A potential epic misses the mark

Rating: 1/10 (28 November 2004)

Unlike the previous reviewer, I was really looking forward to seeing "Alexander". Hoping that it was in the vein of "Gladiator", I settled in for what I hoped to be a three-hour tale of epic proportions. The story of Alexander is, after all, a subject that continues to amaze scholars and historians to this day.
Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed about twenty minutes into the film (or perhaps shorter). You know that a film is in trouble when you unconsciously find yourself checking your watch every ten minutes to see how much longer you have to watch this morass.
There are so many deficiencies in this film that it's difficult to know where to begin. For one thing, the accents border on the absurd and are extremely distracting. As others have noted, Angelina Jolie sounds like the Russian spy Natasha on "Rocky & Bullwinkle". You half-expect her to blurt out "moose and squirrel" during one of her scenes. Val Kilmer fares only a little better.
Another deficiency (as well as being perhaps the most controversial topic) is the issue of Alexander's homosexuality. Suffice it to say, the historical evidence is equivocal. While we are aware of the existence of same-sex relationships that were sexual in nature in the ancient Greek culture, we have no direct evidence that Alexander himself engaged in such relationships. Yet Oliver Stone chose to make this issue a centerpiece of his film, based upon only the most tenuous circumstantial evidence.
If Stone truly wanted to portray homosexuality as it existed in Greek culture, he would have shown the relationships that existed between men and boys (pederasty) which was common in that era. While showing an older man pursuing a younger, immature Alexander in a sexual way may not have sat well with audiences, it would have given a more accurate picture of the sexual mores of the day. Stone's "political incorrectness" is much more of an historical anachronism, than being an accurate portrayal of 4th Century B.C. Greece.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the film, though, was the whole pace and development of its story. Throughout the three hours we are constantly told about how great Alexander was/is/will be. Yet the film never shows us WHY Alexander ought to be considered "great". We're only shown two battles, one of which he loses. The film glosses over much of his campaigns, and the viewer never really gets a true sense of his achievements. Stone chooses to spend vast amounts of time on monologues telling us about how great Alexander is, at the expense of never SHOWING us his greatness. As a result, the film fails to prove that which it claims.
If you want to watch an excellent historical epic piece, go watch "Gladiator" again. At least in that movie you knew why people were willing to follow its title character.
Movie Rating: 1 Star (Stinker)