Alexander (2004)

Excellent but underrated film

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

So many great actors but such poor scripting and movie content...and acting. Love Colin but not a great choice for the lead. Expected better from an Oliver Stone production.

Film Review: "Alexander" (2004)A movie embedded within the character of Ptolemy, performed honorably by actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, securing the lifeless remains of one of the most mythological figures in human history under an atmospheric to striking motion picture soundtrack by Vangelis Papathanassiou in favor of the character of Alexander, the Great of Macedonia, alive from 356-323 BC, giving face by 27-year-old actor Colin Farrell under the over-passionate directions of Oliver Stone, who worked for four years straight in developing the material with his fellow screenwriters Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis, after a fairly successful American-Football movie "Any Given Sunday" (1999).Producer Moritz Borman did not shy away by given two times Academy-Award-Winning Best Director Oliver Stone an 155 Million Dollar production budget alone, securing a distribution deal with Warner Bros. Pictures. The Hollywood Studio, which had modest success within twelve months time with two historical adventure movies releases from "Last Samurai" directed by Edward Zwick, starring Tom Cruise in December 2003 and "Troy" directed by Wolfgang Petersen, starring Brad Pitt in May 2004; to release "Alexander" in November 2004, which on the one side came arguably two years too late for an initial success at the Box Office, because of the over-floated exhibitions of monumental battle sequences or on the other side the film were released years too early, because of its timid representation of homo- to bisexual love, which the character of Alexander inhabits without giving in to become utterly graphical in its representation.The cast ensemble surrounding Colin Farrell's interpretation of the character of Alexander becomes a match-making factory with actor Jared Leto as the character of Hephaistion, staying true of being the closest friend of Alexanders' in war, love and peace time, fully researched to detail-indulging production design by Jan Roelfs; followed by exotic-striking actress Rosario Dawson for the time being wife and supporter of the main character's endeavors to Jonathan Rhys Myers as the character of Cassander, always watching though venom-spreading jealousy of Man-to-Man relationship as emotional foundation of building an Empire of Means.Director Oliver Stone took on the enterprise of making the "Alexander", the best movie possible, with at times goose-bumping, tear-wrenching precision in scenes especially with his twenty to thirty year old cast member that the four editorial versions of the film ranging from 167 to 214 minutes in running time, totally out of place. Four editors were not enough to bring of the essence of a parental abused character, driven by the untamed hunger for expansion, fulfillment and exploration of the unknown - meeting people of multiple cultural backgrounds; a daring Oliver Stone leaps authenticity on letting his entire cast speak-up freely to accents of choice, forcing each and every character out going from the relentless love / hate relationship between the characters of Olympias and Philip, paid tribute by actress Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer, who kept heads up under a razor to snake-bit edge between failure and success of letting their on-screen son Alexander encounter the same fate of reality-escaping drunkenness, lover-switching relations to life-threatening confrontations with the closest collaborators, skillfully captured through mirroring ancient splendor cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto.The remains of a movie, which deserved to be represented with one stellar three-hour editorial for all time being, for which I keep on recommending the theatrical version, in order to become the classic it deserved to be. Yet the miscast, flash-backing story-line with Alexander, being the Oedipus-raced child, portrayed by inappropriate trained acting youngster Connor Paolo; further the unforgiving fact of loosing its nerve under a constant revisited selection, stepping-aside from a remembrance of "Blade Runner" (1982) directed by Ridley Scott, which versions spreading a lifespan of 25 years to the Final Cut (2007), due to the impatience and indecisiveness of filmmakers, evolving rebound-investment-oriented producers, over to art-seeking, one-true-shot directors and conservatory-preaching editors, concluding in countless revisits of raw footage between 2004 and 2014 that not one version of "Alexander" has been handled accordingly to the fullness of a source, which shying away from a full circle range of being extremely violent at the jungle border from Pachistan to India in unnecessary pink tint toward skin-to-skin intimacy between human beings with erected nipples respectively in order to fulfill the nature of the title-given character, who in his life-time spread his blue-wielded wings of an empowering future knowing eagle, reincarnated toward an opening shot of "The Dark Knight" (2008) directed by Christopher Nolan, from experimental visionary conquests to heart-breaking realism of betrayal.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

The movie is quite faithful to the history - that's the good part. On the other hand as an action film is a failure, it is mostly tiresome and too long. Mr. Stone is obviously striving to show us everything or at least the most possible. Here comes the Greek saying - good is not too much (but less).

I like epic movies especially when it involves history and human greatness. You have a topic here that qualifies however if one is to believe the movie, the subject matter namely Alexander was deeply flawed. The dysfunctions that he suffered from actually supplied the power and drive to do what he did i.e. to conquer and take over that which had never been done before just because he could. having cruel parents who specialize in crazy-making allowed his inner demons to flourish. The movie shows that after a conquest, he liked to return the situation to a status quo and one wonders why he bothered to in the first place. He lived a life of excess, irresponsibility, absolute power, sex-centered, alcoholic fueled daily existence that in the end contributed to his self-destruction. He set himself up to die so to speak. Why? He had no depth, meaning or purpose. Just an empty drive to succeed. He surrounded himself with people that supported his vanity and ego-centric comings and goings. He was not rare in that respect for history shows that all great men have peculiarities. The movie delivers these observations and more. The director comes from abundance when putting a story together which I consider a good thing. The actors each had good screen time to pitch their trade and did well. One thing though. I always notice that in certain movies like Braveheart, Return of the King, The 300, Troy and this one, the leader gives a speech to thousands of men and they cheer him on but for the life of me, how can they all hear what he saying? Only those within earshot get it which means about 100 at the most. Do the rest just do a "wave" and go along with the front group? I also had trouble with Alexander not taking the time to have many sons of which he had access to do. Again, this contributes to a self-sabotage theme for this conqueror. Oliver Stone did different versions of this movie and it gets confusing keeping track of it all. Was I glad I watched it? Sure. However, it is not something one wants to see again for it lacks the must see again scenes and has a lot of don't want to see scenes again in it as well. Enjoy with some favorite snack for after all it is epic movie time!