‘Alexander’
the terrible
Time, it has been said, waits for no man—a fact I was keenly aware of two minutes into the nearly three-hour debacle that is "Alexander."
The gist of the film is that Alexander, the son of Olympia (Angelina Jolie, "Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow") and a descendent of the Greek war hero Achilles, attempts to fulfill his destiny by conquering the East.
Although the film is supposed to be about the great military conqueror Alexander (played by Colin Farrell, "The Recruit"), it’s really an excuse for director Oliver Stone ("Any Given Sunday") to explore Alexander’s homosexual tendencies.
While that may have been one facet of Alexander the man, Stone can’t seem to get past it, even at the expense of portraying other aspects of Alexander’s life. If all of the scenes that had Alexander lovingly gazing into some guy’s eyes were removed, the film would be a much more reasonable two-hour mini-epic instead of the bloated three-hour final product.
An example of the groan-inducing fixation on this topic is this tasty piece of dialogue: "It was said that Alexander was never defeated except by Hephaistion’s thighs." Maybe Stone is bucking for a job as a writer for "Will and Grace"?
Instead of letting the story unfold naturally, Stone has a narrator in Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s trusted lieutenants played by the great Anthony Hopkins ("The Human Stain").
While this concept is fine in the right context, it doesn’t work when the narrator is asked to go on five-minute tangents explaining critical plot points so the director can focus on his lead character’s affairs.
My biggest question was why the executives at Warner Brothers thought that this movie was ready for release.
It’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly is wrong here, as seemingly nothing fits—from Jolie’s Russian accent to Alexander’s Irish accent, the apparently painted backgrounds and Stone’s obsession with snakes.
If Jolie is in a scene, chances are good that a snake is wrapping itself around her. The first few times, it seems rather fitting and humorous considering Jolie’s penchant for odd behavior, but it becomes a bad running joke by the end of the movie.
Farrell is a good actor, as evidenced by his roles in "The Recruit" and "SWAT," but he is all wrong for the part of Alexander, and his performance does nothing to convince you that he is an iconic, historic figure. This may have very well been the worst acting performance by a big-name actor this year and could be a career killer in terms of lead roles built around Farrell in the future.
The best "historical" epic in the last 20 years was "Braveheart," and every movie that has a big, sweeping war battle—with the exception of Peter Jackson’s brilliant "Lord of the Rings" trilogy—has been pale in comparison.
"Alexander" may be the biggest offender, as the commander’s pep talk before the fight is hardly notable. And the battles themselves, while having the obligatory amount of blood and gore, are filmed so disjointedly that it’s difficult to make out any of the action.
To put this into perspective, even "White Chicks" had a few scenes that actually managed to make me laugh. But the best moments in "Alexander" came when I was leaving my seat with the credits rolling.
I’d be happy to never hear another mention of this film again—until I sit down to write my "Worst of 2004" movie list.