Alexander

When you say to someone you know that you've seen Alexander, and the response you receive from them is a shocked 'How bad was it?!', you begin to feel for the poor film. Expectations are low, and the wave of hysteria and media bagging over the film's content has proven to be a death knell for the financial viability of the film. The mere presence of controversy isn't to blame. Mel's little independent film The Passion is the best example to use pre-release controversy to its advantage, while others such as Pearl Harbor were neither positively or negatively harmed. Alexander though carries with it a new burden, this isn't a religious furor or an over reaction to racial stereotyping, Oliver Stone's sensationalized issue is that this Alexander guy is a fruit.

People don't really need to expose themselves to the story of a ruler that basically had 'something wrong with them' if they can help it. As Oliver Stone implied, the media in America's mid-west and south actively sought to educate people on why they shouldn't see the film. As if doing so could detrimentally influence the harmonious and well oiled cogs of the god fearing heartland that works so well for them.

Was Alexander a queer? Was he bisexual? It seems a lot of people care more than they should. If being so means we're hell-bound for it, we have a chorus of opinion ready to enlighten us. Then on the other hand you have gay-rights activists bagging what is essentially a mainstream film battling a conservative climate and lambasting it for not going for enough by filming Colin giving Jared a hickey and a bed-time spank. Are you confident enough in your own sexuality to refrain from giggling or squirming as two grown men hug and declare an affection for each other? If you think that's the be all and end all question about Alexander, then that's a real shame. For most people that's what's weighing on their minds, whether they declare that as a fact or not - you just need to listen to the audience you see the film with.

Alexander was to be Stone's crowning cinematic achievement. Topical issues aside Alexander is a disappointment. Disappointing in the fact that it doesn't do the sword and sandal epic justice to what we know can be done with a good script and shit-load of cash. Alexander isn't a disaster though, and most of the problems reviewers seem to have with the film are childish grumblings for the sake of it. 'Colin yells'. Well, it is a war film and he's commanding troops. 'Colin's hair is (insert your own)'. Huh? 'It takes an hour to begin'. Let the filmmaker tell the story, how many films jump straight into the story-centric battle? You could spend an hour retorting the various inane arguments as to why Alexander is a bad film, but is it truly worth it?

If Alexander was a superb film, it may be worth defending, but Alexander is in actuality just an ok film. Certainly not as terrible as it's made out to be. As a three hour film, the quality is enough to keep you entertained up until about the 2 and a half hour mark, it has no right hanging around more than that. As a staunch advocate of the 3 hour plus film, this is a difficult personal admission, but something that needs to be conceded for Alexander.

Anthony Hopkins introduces the movie to us as Ptolmey, now and old man and former military adviser to Alexander, he pops up throughout narrating events and gives us a closing to the events as the film ends. Whether or not he was even needed in the film at all is debatable, but he gives a charm and lends a deal of grace to the story. The first hour of the film is the quietest. Spent telling the years of Alexander as a boy and a young man, it is in actuality the most interesting part of the movie. Angelina Jolie is just superb for her performance as Olympias, Alexander's scheming mother. Her obsession with snakes, having Alexander sleep in her bed and her relentless attempts to convince her son to more aggressively pursue the seat of power are twisted fun. Val Kilmer as King Philip does fine too, in fact there's little on a character base to fault here, aside from Jolie hamming it up.

We flash to Alexander now as King, marching his army upon Babylon to defeat the King behind the alleged financing of his fathers assassination. The battle for Babylon is the only time we see Alexander use actual screen discernable military tactics and planning - for what he so famed for. It's confusing that when this battle is shown, it ends up that Alexander loses his prize of capturing of the King, so much for all the genius behind it. Battles later on in the film are either just implied or hap-hazard fights with little order and no sense that Alexander had control over them - especially the last. The film portrayed him more of a madman on a personal mission than a military genius conquering the world.

There's some good entertainment to be had in Alexander, though admittedly not as much as there should be in a film attempting this subject. As accurate or not as this film may have been, it shows a great man created moreso out of the opinions of his mother than those of his fellow military advisers, who appear to mostly have loathed and worshipped him in the same breath. It's not as messed up and confused as people imply, but the cropping of a few scenes (I never say this) could have helped. In all fairness, Alexander should be worth more to you than most films in release, it's just a question of how much man love you can tolerate and how much crazed conquering endurance you can suffer.


out of ten

Reviewed by Paul Boschen

Moviemarshal.com home