves Angelina Jolie taunting her son into becoming king. ("Yes, Mother," replies Norman Bates.) And once he IS King, she sends him taunting letters filled with Jewish-Mother advice. The Oedipal stuff is routine and not in the least disturbing, though perhaps this is because Ms. Jolie is only about one year older than Mr. Farrell in real life. As for Alexander's military campaigns, Stone is interested only in the Iraq (i.e., Babylon) portions of them -- that way, you see, he can make his stupid political point. And I suspect that the India campaign is in here only because Bollywood is trendy at the moment.
I've gone on long enough about this crap. 1 star of 10, obviously. Only God knows what Baz Luhrmann has in store for us with HIS treatment of Alexander the Great: *Alexander: Dance! Dance! Dance!*, or something.