Nice cinematography - problem screenplay

Rating: 6/10 (23 August 2005)

I appreciate the passion in the review of 'gest1969'. I've felt the same way about certain 'problem' movies. Yes, Stone's cinematography was spectacular.. and there's a lot of historical ground to cover. But the script just wasn't right. It's an old problem with movies of all sorts, but, surprisingly, all too common with big budget productions.
There have been documentaries with or without re-creations recently (i.e. the History Channel production 'The True Story of Alexander the Great', and a fantastic British re-telling: 'In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great', both of which I recommend.) So, what went wrong?
Stone's screenplay continually 'regresses' - the flashbacks are too numerous and lengthy. Maybe it was more of an 'editing' problem (the Director's cut DVD had no 'deleted' scenes) than a script issue? When you watch the 'deleted' portions in a typical DVD, you see some not-so-bad scenes that were, nevertheless, chopped, for the sake of pace or continuity. What did Stone cut from this one?
Jolie and Kilmer are big names, but their roles in this flick were of a 'supportive' nature. yet, we continually re-visit them for repetitious information of limited value. Farrell (Alexander) looked confused. It became tedious. I had my hand of the FF button throughout the 2nd half. Anytime after his entry into Babylon, I was ready to pack it in. (well, I stuck around for the battle sequence against elephants.. decided that life as a Greek soldier wouldn't have suited me).
For those who still disagree, try watching the other 'Alexander' productions (there's a ton of 'Alex' movies made in Asia, if you can get your hands on them, and at least one older Hollywood - 1960's?).
Finally, there is 'gory' stuff (well, what do you expect in a battle for the world?) and some needless sexual content... not for kiddies.