Alexander the Human

Rating: 8/10 (28 November 2004)

Oliver Stone's "Alexander" has been on the receiving end of a great deal of controversy and slanderous criticisms. And to a very slight extent, the opinions condemning the film have merit. But in picking apart the film, piece by petty piece, these critics have unfairly tarnished what is otherwise an above-average epic, not quite reaching the heights of "Ben-Hur" but far superior to "Gladiator". All in all, Stone has created a beautiful-looking film with good performances, brutal war scenes, and some over-the-top Shakespearean melodrama.
Of course, it isn't hard to see why people are upset. "Alexander" does not focus on the man's conquests, but instead on his emotions, his drive, his reasons. It asks, "Why?" when moviegoers seem to want to know, "How?" Even the mainstream critics have trashed Stone's creation, which surprised even me. If anyone is to appreciate his work, it should be the pro-critics. One obvious clue should come from the title and its noticeably absent "the Great". Stone is not focusing on the legend, but on who the real man might have been. Taking that course, it is no surprise people are disappointed.
There are flaws, of course, as with every film. Primarily, the voice-over work by Anthony Hopkins is harshly detrimental, in filmic terms. Voice-over is considered some of the worst technique in storytelling, and "Alexander" is chock full of it (presumably because Stone has so much to say in so little time). Elements we want to see are instead told by Ptolemy (Hopkins) as we watch Alexander's army wander from battle to battle. There's a commonly-held philosophy in screen writing: don't tell--show! Some of Ptolemy's monologues are decent and allow us further insight into the story, but some simply gloss over important elements of Alexander's life.
And it is far too drawn out. With only two major battle scenes, "Alexander" strives towards great drama instead of great action. And while Stone's battle scenes are brutally intense, they are often cut short or interrupted before any sort of climax. One jarring example comes during the first intense battle between hoards of Persians and the Macedonians. Midway through, so it seems, the film cuts to Alexander parading in through the Persian empire, victorious. With so many scenes of Alexander's armies wandering around through deserts, you think he could have excised a couple to shorten the length.
But those flaws aside, "Alexander" is an absolutely stunning film to watch. It is pure eye candy in a way most films only wish they could be. Where movies nowadays revel in CGI to "create" a look, Oliver Stone uses old-fashioned camera tricks (filters, panoramas, etc.) to establish a visual palette that puts the recent (and similar) epic "Troy" to shame. This is a rare big-budget Hollywood sword-and-sandals film where the sets look like ancient buildings. Where the crowds of fighting extras are, for the most part, real people. Where the blood and brutality of battle is shown in graphic detail. In a crucial scene, Stone implements a pink (almost infrared) filter which provides for some of the most gorgeous images I've ever seen in a major motion picture.
Colin Farrell has his work cut out for him with the role of Alexander and succeeds quite admirably. He portrays Alexander as a conflicted man who becomes legend with his death. Angelina Jolie chews the scenery, complete with a strange Russian/Transylvanian accent. This is exactly the type of film Jolie's face was made for--and she excels here. Most impressively is Val Kilmer, giving a bravura performance as King Philip. This is Oscar-quality work from Kilmer, and if justice holds out, he should get a nod for supporting actor.
Oliver Stone has made an epic of grand sweeping vision about a man who arguably doesn't deserve it. He's pared off "the Great" legend and myth, strive to look at Alexander the man, whose impressive conquests overshadowed his flaws. In doing so, he'll find himself lambasted by almost everyone. People dislike thinking of their legends as problematic humans. And Stone's flair of over-the-top soap opera makes the film a likely target for cynical crabbies (and before I create the wrong picture, I am myself a cynical crabby). I find myself wondering why I appreciated the film as much as I did--my jaded side seems to have been beaten into submission.
In closing, "Alexander" is not a great film, but it is a very good one. It is a step up from "Troy" (which I also enjoyed), but it isn't the grand Best Picture of 2004 that I was anticipating. Once the dust settles and it is relegated to the video stores, people may come to recognize the good qualities of this truly epic film. When all is said and done, this is a solid 8 out of 10 on the IMDb rating scale. It could (and should) have been better, but it certainly isn't the disaster critics are talking about.