Alexander

Starring: Colin Farrell, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Jared Leto, Rosario Dawson

Directed by: Oliver Stone

RS: 1of 4 Stars Average User Rating: 2.5of 4 Stars

2004 Warner Bros. Pictures Drama

How's "Alexander"? Not great. Though the battles have the blood-and-sinew bravado you expect from Oliver Stone, this three-hour buttnumbathon is hamstrung by a hectoring grandiosity, not new to Stone, and a nod toward caution, which is. The crazy energy that redeems even Stone's worst films (Natural Born Killers, U Turn) barely surfaces in this poky take on the life of the Macedonian warrior who died at thirty-two.

It's not that Colin Farrell, blondied up and looking rock-star ready to party, doesn't turn up the heat as Alexander. But the strain of breathing life into the dead scroll of a script makes Alexander's plan to conquer the world look easy. Here's the thing: Farrell isn't just playing Alexander, he's representing Stone, who clearly sees himself in this visionary beset by conspiracies.

Even Alexander's carnal confusion is presented warily. Stone opens the film with Alexander's death in 323 B.C. His arm swings into frame, as the camera shows a ring drop from his hand. It's a direct lift from Citizen Kane when Orson Welles' dying tycoon drops a snow globe and whispers, "Rosebud." Alexander's Rosebud -- the key to his heart -- is the ring, given to him by battle comrade Hephaistion (Jared Leto), his boyhood friend and lover. The two exchange hot looks, but Stone - perhaps unwilling to kill the film's box-office chances among homophobes -- stops there.

Truth is what Alexander gets from Hephaistion, not from women. His mother, Olympias, sexily slithered by Angelina Jolie, gives her son phallic snakes to stroke and plots the murder of Alexander's one-eyed father, Philip (a lively Val Kilmer). Mom tells son that Zeus is his real daddy; she prefers a god to the drunken goat who likes to take her by force in front of their child.

Even Freud would freak when Alexander marries the Persian princess Roxanne (Rosario Dawson) -- a ringer for mom, snake bracelets and all and re-enacts his father's rape scenario to get it up.

No wonder Alexander is eager to get on the road with the boys. It's here in the vividly staged battle of Gaugamela and in the elephant attack in the forests of India that the film lives up to its size and lets the director color the screen blood-red and go bugfuck in those special ways that spell Stone. The film fails, crucially, in getting us inside the head of a man who models himself on myth. Stone repeatedly cuts to Anthony Hopkins as Gen. Ptolemy, who drones on about the Great One's place in history. Hopkins' narration, which plays like a bad DVD commentary, even tells us it's raining when we can see the drops go plop. Shut up, already. Alexander breaks the key rule that makes movies move: Show, don't tell.

PETER TRAVERS

(Posted: Nov 16, 2004)

Your Turn

Give us your review of
Alexander

Review 1 of 2

1of 4 Stars

The reason I downgraded it a star from your original rating is because I am a rather serious history buff and I was appalled at that piece of work that Stone threw together and called a movie. He took a perfectly good story with ulimited potential for Academy Award greatness and turned it into a $7.00 piece of garbage that you take your girlfriend to see just to get some pussy. And I actually considered buying it on DVD.

For starters I think the screenplay should have been thrown out along with the director. I feel that either Mel Gibson, Steven Speilberg, or even Francis Ford Coppala could have successfully captured the historic essence of the great King of Macedonia and his achievements. Secondly, I feel that a different lead actor could have hit the spot on the picture. Granted Colin Farrell did have some fine moments, but I feel that maybe Brad Pitt with his recent performance in "Troy" or even some young talented newcomer could have put more of an edge to Alexander the Great. Perhaps even Russell Crowe could have done a faboulos job.

I also thought that the constant harping on conspiracy plots was the final nail in the coffin. Ever since "JFK", Stone has been obsesed with conspiracy theories. He completely alienated the audience with the constant struggle of finding the crimminal in the midst.

And finally the flashbacks had to go. Not everyone can make a Godfather part II you know. Stone should have told the whole story as much as possible, at the very least hitting all of the major historical points to give the film some meat and depth.

In, conclusion, I was very dissapointed in this film. It laked true vison and depth ant a better actor and director could have produced. The next time Oliver Stone wants to do a historical flick, tell him to read a textbook first.

Jan 25, 2006 22:24:26

Review 2 of 2

1of 4 Stars

Prettty bad! My son just rented alexander, but I was already prepared for the worst...but actually seeing it was almost nauseatingly bad. The film had some good actors but was Stone stoned when he made this???

Dec 28, 2005 14:09:34

Previous Next