Review of Alexander (1996) by Sid C — 12 Oct 2011

The version of Alexander I'm reviewing is the second or director's cut, which may or may not have some bearing on whether I influence anyone else as to whether or not they want to view this film. To be concise, this really stunk. It's a ponderous train wreck of a film, and I couldn't wait for it to end. Whether or not Oliver Stone took liberties with the truth as we know it is irrelevant. It is an incoherent, terrible movie. It is dull and ridiculously over-acted, especially by Farrell and Jolie. Normally I like Anthony Hopkins, Rosario Dawson, and even Val Kilmer sometimes but not much here. I felt sympathy for Dawson's character as well as the actress herself.

The action plays something like the sword and sandal epics of the 1950s, and the battlefield scenes are passable. The "rousing" speech delivered by Farrell on the eve of battle is silly and pretentious though, just like this over burdened film. Stone does aim high, much too high, and maybe that's why this movie crashes. Alexander's story is a compelling human as well as historical story, but Stone doesn't do him justice here.

Many say that the longer, final cut is markedly better, that it is more coherent. I don't know, not having seen it, but in the interest of fairness, I do not dismiss it. If you are into epics like Gladiator, Troy, and Kingdom of Heaven, you may want to consider watching it. If you end up with an Oedipal complex though, don't say I didn't warn you.