|
| . |
|
Alexander 2004 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Oliver Stone
R, 176 min. (violence, sexuality/nudity) |
 |
Starring: Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Plummer, Jared Leto, Rosario Dawson, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Brian Blessed
Producers: Moritz Borman, Jon Kilik, Thomas Schuhly, Iain Smith, Oliver Stone
Screenplay: Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle, Laeta Kalogridis
Cinematography: Rodrigo Prieto
Distributor: Warner Brothers
Released: 11.24.04 (Wide) |
Rating:
  (out of ) |
Oliver Stone has always pushed the envelope, sought the real story behind the story, and focused upon historical characters
and times with a cynical microscope. His films, easily rattled off by cinephiles (Platoon, JFK, Natural Born Killers, Nixon),
explore the gritty behind-the-scenes reality that made heroes, political figures, and conquerers famous. The latter description
can be now included because of Alexander, a three hour epic filled with ideas and potential but lacking in purpose.
A character study of Alexander the Great was inevitable (outside the 1956 version starring Richard Burton), and narrowing
down the scope of his unbelievable feat of conquering the known world (in 4th century B.C.) is daunting to say the least.
Unfortunately, Stone is eventually crushed by the attempt to cover most of his life; although Alexander lived only 32 years, they were
three of the most busy decades any person could live. The weight of traversing such a vast timeline of events eventually
sinks Alexander in a morass of jumbled themes and ideas.
It's difficult to label Stone a failure for his grand attempt to capture Alexander's tumultuous life, so bold and courageous
are his strokes. Yet his longtime pet project falls apart because he cannot grab onto one recurring theme to hold things
together when the disjointed elements of the film clash in cacophonous incongruency. Stone visits the origins of Alexander's
childhood, his sudden rise to power (in flashback no less), his undefeated military genius, and his possible bisexuality with
abandon. The famed director has no concept of guarded filmmaking; it's either a masterstroke or a disaster. After enduring
the disparate segments of the film unfold with flailing indirection, it becomes obvious that the film is probably the latter.
Alexander isn't a terrible film, but it comes awfully close to reaching the depths of infamy among the great directors of modern
cinema. Stone swings for the fences and strikes out in grand fashion.
Alexander (the miscast Colin Farrell) is the son of Philip of Macedonia (Val Kilmer) and Queen Olympias (Angelina Jolie),
a young man who is somehow able to reconcile his love for boyhood friend, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), with his ability
to conquer men who stand in his way on the field of battle. His mother is a quasi-sorceress who adorns herself with
snakes while teaching him to take what is rightfully his (the world, since she tells him that he is the son of Zeus). Philip
is a drunkard with little tolerance for his son's attachment to Olympias, and when he is murdered it is her eager duty to
inform Alexander that his time has come. Alexander heeds the call as ruler of Macedonia, expanding his kingdom to the
far reaches of Asia in India after dispatching of the mighty Persians and other Greek rulers. He is poisoned and dies
before he is able to fully partake of the riches he has accumulated in Babylon.
Much will be made of Alexander's sex life, which shows the tender glances and embraces with Hephaistion while portraying
a rough and tumble wedding night with his Asian bride, Roxanne (Rosario Dawson), which is little more than a nude wrestling
match. Stone's stubbornness about his subject's bisexuality, which certainly must have had studio executives squirming
in the light of America's growing conservatism, was muted somewhat by the obvious editing that removed much of the
Alexander/Hephaistion relationship. Indeed, in this version Alexander treats women as necessary conduits for procreation
rather than lovers, while reserving his passion for his longtime companion.
There are two large battle sequences, against the Persians at Gaugamela and the Asians in the claustrophic forests of India,
which are both spectacular and confusing. While the battle strategy is more easily followed in the first with overhead shots
of army alignments and movements, the second is more intense and frighteningly violent. Stone does an admirable job here,
except for the fact that these two wars are the only portrayals of a man whose life was war itself. Instead, Stone is more
interested in Alexander's inner conflict, particularly his need to push on boldly in the face of seemingly impossible odds.
The king's courage reaped a vast kingdom but also the contempt of his men, who yearned to return home to their wives
and children. It is ironic that Alexander's quest for greatness was both his greatest achievement and biggest failure.
Alexander is a good example of scope outreaching its grasp, as scenes are chosen at random over the course of
his 15-year reign. Narration by Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins), who was one of Alexander's generals, is necessary in order
to keep things somewhat lucid, but large portions of his life are briefly mentioned or skipped entirely. Again, Stone's
interest was in Alexander's relationships with family, lovers, and soldiers rather than the enormity of his accomplishments.
He even uses an out-of-place flashback (Philip's death) to emphasize Alexander's volatile/bizarre relationship with his
mother (which Jolie seems to relish in an eerie fashion), who seems to be a burden he cannot escape ("She asks a heavy price for nine months' lodging"). The accumulating
points of unclarified plot points reaches the breaking point long before the film comes to its wimpering conclusion.
Farrell and his co-stars do an admirable job of holding down their characters long enough to allow Stone to mold his convoluted
vision of the era, but compared to Wolfgang Peterson's Troy,
their earnestness probably betrays the larger picture. Troy was epic in pomp and showmanship, but at least it had a
destination and a purpose - to entertain. Alexander feels lost at sea, misguided and hopelessly floating on a current
of misplaced ambition that Stone has charted. He has made a film that seems more about his version of history than
reality would suggest, and because of it his film becomes an aimless beacon of speculation and angst.
© 2004 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
| Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
