Deliriously Awful

Rating: Null/10 (12 December 2004)

This is easily the worst movie I've seen in 2004, but it's bad in a way I thought Hollywood didn't do anymore, bad in a full-on, gonzo, over-the-top kind of fashion that actually makes it kind of "good", or at least entertaining.
Start with what must be called homosexual panic. I am sure Stone wanted to do what he saw as the "right thing" by his story, and dramatize the bisexuality that was common in the era. But it's also true that Stone, judging by what's on screen, doesn't understand homosexuality, and is more than a little panicked by it. Thus we have the strongly implied notion that Alexander's bisexuality was directly related to an overbearing mother and a strong, distant, father, which is a notion of homosexuality that wouldn't have seemed out of place in, say, 1952, but seems more than a little quaint today. Thus we have clichéd "pretty boys" flouncing around exaggeratedly, we have a surprising lack of male nudity, given the stated subject matter, etc. It would all be very offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous. This is like your Dad getting all down and sweaty to your rock records -- striving to be "hip" is never anything less than funny.
Add to it Angelina Jolie, who chews the scenery with some kind of weirdo Bulgarian/Romanian accent that doesn't fit with anything else anyone else is doing. Add to it Val Kilmer -- it's like he wandered in from the Viking movie down the street. Add to it my favorite love scene of 2004, between the incredibly beautiful Rosario Dawson and Colin Farrell, where they get naked and slap each other.
Add to it the world's worst screenplay. Well, no, that's harsh: how about the world's most incompetent screenplay? One doesn't know where to begin -- Anthony Hopkins droning on and on and on, helpfully explaining the Meaning of It All in case we didn't get it? The incredibly clumsy flashback that occurs 3/4 through the picture and gives us the motivation for Alexander's conquests? (Why on earth was this a flashback?) Jolie "writing Alexander" to tell "him" (really us) what the political situation at home is? How about the fact that in an incredibly action-packed life, we only see two battles, one of which (the India one) is badly shot and ends with color freak-outs that I'm sure I remember from NATURAL BORN KILLERS? (The other battle scene is well done, but is prefaced by a lame scene where Alexander has to explain to his "generals" -- really us -- what we're about to see.) How about the fact that there's no real theme or arc to this story, that it doesn't seem to understand how to dramatize a life and instead ticks off the major events in a sluggish, chronological way? And I'm not even touching the ridiculous use by Stone of Motifs (the Meaningful Glances between Farrell and Leto, say) or Leto, who apparently is doing Clare Daines doing a Greek warrior, or the buckets of mascara used by the cast, or Farell's dullness (is there a more overrated actor working today than Farrell?) or Kilmer's appearance as a Meaningful Ghost near the end. Etc.
Unaccountably taken seriously by most critics, who've missed the boat here completely, and are giving it lackluster reviews as a result. If you understand what you're getting into -- and you have three hours to kill -- you'll enjoy it. Bring some booze, though.