Alexandre

At first, I didn't feel much of a need to comment on the film, since so many others have written and have said so many things. But I think there are some really important points to made, and I haven't seen anyone make them. So here I am writing.

In my opinion, almost everyone misunderstood the relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander. In the modern world, especially in the West, two men are either very close to each other, sleep together, and have sex, or they keep a good comfortable distance from each other and, if they're friendly, might punch each other on the arm. In this film, we see a relationship that is hard for most people today to understand, namely a passionate love relationship between two men in which sex is not very important and possibly even absent.

Aristotle essentially explained the whole film near the beginning when he told the young couple something like the following, as best I can remember it, "When two men lie together in lust, it is over indulgence. But when two men lie together in purity, they can perform wonders." Or something like that. Given what I know of that culture, I am sure that "in purity" means no sex, or at least very little. That's why we never see them kiss. In the film, as in many older films, kissing is a metaphor for sex. Even when Alexander kisses his mother, it refers to the idea of sex. That's why Alexander kisses Bagoas, but not Hephaistion.

Now I'm not sure if the real historical Aristotle would have made that remark. That's not exactly what he says about homosexuality in the Nicomachean Ethics. But the remark is plausible enough since Alexander could easily have heard such an idea during his youth. Plato (before Aristotle) expressed that idea, and Zeno of Citium (after Aristotle) did too. So even if Aristotle never said this to Alexander, it is plausible enough that the idea was in the air and that Alexander heard it from someone or other.

Some have complained that the "homosexuality" (assuming that A's relationship with Heph. should even be called that) was thrown in their faces too much. But it's crucial to the plot. Stone is hypothesizing that Hephaistion was essential for what Alexander did. Further, it's a standard Hollywood convention to juxtapose a love story with some great political, military, or otherwise grand event. There are tons of examples. Titanic, Enemy at the Gates, Gone with the Wind, ... the list could go on forever. It really is homophobic to complain about Stone continually going back to this theme, because he has a perfectly good artistic reason to do it.

A few more details: Alexander's hair. I think that Stone was trying to make Alexander look like Martin Potter in Satyricon -- a nod to Fellini.

Alexander's accent and soft appearance. Another nod to a great director passed on, this time Stanley Kubrick. Farrel really looks a lot like Ryan O'Neil in Barry Lyndon. In fact, he really looks like a Ryan O'Neill / Martin Potter coalescence. I think it's deliberate.

The softness of Alexander's personality. In a lot of scenes it made sense. He was gentle enough to know how to approach Bucephalus and tame him without scaring him. He was open minded enough to adopt a lot of Persian culture and encourage intermarriage, while the other more "he-man" folks around him were less comfortable with the idea.

Yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I do like the film. People's hatred of the film is hard for me to understand.

It took Oliver Stone four tries and ten years of edits to get this film right...but he finally does.

The Final Cut, released in 2014, shuffles the story elements around so the narrative is fast-paced and cohesive. Alexander's bisexuality is explored much more deeply. Those close to Alexander are further explored.

If you're going to watch Alexander, watch The Final Cut. It's far and away the best version.

Hollywood star power and tons of money can't save this overwrought, melodramatic story of the life and times of Alexander The Great (Colin Farrell), the Greek warrior who conquered lands in times B.C.

The single biggest problem here is the script, and in particular the plot structure. Just as viewers are getting familiar with a plot sequence, the time period of the story shifts backward to a previous era, or forward to a future era. Displayed on the screen as "10 Years Earlier" or "40 Years Later" or "9 Years Earlier" or "8 Years Later", back and forth we go. It's maddening. It makes the story, which already contains too many characters with strange names, muddled and hard to follow. Director Oliver Stone apparently tries to cram in too much information; as such, the story's scope is too broad. Another possibility is that the time-shifts were necessitated in post-production editing. But whatever the cause, the screen story's convoluted plot is a huge barrier to understanding Alexander and the people in his life.

In addition, the script's dialogue contains too much exposition, mostly from Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) who, via numerous monologues, lectures us about Greek history. Again, one gets the impression that Stone is trying too hard to make the film a comprehensive history lesson.

Non-script elements are not much better. Casting for the main parts is poor. I like Angelina Jolie, but she is no Olympias. And Colin Farrell, with his golden locks, would fit better in a modern day romantic comedy. Acting is hammy, at times almost laughably so. Actors don't communicate with each other so much as they speechify. Every line of dialogue is heavy with import. Even the film's makeup is overdone. Jared Leto, with all that eyeliner, looks like a drag queen.

Perhaps the best element of the film is the color cinematography. It's quite good. Some of the landscapes are visually sweeping and majestic. And I liked that ethereal background music from Vangelis. Also, the costumes are colorful and apparently quite authentic.

I like Oliver Stone. But I have never cared for sword and sandal movies. They always seem pretentious, so proud of themselves, in their extended runtimes and sweeping scope. "Alexander" is no exception; it muddles along for nearly three hours, and covers most of one man's lifetime as he conquers lands from the Mediterranean to the Far East.

Maybe Oliver Stone would have been better advised to confine his saga to a smaller, more restricted story, one wherein viewers can get to know the protagonist and his inspirations and challenges. In its present form, "Alexander" is just too sprawling and epical to warrant any enthusiasm from me.

Though many have had very negative things to say about it, I felt that it was a good movie. Watching that Colin, I forgot that he was Colin and started to see Alexander. Just for that I felt that this movie is of some worth. I have to admit some of the lines sent chills down my spin, but the movie on the whole was good. Historically this movie could not have been far off. Pertaining to Alexander's death, I liked how the cause was left ambiguis. Those that say that Stone butchered History in making this movie I find to be wrong. Though Alexander might not have been blond, why not by the way, much of what was portrayed went against common belief but true to what we have learned of the great conqueror. I guess summed up, this was a GOOD movie, I enjoyed myself, and was able to immerse myself in Stone's interpretation of the life of a GREAT man.

This film is balancing on a thin line between artistic movie-making or pretentious failure. I watched it only once in its Ultimate Cut entirety and what I've witnessed is a bold epic, but besides that, much more of a character study film. The film has few shots with outdated CGI that are minimal and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The acting is quite well for what the actors are trying to portray. Everyone's saying Alexander is miscast, laughable, and weak. But that's what this movie's going for; uncovering the man behind the legend. Was that man perfect? Did he appear perfect? None of us are, but he was clever, brave beyond measure, and had the wit for war and diplomatic leadership. His speeches portrayed as motivating and convincing are also at times awkward and frail. The action is sometimes too shaky, but the battles still deliver the intensity and violent nature of death in war. The last battle, although shorter, is a marvel to behold. Full of colors, intricate designs, ferocious imagery, and artistic moments. The music by Vangelis might be his best; it lifts this whole ancient world to life and elevates certain scenes to haunting heights of craftsmanship.

Some characters could have been more fleshed out as they have paramount roles. Some of the accents are kind of overdone, but there is a meaning behind some of them. Rosario Dawson and Angelina Jolie are gorgeous and enchanting. Symbolism and the visual language of this film functioned remarkably well. The film's philosophy is very much about genders and sexism, racism and xenophobia, frailty and ego and myths, and their effect on people. A passionate man and a dreamer can only go so far, and that's what brought Alexander's downfall.

The film finishes strongly with Anthony Hopkins's narration, where he goes back on his words and scraps them, cementing the element of an unreliable narrator. That being the main point of this film, history and its validity, and how some larger-than-life figures can be very much like us, mere mortals.

I didn't even mention the elephant in the room (no pun intended), Alexander's homosexuality, or bisexuality. The film rarely presents it as some big problem or talking point. Kind of like it used to be more acceptable to feel the greatest love for a man. Now, this film is still getting condemned for that. How much more progressed are we today, ay?