INFO
REVIEWS
MAP
OPEN FORUM
PHOTO ALBUM
 Chris' Review: I can feel it. This is going to be a really long review. Really, how can you expect anything less of me on an epic film by Oliver Stone? I'm not saying it's his best... heck, I'm not even saying it's good. All I'm saying is that I've got a lot to say. What is it with the "epic" films of recent years just sucking the big one? You'd think, with Oliver Stone at the helm, Alexander would have been less obnoxious, but I kept expecting a kick line to form... or for someone to bring out the "Holy Hand Grenade". I just don't think that the overall feeling of the film lent itself to the story of the greatest military leader in history. A lot of it was overacted, ham-fisted, or just plain ridiculous. Who thought that Stone could direct such a film? Is this based solely on Platoon? Maybe Any Given Sunday had a bit of the gladiator feel to it. For the most part, Stone directs movies with a lot of dialogue, or people arguing, maybe even some conspiracies to rifle through... not epic war films. What you get is an epic-length war film with disjointed battles that are overly confusing, a lack of insight into the dealings of these battles, and a bunch of babbling between gauche actors. Take Angelina Jolie (Olympias) for example. Even if you can overlook the rest of the scenes that she stumbles through, the final fragment where she learns of Alexander's death is so over the top. The thing is, I don't think I'll even fault her acting abilities for how badly it stuck out. No, I'm going to blame the direction. I'm going to blame the direction, the camera work, the editing... because as it all came together it emphasized what could have been a touching scene depicting how much this ruthless mother cared for her son. Then I offer forth the pitiful performance of Jared Leto (Hephaistion). I just never bought that he was truly in love with Alexander. The entire time I felt as if I was watching a one-sided love-affair. Colin Farrell (Alexander) did an admirable job, but the connection was never quite made because of Leto. That brings me to another problem I had with the film. No, it's not that they had homosexual scenes with Alexander and Hephaistion. I actually applaud the film for not shying away from that portion of Alexander's life. The problem that I have with the film is that it spent too much time focusing on the relationships in Alexander's life. Whether it was his mother, his father, his boyfriend, his wife... and it didn't seem to help the story much. Yes, I want to know who is the man behind the myth, and by showing his intimate relationships, you come to a better understanding; but, none of the relationships ever felt fully realized. Even though most of the film was centered on the relationships, you never felt that you really understood the connections he had. Farrell played his part well. He gave charisma and strength to the role where it needed to be. Even with as much charm as he gave the character, you never felt that he had a real relationship with anyone, not even his beloved Hephaistion. Something was missing. So then we spend all this time prancing around with all the different relationships that Alexander had... and we're left wondering if this is really a movie about a conqueror with near mythical status or if it's an episode of "Days of Our Lives". You rarely had a feeling of conquering. You rarely had the feel of strategic win. Where were the facts of his battles? Why weren't there more praises for his military genius by showing us his strategies? What made him great? You never really get the feeling that there was anything special about him. Throughout the film I'm left feeling like Alexander was more of a lucky thug than an intelligent leader. I mean, here is a guy who history decided it was appropriate to tack "the Great" on as his surname... and during three hours of disjointed scenes you never come to an understanding of why. Maybe part of it is just Stone being lazy. Maybe he wanted to tell more of the story through dry monologue (Ptolemy [Anthony Hopkins] voiced-over most of the movie). If that was actually his goal, came off as bland and lazy. I'm sure that if I went back and listened to the movie again, I might get more out of it. That's not really the point, though, is it? With three hours of butt-in-the-seat time, you'd think Stone could have shown us what happened, rather than telling us. For the full story, pick up one of the numerous volumes at your public library! Then there is the matter of just how confusing the entire film felt. If you took any one scene and shuffled it into any other place in the movie I don't think anyone would even notice. There was very few references to time passing (other than his army complaining that they hadn't been home in a while) you just felt like you were jumping from random scene to random scene with no tie to a central story. You're left feeling confused, disjointed, unrooted... and as a result, any story that could have been told, any entertainment one might derive, or any education into the history of Alexander the Great, is completely lost in the wild shuffle. There are good things about the movie... the costuming, the backgrounds, the scenery... most of the visuals (putting aside King Philip's (Val Kilmer) comical facial appliance. Who thought that looked realistic?) Some of the scenes could be clipped and hung on your wall, they're so pretty. Unfortunately, as much as you try to dress it up, you still have bad acting, inconsistent accents, lazy story-telling, and disjointed scenes. So overall I'm giving Alexander two thumbs down. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but I found myself bored with it. I won't be watching it again let alone buying the DVD.   Jim's Review: The classic sword-and-sandal epic, as noted in previous reviews, has a long and rich history in cinema. In the last year alone, we've been "treated" to "Troy", "King Arthur", and now "Alexander." Hoping to catch the feel and scope of a "Braveheart" or "Gladiator", ambitious filmmakers erect enourmous sets, hire thousands of extras, write florid dialogue and stage grand, brutal battles. Unfortunately, simply combining the requisite ingredients does not always result in the same rich stew. Oliver Stone's "Alexander" purports to tell the story of Alexander the Great (portrayed as an adult by Irish bad-boy actor Colin Farrell), the young, driven, Greek/Macedonian king who reportedly marched unstoppably east across most of the Asian landmass, conquering every tribe and land in his path in the hopes of establishing a united continent with one king, one language, and one peace. And, history tells us, he was surprisingly successful, largely refusing to enslave or subjugate those he conquered, instead absorbing them into his army and kingdom as citizens. He all but achieved his vision of one land before dying at age 32. Such a story should make for a gripping biopic rife with drama, tragedy, and triumph. But in the hands of Stone and crew, the story of Alexander becomes a pedantic, confusing mess of disjointed narrative, stilted speechifying, and shallow development. It SHOULD have been impossible to screw up. Alexander is one of the more fascinating characters in the books. His story should write itself. And, even after having watched the film and thought about it, it's still not exactly clear what went wrong. Watching the film was heavily frustrating. Pinning down the reasons for that proves even more so. As the film begins, an aged Ptolemy (a dully monologuing Anthony Hopkins) is dictating Alexander's story to an Egyptian scribe. The overall direction of the piece is determined here: Exposition. Ptolemy speaks of grand battles, great triumphs, and a man of such encompassing charisma and character that an entire continent fell under his spell. Pity we only see tantalizing glimpses of this man in the hours to come. Ptolemy's narration takes us back to the years of Alexander's youth. When first we meet Alexander as a toddler, he is lounging with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie) in a lush palace bedroom draped with silks and piled with pillows. Almost immediately, she is barged in on and nearly raped by her husband, the one-eyed King Philip (a grizzled Val Kilmer). He is drunk on either power or wine, and she rebuffs him violently. And, in a scant few minutes, the dynamic of their adversarial relationship is established. You literally learn all you need to know about these potentially-rich characters within moments of meeting them. Alexander's youth is progressed through...Philosophical study with Aristotle (a thoroughly wasted Christopher Plummer) hand-to-hand combat training with a blustery wrestling coach (an even more wasted Brian Blessed), and history with Philip. More of Ptolemy's over-the-top melodrama tempered with drawn-out historical detail is played out, and eventualy flattens into a low buzz. Political scheming is puzzled over, people die, and through a needlessly-convoluted narrative, Alexander finds himself King of Macedonian Greece, and General of her incomparable army. Before long, Alexander begins his march across Asia. The film progresses with even more sweat, laboring, and difficulty than his troops. Asia Minor is conquered, then Persia. Afghanistan. Egypt. Babylon. India. The whole bloody continent falls before Alexander like dominoes. And with each conquest, Alexander not only grows his legend, but begins to be consumed by it. Due to his commitment to liberation of oppressed people and unity of all, each society that falls beneath his control hails him as a God, and Alexander does not decline the honor. Obviously, this does not sit well with many of his men. Still, Alexander's unstoppable juggernaut rolls steadily east, pursuing the ultimate horizon and absorbing any obstacles that dare oppose them. In retrospect, I'm still not sure what went wrong with this film. According to what's generally agreed-upon as the most factual accounts of Alexander's life, Oliver Stone and the screenwriters have paid VERY close attention to their history. So, when viewed strictly as biography, this film is a triumph. Thus, it's almost complete failure to entertain is a head-scratcher. I'm genuinely confounded by why it doesn't work. All of the elements seem to be here, but the presentation is messy, disjointed and ineffective. In terms of performances, it's hard not to start with Farrell. I go back and forth on him. He's been very good, and even brushed greatness before, but I'm not sure what to make of him here. He overacts in most scenes, but with a larger-than-life character like Alexander, it almost seems requisite to do so. He is difficult to watch in certain stretches, but the weight he's been asked to carry is considerable, so much of his pomposity is excusable. His makeup is not. The goofy, distracting, bleach-blonde fright wig he wears in varying lengths throughout most of the film makes him look more like a rock star than a king. I'm not even going to discuss his eyebrows. The rest of the cast is equally averting. Kilmer growls and muscles his way through the role of Philip...And even though he is somewhat one-note, Philip WAS seen as being just short of a barbarian by the Greeks he conquered, so I suppose this is as accurate as one can expect. Jolie, of course, cannot help but be flamboyant. She is exhausting to watch. Her Olympias is a vision of amped-up hyper sexuality, vamping around in a toga, wearing jewelry that would make a stripper blush, and handling snakes (while encouraging her son to do the same). Can I get some symbolism up in here? Jared Leto (as Alexander's right-hand and, by most accounts, lover) Hephaistion is prettier than most of the women in the film, and convers as much love and adoration for Alexander as the film (which glosses over much of Alexander's widely-noted bisexuality) allows him to (Read: lots of doe eyes and bear hugs). Rosario Dawson (as Roxane, Alexander's Indian war bride) is a bundle of aggressive ferocity, but her taming parallels her country's. Hopkins' whole role is to dictate dry history, and he makes the most of what's essentially narrative. There's nothing outwardly wrong with any of them. Still, the film is often just inexplicably interminable. By well into hour three, Alexander's men are begging to go home, pleading to not have to KEEP PROGRESSING beyond YET ANOTHER mountain range; to not have to keep fighting YET ANOTHER fresh tribe of resistors when they, themselves are so battle-scarred and road-weary...And the audience can't help but sympathize with them. I wanted to go home, too. Maybe that's the point? Still, again...I can't QUITE put my finger on exactly what makes this film so difficult to sit through. All of the elements are here: decent if not stellar performances, grand scope, ambitious vision, historical accuracy...But it simply lumbers along like the Indian elephants that show up in the fourth reel: Monstrous, slow, ornate, heavy, thunderous, and possessed of an outright refusal to simply lie down and die despite such an action being long-overdue. It should work. It doesn't. The reasons why are as confusing and unclear as the movie itself, even after considerable thought. Alexander gets a flat score from me. No thumbs. As history, it's fantastic. As a film, it is a frustrating, monumental failure.  BackHome - Info - Reviews - Map - Message Board - Photo Album |
|
IMDB.com answer all your movie questions! RottenTomatoes.com Get more reviews here! Hollywood.com Find showtimes at your local theatre, order tickets online! |