Points for effort mister Stone

Rating: 4/10 (11 August 2005)

I give Oliver Stone points for effort. Having just studied Alexander a few months before in school, I remember sitting through the movie and thinking "Wow, for a Hollywood movie this is pretty accurate." Unfortunately I also remember thinking along the lines of "This is ungodly long and not really worth it all." In fact I suspect that the reason it was so long and a little underwhelming was that it was too accurate. Some people criticize Hollywood for having to distort every story it gets its hands on, but here is a case where the story was as accurate as could be, and it didn't play out well at all. Guess it's just hard to have it both ways.
Anyhoo, my major complaints: I felt the pacing was incredibly off. It suffered from being narrated the whole way by Hopkins as Ptolemy, recounting the story to his scribe. While again, this allowed for the movie to take in a vast picture of all of Alexander's life in good detail, it sucked the life from the story. Using a narrator as a bridge between scenes can work. But at times it seemed Hopkins would never stop quoting and recounting dozens of names, battles, cities and who knows what else that are never shown and are quickly forgotten. Too accurate, too slow, just not a good idea on Stone's part.
The script likewise was subpar. For any other director, it would've passed, but from an Oliver Stone film I guess I would expect the dialogue to be just a bit more memorable. It wasn't laughable per se, but there were some eye-rolling moments for me.
The actors were hit or miss (mostly miss.) Hopkins, even though his long-winded speeches could've put some modern day politicians to shame (and sleep), was good (not that his part was that demanding.) Val Kilmer...just didn't work for me at all. He did not work in the least as the father figure, not sure why, maybe I'll have to see it again to decide (if I can bring myself to do that) but he did not. Angelina Jolie did the best with what she had. I think her character was just a teensy over the top, but she stuck to it to the bitter end. Colin Farell did not do it for me, much in the same way Val Kilmer failed me. Again, I think part of it was that the material he was given to work with was well below standard, but he certainly didn't help it any. A dark-haired hard-drinking irishmen as the fair-haired wunderboy of ancient Europe? Too much of a stretch. And the sex scene in the movie is I think one of the few times where I have been in a theatre and the audience has audibly laughed at a moment not intended for laughter at all, it was a complete miss and frankly a pathetic attempt at drama. I'm sorry, but it was.
The things I liked: Jared Leto was alright, Jolie tried valiantly, the setting and props and costumes were sumptuously brilliant, and the cinematography (particularly at the end) was very well done. In fact the camera work I'd say is the saving grace for this movie. It makes it interesting enough to watch at some points, but cannot save it overall.
Personally, I can understand if you hated this movie. I try and cut directors some slack or else I prolly woulda ripped it apart much more. I can also see if you were able to overlook its inadequacies and didn't find it to be too bad. But to say you actually really honestly liked or even loved it? Well...I guess you're certainly entitled to your opinion...
Points for effort mister Stone. Next time though, let sex just be sex, please.