CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Alexander

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Saturday, December 11, 2004

As I start writing this review, I find myself puzzled as to where to start or what to say. I kind of think it is going to be one of the most difficult reviews I’ve written. And I’ve thought a lot about which approach to use. The movie has been much maligned, and I just happened to love it. I know I’m one of the few out there who think like this. So should I try to make everyone reconsider the movie and try to like it as I did? Or should I just express my opinion and not care about what others think? Oh, I don’t know, I guess I’ll see what comes out as I type it. But I get the feeling it’s going to be something between the two.

The movie chronicles the life of Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell), born in Macedonia to savage King Philip (Val Kilmer) and her sorceress wife Olympias (Angelina Jolie). Alexander takes the throne when he’s just getting to his twenties, and embarks on a quest to conquer as much territory as he can, while becoming, at 25, the most powerful ruler in the world.

I could go into much more details regarding the plot, but to tell you the truth, they don’t really matter. That paragraph tells you all of what’s in store in a nutshell. And it makes up for a juicy story, no wonder this Macedonian King has received more than one big screen treatment and countless intents that didn’t go anywhere. At one point it seemed like Oliver Stone’s treatment was never going to be made. But the infamous director kept fighting and finally got his budget, his cast and his extraordinary team. And I’m glad he did.

Alexander is not an easy movie to watch. At its core, it looks like a huge epic like many that have been released over the past few years. Some battles, attractive cast, lush settings and a lot of money spent… there you go. But what I found in Alexander was an amalgam of those aspects but forming a much more profound, serious, artsy, difficult, intelligent movie. It challenges you. Sure, it runs a long three hours, and it does have a slow pace, but if you just try to get the movie and understand every line and every meaning of each scene, you’re in for a treat. I literally didn’t want the movie to end. I think it is fascinating.

But why fascinating?

Alexander was a man of many layers. He was raised by two conflicted parents who hated each other. And he always lived under their shadow. Throughout his life he was continually reminded of his father, and the obsession of his mother just never left him alone. Then there was his idealism. Alexander sure wasn’t a bad man. He had a dream. He dreamt of having one big empire in which instead of just taking over and making slaves out of the people in different regions, he could learn all about their traditions and language and culture. He didn’t let his men rape women. He even went on to marry a member of a tribe. And every step of the way, his decisions were controversial. His own council was against him. And fighting the system and going forward was one of his most brilliant moves, but also one of his pitfalls, as conquering the world is not as easy as it sounds.

In other words, Alexander was a fascinating subject. And what’s so brilliant about this movie is that Stone never really pinpoints one thing or the other as the reason why he became the man he became. After all, that would be too pretentious. What Stone does, and does it very well, is show us everything that might’ve influenced Alexander to become the man he became. It’s we, the audience, who should try to understand him and make our own conclusions. And I applaud that. At its core the movie is a character study, and we are not used to getting character studies of this magnitude, so grandiose. Stone was brave enough to stay true to his vision and not get intimidated.

The movie also delves into Alexander’s intimate life. Widely known to be bisexual, Stone doesn’t shy away from showing it. We learn from the movie that Alexander always loved Hephaistion (Jared Leto), who stayed with him until the end. But he was nowhere near monotonous. And neither did that matter at the time. It was a time when such terms and limitations and boundaries did not exist. And it’s a pity that so much negativity has been targeted at the movie for this. Why not only watch it as a story of human beings? Sure, the only sex scene in the movie happens with a woman (Rosario Dawson), but criticizing this is just not getting the point of that scene. It isn’t just inserting a sex scene in there for nothing’s sake. There’s a whole subtext going on. And it wasn’t necessary to shoot a gay sex scene because it would’ve made it exploitative. Whatever gay content there’s in the movie Stone shows it in more imaginative ways that make the point clearly and effectively.

Another thing that actually surprised me is the actual lack of action involving battles in the movie. The second and third installments of the Lord of the Rings movies, for instance, took about a whole hour of their running times in extraordinary, breath-taking battles. But Alexander only boasts two of them, and they don’t last that much. Both battles, by the way, are exhilarating and original and full of tension. And even more surprising is that when the movie ends it is impressive to realize the actual lack of action shown. You feel exhausted, but it’s because of the level of intensity that every scene brings, even when there’s only dialogue involving two characters!

So yes, it is a dense movie. No denying that at all. And it is also a period piece that barely feels like one. When you see Troy, to name an example, you never lose the feeling that what you’re seeing are actors walking around disguised in togas in elaborate sets. I don’t know how Stone did it, but Alexander feels like a modern movie in the way that the costumes and sets and acting blend together so well that it doesn’t get distracting and it’s the story that gets the focus.

Another decision that Stone made regarding the structure of the movie was inserting a rather relevant flashback once the movie is getting to its end. Many people didn’t like this and I thought I wouldn’t as well. But again... missing the point. The flashback actually has something to do with the moment in Alexander’s life we’re witnessing. It’s a poignant moment that is effective and well-handled. Another complaint by some people is the music. When I heard Vangelis was doing the music I thought it was a horrible idea. Once you see the movie it feels odd at first, but soon you forget about it and the music actually blends quite well with the story. Sure, it does push for some rather melodramatic moments, but it works. It really does. Oh, and the whole issue about having people from different cultures speaking with different accents... I actually think it was a good idea. It differentiates ones from the others. And I had no problem with that at all.

Colin Farrell makes Alexander his own. It is a tour-de-force performance handled expertly by an actor who knows his craft. Farrell is extremely talented, and he puts so much passion and emotion in his performance that he must’ve been exhausted after the movie finished shooting. It’s testimony of really getting under a character’s skin and embodying him. The performance and transformation are, in one word, impressive. Val Kilmer also shines as the hard-drinking Philip. And Angelina Jolie delivers a deliciously over-the-top performance with aplomb. Her eyes alone can scare the shit out of you. Christopher Plummer has a small appearance as Aristotle, Anthony Hopkins plays our narrator, Ptolemy, and Rosario Dawson holds her own as Alexander’s first wife. Only Jared Leto seemed a bit miscast to me, but his work is strong enough.

Did I mention the movie is exquisitely photographed by Rodrigo Prieto? And every technical aspect is impeccable as well. They really nailed the era.

Overall a passionate, vivid, insightful epic about one of the most fascinating legends of all-time!

“In my womb I carried my avenger!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Alexander (2004): Mithrandir

Review

Alexander

Director

Oliver Stone

Year

2004

Rating

Reviewed by

Jorge Castillo a.k.a. Mithrandir

Review date

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

This movie could best be described in one word: completelyandutterlyamazing. What that means is that I was enchanted by the movie from beginning to end, and if you’re looking for another “bad review”, then you are just wasting your time reading this. From the first time that I saw the poster at my local movie theater, I knew I wanted to watch it: it dealt with ancient history, it was based on the life of Alexander the Great, and it had the completelyandutterlyamazing Angelina Jolie in it. It doesn’t get much better than that folks.

Alexander is the biopic of Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell), the Macedonian King who conquered most of the world, as it was known at the time, by the age of 30. Narrated by the philosopher Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins), the movie takes a look at the life of Alexander, from his childhood as the son of King Philip (Val Kilmer), to his ascension to the throne of Macedonia at the early age of 20, after his father was killed. Along the way, we see the impact that his mother Olympia (Angelina Jolie) has on his life and his way of thinking. Taking off at Macedonia, the film follows Alexander’s conquest of the known world, first leading his army against the incredibly powerful Persian Empire, going west to Egypt after that and finally making his last battle at India. All of these crowning achievements occur in a period of 8 to 11 years.

There’s a subplot in the movie that deals strictly with sexuality, not only Alexander’s, but that of all males in general. It was custom for an older, more mature Greek to take under his care, as a sort of protégé, a younger boy, to teach him everything, from preparation for battle to getting comfortable in their own skin (sort of) by having sex with them. This was normal back then, and most males had a wife with which they had kids at the same time that they had a younger boy under their care, to satisfy their sexual needs whenever desired. Alexander’s case was a bit different though: instead of having a boy just for his sexual escapades, he had a lover, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), whom he had been friends with since his early childhood. Their love is shown exclusively as hugs and words, though it is obvious that they are also sexual partners.

First of all, I want to congratulate WB for taking the chance that they did with this movie. It is an extremely expensive epic ($150+ million) and it deals with subjects that are still considered taboo in certain parts of our society. Second of all, I want to thank Oliver Stone for directing this movie and for having the necessary balls to make a movie that is honest to the historical record existent today. Unlike Troy (2004), where the historically-recorded sexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was merely reduced to a friendship, Oliver Stone actually decided to film the movie in accordance with history, presenting Alexander for what he was: a bisexual man in love with another man.

In the supporting actors department, we have Anthony Hopkins as the narrator Ptolemy, which, in my opinion, was a very wise casting decision. I cannot picture another actor doing his part as well as he did, except perhaps Christopher Lee (and that’s because the man is amazing and can do nothing wrong in the acting department… no matter what). Though he’s only in the movie for an average 20 to 30 minutes as a whole, he brings a sense of old age and tranquility to his character that makes it very refreshing to have him onscreen after a big battle or a fight to death. Val Kilmer as King Philip is nothing short of astounding: he gained over 50 pounds for the role and had about 2 hours of makeup applied everyday to make him look older, as well as for the scar tissue that covered his eye. Rosario Dawson as Roxane, Alexander’s first wife, steals every scene she’s in. Having probably some of the more risqué parts of the movie (a scene where she fights with Alexander, she’s completely naked, with breasts and vagina showing), she really delivers as the barbarian Egyptian they make her out to be. Last, but not least, there’s Jared Leto’s performance as Hephaistion, which made me believe that he was in fact in love with Alexander: not an easy thing to do, especially when you’re playing a gay man being a straight actor. He pulled it off magnificently.

The two main characters in this movie, along with the rest of the crowd, make up one of the best casts I’ve seen in a movie in a long time. First there’s the truly wonderful and amazing Angelina Jolie, who can also NEVER, and I mean NEVER do wrong in my eyes. She played Alexander’s mother Olympia, and she was every bit convincing and every bit amazing as I imagined her to be. If you have seen the movie or are planning to see it, look out for the scene where Olympia discovers that Alexander has died. She will truly move you. Her character stands alone for me in the movie, as the best performance of the cast. On the other hand, there’s Colin Farrell. Now, I’ve never really been a fan of his work, and I’ve never thought of him as an amazing actor. That opinion changed not so long ago when I saw a little film named A Home at the End of the World (2004). His performance in that movie alone managed to change my opinion about his acting skills, and I can honestly say that he did not disappoint in this one. He truly gets into the character: he literally becomes Alexander, and it is so remarkable to see him transform the character psychologically from one scene to the other the way he did… he got to me.

There are two major battle scenes in this movie: the battle at Gaugamela and the battle at India. Which one was more amazing and more visually stunning, it is hard for me to decide. There were two scenes in these battles that made me call this movie one of the best I’ve seen this year. In the battle at Gaugamela, while Alexander is speaking to his army, the camera slowly closes up on his face, but in a second, all of a sudden the camera moves from his face towards the sky, and we catch an eagle, soaring around the heavens. What happens from there made me feel wet in my pants: the camera literally follows behind the eagle flying, and below you can see the armies grouping and the beginning of the battle; this scene alone was worth my money. Though I know it was all computerized special effects, the incredibly realistic way in which they achieved it was mesmerizing. In the battle at India, when Alexander is riding through the woods and sees an elephant for the first time, he gallops towards it, and the moment that they stand face to face, the scene is captured in slow motion, so subtle, so beautiful, it literally made my eyes watery (I’m a big sucker for this kind of stuff).

I could go on and on about this film and why it did not deserve the reviews that it got from the critics. I did not concentrate in this review on the aspect that most critics were discussing: Alexander’s sexuality. I rather chose to talk about the general aspects of this film, its cast, and why it is such an amazing picture. I truly recommend this movie to each and every one of you reading this out there. It’s a long movie (3+ hours), but it is totally and utterly worth your time and your money. Go see it with an open mind, and you will find the greatness in Alexander.

“Conquer your fears, and I promise you, you will conquer death.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Alexander (2004): Morris