Review of Alexander (1996) by Cameron J — 21 May 2013

Oh man, they told me this was, bad, but alas, I didn't believe them! Well, then I guess it's a good thing that I'm among a small handful who find this film not simply not as bad as they say, but actually pretty good, which isn't to say that the final product isn't without a whole heap of flaws. So yeah, I for one think that this film is pretty good, as it should be, considering the fact that it's almost three hours, or, in the case of the"final cut", or three-and-a-half hours long, but it's still safe to say that when the only people who can be offended by an Oliver Stone film has been dead for centuries, then Stone doesn't really know what in the world to do, unless, of course, he is intentionally making this film bad to most critics as a substitute for offensiveness. Eh, actually, I guess Stone would have to do that, because this film is plenty offensive to historians, as 25 Greek lawyers will tell you, because they were so angry about this film's being ostensibly inaccurate that they threatened to sue Stone and Warner Bros. Ouch, now that's harsh, but hey, some people don't like their history messed with, no matter what is said by Stone, who I'm not saying is a raving progressive liberal, but couldn't even let this film make it past its British premiere before griping about how his effort was a financial disappointment because of fundamentalists, or, if you will, some form of - you guessed it - conservative. Jeez, Stone just needs to just hush his overbearingly left wing self up and make a good film, and I'm sure plenty of people who actually saw this film would agree, only, well, you know, they would probably say that this film is anything but a fulfillment of the proposal that Stone make a good film. Yeah, forget y'all, I like the film, though it's not like I'm saying that the final product is as good as such Oliver Stone biopics as "JFK" or "Nixon", neither of which were close to being cleansed of more than a few big problems, therefore leaving this film to, in spite of its being underrated, take some serious damage.

If Oliver Stone is known for nothing else, it's style, and a whole lot of it, typically over films that don't exactly warrant intense overstylizing, such as this one, whose hyperstyle is admittedly not as played up as it is in other films by Stone, but makes its eventually being explored really count a bit too much by taking on anything from the occasional questionable post-production trick (There is seriously a moment before the first battle sequence in which Alexander's soldiers deliver a battle cry to show their intense courage, and Stone seriously has lion roars dubbed in), to overblown storytelling that audaciously - nay - shamelessly oversteps boundaries, whether it be in the usage of such things as disturbing imagery and over-the-top, if a bit admittedly inventive gore, or in the intensification of atmosphere to an overblown state. Sure, the intensity within Stone's atmosphere compliments the fair degree of entertainment value that settles the considerable disengagement value a film this dragged out and dramatically flawed could have held, but actually exacerbates shortcomings in resonance, rarely to where I found my investment totally shaken away, but decidedly to where many a glaring subtlety lapse ensued and distanced me a bit from the story in a fashion that hardly does any favors for the settling of the cheesiness within the writing department. Now, let me tell you, I don't think that Oliver Stone's, Christopher Kyle's and Laeta Kalogridis' script is bad on the whole by any stretch, having plenty of high points that range from decent moments in dialogue and genuinely effective areas in characterization, but when the writing slips up, at it all too often does, there's no denying where it missed, with the most glaring writing issues being, of course, in the dramatic aspects that are generally inspired enough to compel, but plagued with histrionics and subtlety issues that create a rift between the contemporary audience and this more romantic era, and retard dramatic momentum. If nothing else, Stone's, Kyle's and Kalogridis' screenplay is rich with conventions, most of which I was able to forgive enough to feel reasonably refreshed by what I was watching, though never to where I could fully see through the cliches that would often get the better of the compelling compensations in storytelling and come off as borderline trite, and that's a shame, because this film could have been more refreshing, and clearly wants to be, but ends up filling most of its scenes with familiar beats, and let me tell you, that's a whole lot of scenes, which is where what might be the final product's biggest issue comes in. Don't get me wrong, I do indeed enjoy a good long film, and this film does typically use its time wisely in order to flesh things out as reasonably rewarding, or at least that's the case with the considerably lengthier and apparently richer "final cut" that I saw, yet for every reasonably well-realized aspect in this drama, there is fat around the edges that bloats storytelling into bland meanderings that don't disengage constantly, or even ever bore like the other critics say they do, but give you too much time to meditate upon both material that grows to take on repetition, and, of course, things that Stone might not want you to think about. Being that it is so overdrawn, the final product gives you plenty of time to meditate upon the flaws, yet dragging doesn't call your attention toward the final product's shortcomings nearly as much as Stone's immense ambition, which is understandable, and even fulfilled, to one degree or another, more often than not, at least in my opinion, but just goes to show you just how much Stone wants to succeed with this film and just how much he, not necessarily fails, but falls short in a lot of ways, thus leaving all of the stylistic, writing and pacing mishaps to go cheesily emphasized to an undeniable level that I can't say took the general reward value out of the final product for me, but certainly left me walking away, disappointed that this exceedingly promising project couldn't have been assured enough to achieve the excellence, if not greatness that it could have easily achieved, especially with a filmmaker as talented as Oliver Stone at the helm. In spite of this, while the final product isn't what it should be, what it ultimately is is underrated, being undeniably very flawed, but inspired enough places to reward, or at least deliver on some commendable artistic touches.

Oliver Stone could have gone the expected route and gotten more classical-esque composers for an ancient epic of this type, like, say, James Horner, or Howard Shore, or even long-time collaborator John Williams, but Stone ended up keeping faithful to the film's Greek theme by employing Vangelis, a somewhat notoriously inventive score composer who must put together one his more formulaic efforts through this film, seeing as how "Blade Runner" synthesizers wouldn't and, well, "don't" exactly fit (Hey, he could go only so long before hitting the keyboard), but still hits time and again as excellent, with fine musical tastes that grace this film with a richly dynamic soul and sweep befitting of an epic of this type, when it could have fallen slave to Stone's over-the-top tastes and gotten as offputtingly ultrastylish as certain other Vangelis' scores or, well, Rodrigo Prieto's photography for this film, whose stylish camerawork and other advanced filming aspcts feel a bit too contemporaneous for you to fully buy into the era, though not to where you can't still appreciate Prieto's cinematographic efforts for what they are, often rather plain, but generally very attractively warm in and coloring and lighting that, when played up at just the right time, really catches your eye. Musical and photographic value in this film are easy to get used to in this film, yet their high notes, time and again, replenish your aesthetic appreciation for them as impressively inspired by their own artistic right, perhaps even supplementary to the selling of this film's heart, as surely as production designer Jan Roelfs' and costume designer Jenny Beavan's efforts help in selling you on this film's setting, and beautifully so, whether when they're establishing a near-immersively intricate interpretation of 4th century BC, or flaunting the colorful environments and other components to Alexander the Great's richly royal life. The film's production value really stands out as dazzling and convincing, while the score entertains, the photography proves to be attractive, and the action sequences, surprisingly very rare and a bit too repulsively grautitously violent though they may be, thrill as sweeping and dynamic, so as far as aesthetics, technical value and style are concerned, the final product accels, and I'm sure plenty of people can agree with me on that, no matter how much of a mess the film is to them, while I stand over here, all but alone, complimenting both the film's look and the film's compellingness. Okay, perhaps my peers and I can at least agree that this film, as flawed, perhaps even downright sloppy as it is in execution, can never fully wash away that little spark of intrigue found in the simple fact that this basic story is, of course, very worthy, chronicling the grand life of one of the most recognized leaders of all time, complete with explorations of juicy theories that provide additional insight into a story that is rich enough in its basic form, thus leaving the film with a whole heap of potential for excellence that is, of course, hardly as fulfilled as it could have been and perhaps should have been, but can still be seen throughout the idea behin the project, and can, in fact, be seen in certain areas in this flawed interpretation, whose script, while messy and bloated, isn't afraid to take the time to explore deep regions of this substance for the sake of compelling characterization that may be held back, but was fleshed out enough to earn my investment, further secured by, of all things, the performances behind this film's worthy characters. I, of course, say, "of all the things", when referring the performances as components to the film's compellingness, as though I am surprised to find that this film is generally well-acted, because among the critics' great disappointments with this film is the performances within this massive, star-heavy cast of talents, who have recieved some serious heat and aren't exactly given the most powerful of acting material to work with, but I feel deliver, for although you shouldn't go into this film expecting revelatory performances, acting is the better than plenty say, if not simply strong by their own right, with leading man Colin Farrell being somewhat miscast (Roger Ebert seriously suggested Woody Harrelson in the role, because, yeah, you know, the scrawny, funky-looking, middle-aged, balding Texan with a crooked mouth is much more suited to play a commanding and militarily proficient force as legendary as Alexander the Great), but ultimately compensating by taking on a commanding and layered charisma, broken up by effective, emotionally-charged dramatic notes that help in exploring and gradually becoming Alexander the Great, as well as an engaging lead by his own right. Were the film more assured, it could have provided the acting material needed to provide outstnaind performances to go along with outstanding storytelling, but as things stand, the onscreen performances do a fair bit in carrying the film as compelling, while what truly solidifies the final product as rewarding, at least to me, is what is, in fact, done right in the efforts of Oliver Stone as director, because as flawed as Stone's overambitious direction is, when he settles down, finds what he is looking for and turns ambition into inspiration, he gives you a glimpse at what could have been, keeping a consistent degree of liveliness up enough to keeping entertainment value going, while heart and an adequate degree of attention to depth sustain compellingness, in spite of dramatic shortcomings, until broken up by genuine heights in kick that slowly, but surely, grow greater in both quantity and degree. While I found the film to rarely, if ever be as messy as they say, it did start out rather underwhelming, but before too long, it bleeds into an engaging, maybe even strong body that continues to ameliorate, until we come to latter acts that, while still flawed, are truly exceptional in their realization and celebration of the power that this film should have held throughout its course, and while such an overdue pay-off shows up too late for the final product to be outstanding on the whole, it punctuates compellingness that is messily mishandled at times, but, on the whole, at least to me, engaging enough to reward as undeniably flawed, but nonetheless genuinely good.

In closing, moments of overstylization shake your investment, though not as much as the histrionic writing areas that unsubtly and even conventionally distance as kind of cheesy, while bloated, almost meandering storytelling distances as blanding enough to draw your attention more toward the other issues that render the final product unable to come close to achieving its full potential, though hardly to where it slips into the contempt that other critics hold for it, or even out of genuine goodness, achieved through such relatively little, but praise-worthy strengths as fine score work, handsome cinematography and outstanding production value, as well as through such more major beats as the good acting and inspired areas in direction that breathe enough life into a worthy story concept to make Oliver Stone's "Alexander" an entertaining and compelling epic that may be too messy to be nearly as outstanding as it could have been, but may reward the patient as an underrated experimental study on the rich life of Alexander the Great.

3/5 - Good.