Visually great, but full of presumption, bad acting and with a script too short for its lengh.

Rating: 4/10 (16 September 2017)

As a historian, I believe that Alexander III of Macedonia (whom we know as Alexander the Great) was so essential for the course of human history that he achieved, by his own merit, a permanent place in the list of ten or fifteen most decisive personalities always. A very exclusive list of personalities who, for good or bad reasons, have forever changed our world's history. Personalities like Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Cleopatra, Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Galileo Galilei, Darwin, Napoleon, George Washington or Picasso... heroes or villains in an always subjective list, but it's impossible to think what the world would look like without them, isn't it? So it is with Alexander. But I'm not here to talk about this historical personality, just the movie. An intense epic that seeks to be faithful to the known facts of the life of this conquering, narcissistic, megalomaniac, homosexual and deeply complex king. This story begins at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) and follows, recounting childhood, youth and ascension to the throne through flashbacks.
Overall, I found the film interesting and enjoyable, even though it wasn't good. The script is historically accurate, at least in general. Of course there are exaggerated or buzzing scenes for dramatic purposes. The problem is that, even so, its a vague script and doesn't justify three and a half hours lenght. It would have been better if the post-production and editing work had cut about forty-five minutes. Another problem I felt was excessive grandeur. I know it's an epic movie, but it's possible to be epic without being presumptuous and this movie was a show of self-importance. This can be seen in the actors' theatrical and affected manners, a bunch of peacocks displaying their feathers all the time. This heroic spirit impregnated also Vangelis soundtrack, probably one of the worst he already made. I still felt difficulties with all those flashbacks. A narrative so loaded with advances and retreats seems more like a tango. They are useful, no one doubts, but sometimes it took a long time for me to realize that I was watching a flashback, and it makes everything more tiresome and confusing.
The film is loaded with great actors but none of them shone for lack of a competent script and director. Colin Farrell was boringly heroic and should have kept his hair dark because the real Alexander would NEVER have been blonde. The way this actor behaved was erratic and dialogues were theatrical and full of pompous sentences. Angelina Jolie is a casting error, she was too young for the character and seemed constantly younger than her own son. Val Kilmer was OK as Phillip, with a generous dose of make-up for making him older and scarred. Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Plummer were both well, but there wasn't much for them here. Jared Leto was terribly bad, and his effeminate character was already boring enough. Rosario Dawson, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, John Kavanagh and other actors were OK as supporting but had no individual brilliance.
On a technical level, the film is flawless. CGI is excellent and gives us some truly beautiful scenes, such Babylon or several battle scenes. Battles are spectacular and full of action, steroids, adrenaline and epic spirit. Cinematography is loaded with warm, intense yellow and red colors, and this sometimes tires our eyes a little, but it's beautiful. Costumes are very detailed and well made. Oliver Stone worked hard on these points and succeeded, but it was the bad script, the actors wooden performances, the erratic narrative and an unpleasant presumption that defeated this film.