Except for the Bedroom Scene with Rosario Dawson, the Remake of Alexander Doesn't Measure Up to the Original with Richard Burton

Rating: 4/10 (28 September 2008)

And that about says it all. I've begun to read several of the comments that say this is a great movie and that one must be intelligent enough or well-read enough to appreciate it, but hey, I know pretense when I see it and this movie is pretentious. Oliver Stone is a gifted director who has done several interesting projects, but at the same time, he has gained a rep for playing fast and loose with inconvenient facts for the sake of dramatization. Where is the historical justification for painting Alexander as a fairy? Clearly, in this flick, he is depicted as just that. You can dress it up or excuse it all you want, but in my book, his best buddy and he were a couple of fruits no matter how you slice it. In the original "Alexander" with Richard Burton, the Oedipal relationship with his mother was explored in detail, including it's effect on his relationship with his father. In that movie, they were more directly tied to the murder of Philip. But although he had a lifelong friend whom he ended up killing for making drunken insults, there was nobody with whom he was constantly hugging or gazing lovingly into one another's eyes, and most certainly, no male dancer whom he kissed and sauntered off to bed with. As such, that movie was a better one.
Strangely, the wedding night scene with Rosario Dawson is one of the most erotic sequences I've seen in some time. Man, is she put together nicely. I had to wonder how this emotional, fruity guy was able to conquer most of the known world and suddenly become the stud of the week with this hot young Persian chick, but somehow, Farrell pulled it off, even though it didn't make much sense. Had the rest of this overblown flick been that good, I'd be giving it a ten rather than a four. I also thought the sound track was interesting but pretentious. I liked the part where he tamed the big horse immediately, but knew the beautiful animal was going to die at some point and was sad to see it when it finally happened, although I wondered how the same horse made it unscathed from his childhood into his twenties, where it carried him through countless battles. It was also peculiar that this person, who was depicted as becoming a ruthless tyrant, could inspire his armies to such dramatic achievements. Nonetheless, some of the battle footage was quite good, if as others have said, it was often confusing. Why they put the assassination sequence of Philip toward the end of the movie, I'm not sure, for it was important to the development of the story.
Otherwise, "Alexander" had some interesting aspects and I can't join those who feel that it was a complete waste of time. The story is certainly deserving of a serious, historically accurate rendering, and I'm surprised that so many claim that this version is just that. It was too confusing and disjointed, plus all the allusions to homosexuality, together made it a somewhat failed effort. Frankly, Colin Farrell is no Richard Burton. In my opinion, Stone should have explored the relationship between Alexander and Roxanne a great deal more. As I said, there were some real sparks flying between Farrell and Dawson, whom I think did an excellent job as the beautiful Persian temptress. As for Farell's gay lover, no thanks, not interested, and I don't believe there is any solid historical basis for it. These Hollywood guys, these days, surrounded by gay men, seem to think they have to put that crap in just about every movie, justified or not. I'd say that's got a lot more to do with this particular interpretation of Alexander's sexuality than anything else. Stone should have left it out.