Review of Alexander (1996) by Darrick C — 13 Apr 2010

I think when you have to tinker with something multiple times, and it still does not make that thing work, or easier to understand, you just need to walk away from it. This is exactly what I felt as I was watching "Alexander Revisited". You have a 175 minute theatrical cut, a 167 minute directors cut for DVD, and now this epic 214 minute "final" cut. All had either subtle or major changes, but none helped to make the narrative clearer or easier to understand. Stone mentions in the introduction the movie slows down tremendously if shown in a linear or time based fashion, as there is too much action at the beginning of the movie, and the movie just falls from there. When it came to the DVD release, he decided that the entire movie was best served by a secondary parallel chronology of the younger Alexander along with the older Alexander. This would allow the viewer to see how the past affected the future of Alexander. The movie vacillates between the present and the past to support Stones intent. I do not like to second guess a directors vision, or his reasoning for making changes to his movies. However when those changes just create more confusion, and convolutes the plot worse than it was before, then it becomes an open target for second guessing. Looking at Alexander Revisited is much like looking at a long piece of thin lumber stretch between to widely spaced saw horses. It is well supported on the ends (the great battle scenes), but bends down in the middle for lack of support, and weighed down further with even more issues than its previous incarnations. I had a terrible time keeping track of who was doing what to whom, and what repercussions these events had on the past/present/future. With so many things going on in this film, you really have to pay attention at all times. I found this rather difficult to do trying to figure out what the heck is going on, watching the individual and collective performances of the actors, looking at the picture quality, and listening to the sound as well. It's just too much to process from moment to moment so you have to pick which things to focus on or you either overload, or shut down partially or completely during the viewing.

Watching the directors cut on DVD, I always felt there was something missing, and nothing is played out for the viewer to latch on to. Here it feels like everything and the kitchen sink is thrown in, given plenty of breathing room, but crowds the mind with almost too much detail and information, which draws it out far too much for my taste. Following the storyline is not the only issue on this movie. The casting is a big problem for this epic flick. Colin Farrell as Alexander is about as big a miscast as one can get. He is not an actor of profound depth and skill. He does fine as the military leader, but utterly fails as a private emotional Alexander as he is never able to cover the full emotional dynamic. As Alexander the man deteriorates in the film as it progresses along, Farrell's acting chops deteriorates as well. While I think Angelina Jolie did very well as Alexander's mother, she looks too young in my opinion to be Alexander's mother, and that gets painfully obvious as the film progresses. Another thing I noticed (being an auditory person) is the wide array of very bad accents from those who are supposedly of the same group. I think King Philip is poorly portrayed here, without a mere mention of him being a great military leader in his own right, which clearly influences his son in real life.

No doubt, the $155 million budget of this epic movie made it on to the screen, unlike another high cost movie "Waterworld" of which $170 million was spent, and about half of that reached the screen. Alexander features visually stunning costumes, sets, and highly detailed set adornments. The battle scenes, set in India and in the desert of Gaugamela are excellent examples of expert camera work. It gets a little gory at times, but the excitement and emotion they generate allows you overlook all of the blood and gore. However I am afraid it takes more than a couple of really good battle scenes to make a great epic movie, let alone a good one. No matter which version of this movie I have seen, not one of them necessarily helps in making Alexander better, no matter how many times we are asked to "revisit" it. Stone mentions that either you will love or hate Alexander. I felt neither love nor hate of this movie. Neutral would best describe how I felt after viewing this butt flattening 214 minute flick.

This film tells the tale of Alexander the Great (356 BC- 323 BC) arguably one of the most well known, exhalted military leaders in the history of ancient Greece. It opens with a vision of Alexander's (Colin Farrell) daily life in the court of his father. Alexander grew up with his mother Olympias (Angelina Jolie), and was taught by his tutor Aristotle from whom he developed an interest in love, honor, music, exploration, poetry, and most importantly military combat. His relationship with his father is strained, and later destroyed by his marriage to Eurydice. We are often reminded of the battle between his two parents (almost too much so), as both have a profound mistrust of each others intents. After Philip is assassinated, Alexander ascends to the throne of Macedonia, and all of Greece. Via the narrative of Ptolemy, we learn about the razing of Thebes, the burning of Persopolis, get an overview of Alexander's west Persian campaign, his declaration as the son of Zeus by the Oracle of Amun, his great battle against Persian Emperor Darius III in the epic battle of Gaugamela, and his eight year campaign at Hydaspes against Porus. Also touched on is his private relationship with his childhood friend Hephaestion (Jared Leto) and later his wife Roxana (Rosario Dawson). Alexander suspects that Roxana poisoned Hephaestion, which causes him, in spite of her pregnancy, to distance himself from her. It is suggested that Hephaestion is closer to Alexander than his wife is. After conquering Babylon, Alexander admits that Hephaestion is his only real love. The jealousy between Roxana and Hephaestion was palpable, as you can see the various attempts to pit one against the other throughout the last part of the film. This story of Alexander follows Alexander's quest to expand his empire, his warfare tactics, and ideology which have shaped the mechanics of warfare from that period, to our current modern times.

I never saw the original theatrical version of this movie, but I have seen the directors cut on DVD. When I read about what Stone has done in terms of all the different re-works of this film, I cannot help but think he was throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately everything has slid to the floor, with not much sticking to the wall, as the two versions I have seen are still dogged by the same issues. To his credit Stone admits that this is a flawed product, and that he did the best he could to at least make it a better product than the theatrical release. However no amount of editing can make up for poor casting and acting, so at some point you just have to let things be what they are. I would strongly suggest you rent this first before purchase. You may find that you are either able, or not able to over look this films drawbacks, because if you can, there is a very compelling story that is being told here.