Review of Alexander (2004) by Ryan T — 29 Jul 2012

Oliver Stone loves detail. In Alexander, he has crammed as many historical facts as he possibly can into a historical epic. The problem is, it's rather inaccurate, so why did he bother if he was going to take artistic license? It plods ponderously, like a poorly written textbook. The accents are a combination of Irish, Russian, and everything in between. The dialogue is archaic and pompous, but at the same time contemporary, making it all sound really goofy. The battles are shot competently, but it's been done far better in Gladiator, Braveheart, even The Lord of the Rings or Troy, just to name some recent epics. The costuming and sets look fake yet bombastic, adding to the overblown air of this bloated production. The character development is somehow simple despite so much time being invested in each one. It's probably because Stone loves to repeat his themes throughout the entire film. Every scene with his mother feels like a repetition of the last one with her. Every scene with Hephaistion feels like a repetition of the last one with him. And so on. The transitions are poor. It jumps from present to past to far past and back jarringly. All the actors seem stifled by Stone's direction. The cinematography and dialogue is so clinical and boring that it renders the whole thing dull, especially during Anthony Hopkins' scenes. Val Kilmer is about the only one who manages to play around with his role and inject some life into an otherwise lifeless ordeal. Special mention to Colin Farrell, as he is an impressive actor, but he simply cannot save this. Most of the other actors, especially Rosario Dawson, are wasted, reduced to staring or uttering laughable lines.

Alexander is ultimately a repetitive mess that showcases much potential. It's kind of like a poor translation of a better movie that was swimming around in Oliver Stone's head.