Disappointing

Rating: 4/10 (15 January 2005)

What the hell was Stone thinking. Here is a guy who made anti war films or should I say anti American films in the past. Now he's glorifying another war monger. What's the difference between Alex and Nixon. I suppose Alex didn't have to watch Patton for some reassuring before gearing up for war. This could have been a good film. All Stone had to do was concentrate on the action. I found his message about Alexander really being a force for good nauseating. The difference between Alexander and the likes of Bush and Nixon in Stone's mind is that Alexander is sexier and stylish. It's not what he does, it's the way he does it. But that counts a lot for Stone so Alex also has to be a good guy. The first battle scene was great. Stone should have packed the movie with action and more focus on Alexander's tactical brilliance which unbelievably is barely touched upon. Anthony Hopkins seems to be there simply because he's one of these sexy elder statesmen actors who get cameo roles in modern films just for the hell of it. All his character did was waffle on and on about God knows what because I wasn't listening too hard. Farrell is a good actor and it's just as well Hollywood knows it. If this had been his first major role he'd be straight back on the set of the second rate soap opera he started out on. In fairness to him, the script did him no favours whatsoever as it required him to babble on and on. Compare this to the tight as a straightjacket script for Russell Crowe in Gladiator that served him so well. A lost opportunity.