I was deeply moved, hugely excited

Rating: 10/10 (26 January 2005)

I went to scoff (possibly)and found myself riveted. (The battle scene against the Persians left me breathless -- I've never seen a better.) I found the whole film so gripping, so intensely exciting that I wasn't fully aware at the time of viewing of how deeply moved I was. But in the following days I found myself haunted by the tragic power of Colin Farrell's performance -- his and Stone's aim of presenting an Alexander who was "greatly tormented" (Farrell's words) being perfectly realised. But I cannot understand what is going on as far as reactions to this film are concerned. The attacks on it seem inexplicable. It may have flaws (it's a rare film that hasn't) and criticism is par for the course, but this film wasn't "reviewed" or "criticised" -- rather, US audiences and reviewers fell on it like a pack of wolves. WAS it homophobia? WAS it the Irish accents? (US audiences seem to think it reasonable that Stone should ask an Irish cast to ASSUME American accents to play Ancient Macedonians -- makes one think perhaps Stone's theme of xenophobia was timely . . .) WAS it just the usual bear-baiting inflicted on Oliver Stone? WAS it the political implications? The fact that it headed the International box office and that European audiences loved it suggests that SOME kind of phobia was at play in the US. It saddens me that Stone's vision and Farrell's performance should be, not just underrated, but ridiculed.