Much greater than what people say.

Rating: 10/10 (19 January 2005)

First of all, I've given up on trying to figure out why critics savaged this film so badly. The main reasons I remember reading was that it was (1) Too long (2) Too much focus on Alexander's bisexuality (3) Time shifts back and forth. While the film could have been a little shorter, there is nothing wrong with it as it is. Oliver Stone went for a very broad epic story while at the same time keeping it character driven. Very few films have ever been able to do this, chiefly Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur.
Colin Farrell's Alexander is not larger than life, even though Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) refers to him as a colossus. He is a conflicted man, warped emotionally by those close to him, mainly his mother. His affinity for his father in spite of his excesses and his desire to be accepted by him reflect the attitude of many young men today.
As for the relationship with Hephaestion, I felt that it was very tastefully done, as was the one with Bagoas. Stone proves that some things can still be suggested or implied as opposed to expressed and work.
Of course my favorite scenes were the battles of Gaugamela and Hydaspes (India), and if I were to have a complaint about the film, it would have been to include Grannicus as well (the 1956 version with Richard Burton did). Excellent display of phalanx warfare. I thought it was interesting near the end when he talks of making war with the "Roman Tribe."
Had he lived to, would we remember Rome as anything more than a footnote in history now?
Again, great film, certainly Oscar-worthy (but won't get it). It will be remembered.