Given the director and the subject together, this is a good film

Rating: Null/10 (13 December 2004)

A bunch of us went despite the general run of the reviews 2 weeks ago. We knew the history of Alexander fairly well, knew that Oliver Stone is a good director, were patient and curious, and were not expecting either a Masterpiece of Modern Cinema or an Action Blockbuster. I wanted to see how Stone handled his huge, sprawling subject and was prepared to enjoy a realization and treatment of the story. The film was not disappointing.
Risks Stone took:
1) Filming the thing at length. This is no action film with one or even six exploding climaxes. Fitting all of Alexander's character, all those events, and the extent of A's conquests into a single film is !#@# near impossible. The history itself has no easy, dramatic climax; to create one, Stone would have had to fake it. The choices he made were, for Hollywood, respectful of his material --for example the conspiracies compressed into one, the details he omitted (Aristotle's nephew, the Helmet in the Desert scene, e.g.), the two battles he did cover -- Gaugamela was impressive.
2) Presenting Alexander's bisexuality.
3) Choosing to portray a human Alexander, *and* the myth/effect of what he was, but without creating a superhumanly palpable will and superhumanly palpable charisma in his actor. The latter could have been attempted by means of cinematic smoke and mirrors, perhaps? Farrell's acting job was great, but the role contained its own dissonance, the difficulty of combining mythic-level greatness with an observable human psyche, and this in the shadow of the Greatness Myth narrative itself. I think this explains and supports what another viewer noted about Farrell's performance not being as compellingly heroic as others.
Yeah, Olympias is a four-note character, but most of my girlfriend dynastic queens who survive in violent court politics are, too.
All the jumbles and excursions and ups and downs in the film are in the histories. Alexander's fault, not Stone's. Suggestions: Arrian's Anabasis for the history; Plutarch's Life of Alexander for more history, moralizing, and stray gossip; Stone for an ambitious treatment that brings the story to the screen.