Miracle child

Rating: 4/10 (24 November 2004)

Good morning, here is your captain with no name speaking. Folks, this is official. People have proved they are in need of a serious intellect injection.
Let me start with the following: Gladiator (for some reasons often compared to "Alexander") was one of the most undeserving and generic movies of the year 2000, in every way possible inferior to "Crouching Tiger", which should have received that danged Oscar in the first place. In fact, so generic that this summer's "Troy" (another generic historical film, yet lively enough) is more deserving of the mentioned award.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that most people just won't get what our "Alexander" is all about. A "sandals and sword epic"? Forgive me Mr. Ebert if I applaud Oliver Stone's refusal to make a "Gladiator 2", with Alexander the Great dying in the age of 60, having what, conquered much of the known world? Or dying in the battlefield, with his noble warriors surrounding him? But people, that's just not what great victories are made of. Truly Sting was right, singing "history will teach us nothing".
"Alexander" is a film about a great dreamer (all great warriors are), shaped by other people's (in this case, his mother's) dreams, ever fighting his fears and a possibility of falling short of the history's expectations. Watch closely people, here is your hero - conquering much of the known world, only to die misunderstood and blissfully unaware of the fact that the known world has a nasty habit of falling apart, Oliver Stones seems to tell us with his "Alexander".
He also seems to tell us that the way we are brought up already makes us marionettes in history's great dark hall of fame. He seems to remind us that our dreams are worthy of being pursued only as long as one realizes that the dreams always remain such. He seems to warn us that somewhere along the way everyone encounters a rusty "stop" sign, and that passing it by means to pass by one's happiness, in other words, is the beginning of the actual defeat.
Oh well. Cut to the chase, shall we. Many reviewers have mentioned the supposedly bad quality of the battle scenes. All I have to say is, don't watch "Saving Private Ryan" then. It doesn't get more real than that. Or than Oliver Stone's "Alexander". I love "Troy", but if we're talking historicity, I could honestly care less about Brad Pitt singlehandedly taking on a dozen of Trojans on that beach.
Some reviewers have mentioned the "eagle shot" interrupting Alexander's pre-battle speech, as annoying. Just another example of Oliver Stone's genius here. Instead of (indeed) feeding us another sappy speech, the director makes Alexander's voice fade and elevates the viewers above the soon-to-be battlefield, letting the viewers feel the momentariness of the change at hand. Throughout the movie I've felt that the eagle actually symbolizes Alexander's dreams, ever culminating in death - both at Gaugamela and in India, and, of course, on his deathbed. Any viewer who's loved Zemekis's "feather flight" in "Polar Express" will appreciate Oliver's eagle. It's so genius, it is impossible not to appreciate. It's postmodern.
All of the actors did a great job. Angelina Jolie's accent is fake and really funny, okay, so what? She does a surprisingly great job in her role (and that from a person who loathes "Tomb Raider").
Colin Farrel is wonderful as Alexander. Don't listen to the nay-sayers who will giggle at his, indeed, occasionally awkward attempts to portray a bisexual person. Anyone who deems his performance to be worse than that of Russel Crowe's in "Gladiator" is likely to have their eyes torn out and used as plugs in a, hmm, rather dark and uninteresting place.
And just what's up with Anthony Hopkins's spoken intro and interludes? Oliver Stone probably knew a whole lot of people with low intellectual demands would make even less sense of what was going on in his movie without an interpreter at hand.
Which reminds me, people have complained at the movie zipping back and forth in time - well it does ONCE folks. Once. And it does in the right place, namely when Alexander remembers just what has brought him to India. I will say no more, but it is really not THAT hard to figure out.
Okay, let's take on the floppy breasts kiddies. Just so you guys know, I'm not a gay. And this movie has done nothing to alter my conviction. NOTHING. In other words, "Alexander" has not made me shed a single tear over gay lovers. That being said, it has not made me shed a single tear over "regular" lovers either. It just isn't a movie about lovers... of any sort. Get it? It is a historical movie, and we all know that women in ancient Greece were considered a lower cast, in other words, not good enough to fall in love with. Or do we not? May I ask you where did you study your history, then? What Oliver Stone's "Alexander" does, is, in fact, ignore the historical context. So save those comments, will ya?
Summing it all up, I must admit that I haven't seen a more intelligent historical movie lately. In fact, "Gladiator" is to "Alexander" as "Die another day" is to "Bourne Identity". If that's saying anything, of course.
Peace out people. God bless ya, and before you judge a wonderful movie by what others have said, go see it first. "Alexander" is all about powerful dreamers and their place in history's hall of fame. It is also about what we can learn for our lives, and the high expectations we normally have for ourselves and our "miracle" children (yes, Alexander was a miracle child). If you're an intelligent person you cannot possibly regret spending those 5 bucks on this film.
Enjoy.
~O~