I went and saw Alexander last Saturday, but I just haven’t gotten around to writing a review. Or maybe it would be more correct to say that I wanted to be able to write a good review, and that’s why I have been putting this off. I like epics. Truth is, the movie just didn’t do it for me. And according to the Tomatometer on RottenTomatoes.com, the critics didn’t get anything out of it either, as the movie has a ROTTEN rating of 15%.
First, let’s take a look at what was good about the movie. I liked the sets, the costumes, and even to a certain extent, the music. I think as a purely artistic venture, the movie delivers quite well. The transition between settings was well done as well, moving from desert, to mountains, to jungle, all very fluidly.
I also liked Colin Farrell. To be honest, I didn’t have very high expectations for his performance, but I was pleasantly surprised. I never thought he could pull off a character like Alexander, but I think his performance in the movie was the best.
Now let’s get into what I didn’t like. My first gripe is that the movie was unnecessarily long, at 173 minutes total. And I have a suggestion for how they could have made it better – get rid of Anthony Hopkins‘ character. There really is no reason to have Old Ptolemy in the film, as all Hopkins does is tell a story. That could have been done using voice over on other scenes, saving probably 30 minutes off the film’s length. My second gripe is the casting. Don’t get me wrong, Angelina Jolie is pretty to look at, but considering she was only in maybe 30 minutes of the entire film, they could have picked someone else to play her role. She was too young looking, and her accent was weird – clearly not appropriate for the era. I suppose Val Kilmer gave a good performance, but he just looked out of place to me. It’s not like he did anything wrong, he just looked like he didn’t belong.
Actually that’s the feeling a lot of the characters gave. Perhaps the only one that was believable was Hephaistion, played by Jared Leto. He pulled off the gay lover thing to a T. And that would be my next gripe. Sure it’s historically correct, sure it was more common in those days, but really, did it need to be in the movie? I mean they didn’t show Alexander and Hephaistion going at it, so what’s the point of showing any kind of homosexuality? Obviously Hephaistion is important, and is the reason that Alexander dies, but their relationship could have been shown without the creepy gay undertones to get the same effect at the end.
My final gripe is that Alexander’s wife was not pretty at all. I apologize to you, Rosario Dawson, but you were clearly not right for the role. Or perhaps you were not utilized correctly. In fact, the only thing your presence did was make Alexander’s decision seem even more ludicrous than it was.
So there you have it, Alexander is not a movie I would recommend. Maybe the only other thing I liked about the movie was that at one point Asians were called “barbarians”. All of us got a good laugh out of that, especially Andrew. I guess I don’t know enough about Alexander to say whether or not it was really factually correct, but if it is, that’s probably the only reason I would give to watch the movie. Otherwise, spend your money on something more enjoyable!
MasterMaq's Blog 
Agreed on the cinematography…it was excellent, as were the sets and costumes.
Colin Farrell was actually pretty good (except in the scene where him and his wife have sex…that was creepy). I was pleasantly surprised with his performance (and was drooling over the wicked ass shot).
I would agree with you (yet again) that some roles were useless, and overacted and all that jazz. I mean, Angelina Jolie was TERRIBLE in this movie. It was almost worse than tomb raider (acting wise). Val Kilmer was alright, but I think he was supposed to be the stereotype of the kings of the day who lived in the lap of luxury, not necessarily a specific persona.
And the gay thing. I thought it was a LITTLE bit over the top. But, there is a lot of speculation as to the nature of the relationship between Alexander and Hephastion, and I think that Stone actually portrayed it rather well. Had he shown them going at it, it wouldn’t have had the same impact (people would be OUTRAGED that two men were having sex on film). I wouldn’t necessarily say "creepy gay undertones" but I do think that it needed to be either less obvious or flat out gayness in order to get the audience past that part. I know that lots of people who watched it were uncomfortable with the gay stuff (like Dickson, who covered his head with his jacket), but there are just as many people who didn’t notice it, or at least weren’t bothered by it. And I think that if you’re going to try to accurately portray someone’s life, then all elements should be included. Maybe that’s just because I’m looking at it historically rather than as a film. I dunno.
One thing Mack didn’t touch on was the obvious metaphor for George Bush’s search for bin Laden. I mean, that king that they were chasing across the world SO accurately represented bin Laden, and the imperialistic undertones of this chase so perfectly captured the persona of Bush (or at least of his advisers) in recent years. Maybe it’s just be, but I thought that was BRILLIANTLY done, especially because it was subtle enough to not necessarily be picked up, unless one was to look at the flim in a certain way.
Overall, I’d give it 2.5 out of 5, cause it wasn’t THAT bad, but it wasn’t really that great. I don’t think I’d see it again, unless the screen time that Colin Farrell’s ass gets is increased by 100 times. 😛
I cannot agree with you about screen time for his ass, but I like the metaphor idea. I didn’t pick up on that until you mentioned it after the movie. Good eyes Mig 🙂
Thank you sir. 🙂