gotlbh

This film narrates the story of one of history's great military figures, Alexander of the Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian empires. In brief, Alexander was conquering Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East a few hundred years B.C. He died very young and by the time he passed away he had amassed a huge empire, a pretty incredible achievement made even more so by the fact it was done in such a short space of time.

The film is largely a telling of this history, albeit with some creative license here and there according to other commentators who have researched the facts a bit. The story is told to us as a retrospective in the third person, through the eyes of one of Alexander's Generals who outlives him. This format allows the story to jump around chronologically, so that we go back and forth to different periods of Alexander's life and slowly stitch together the bigger picture of the character, his motivations and his achievements.

This format requires the viewer to concentrate a bit harder to follow the story than would be needed if the story is told purely chronologically. But it also gives the film an extra dimension, allowing the viewer to discover more about the central character's motivations as the film evolves rather than laying them all out at the start.

This is a grand film, hugely ambitious in scope, and best viewed in the full 3.5 hour Director cut to fully appreciate the film's scale. The sets are magnificent, lush, visually sumptuous, as are the costumes and the CGI is thankfully quite limited. The battle scenes are chaotic. The dialogue is rich, especially in the scenes with the Generals debating their expedition - almost like a fly on the wall peering over a military soap opera. The cinematography is at times really stunning and the acting is on the whole not bad at all, with decent turns from Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins amongst others.

Overall, rather like Alexander himself, I think this film tries to reach too far. It is too ambitious and it's attempt at scale and grandeur doesn't quite succeed, giving the film a bit of a sprawling and incoherent feel. But the effort is truly admirable and for pure visual pleasure it is certainly worth a watch, and maybe even a re-appraisal.

This film essentially tells the story of an ambitious and somewhat psychotic news video freelancer (played by Jake Gyllenhall) who will do anything, literally, to make his way in the world and be successful and a media editor (played by Rene Russo) who,in her own world of news casting, also has few if any scruples when it comes to her career and reputation. Put the two together and you get an escalating set of events in which the video freelancer goes to greater and greater extremes to film shocking scenes of crime, encouraged along by the media editor who is paying for his results.

What makes the film more interesting than just another action drama is the social commentary and the character studies. The main characters are very well crafted, believable, explained through back drop and excellently acted out. The parallels between them are also interesting to observe. Both pretty much without any care for the people around them and focused solely on personal gain. What the video guy will do to get his paycheck is shocking, but what the media editor will do to get her news reel is just as distasteful.

The social commentary is also sharp. The media is portrayed essentially as caring about nothing but a good story, even in fact if that story happens to be untrue. What matters is the narrative and the narrative has to fit the agenda of the media agency. By this measure all news is little more than propaganda. The video guy, despite his barbaric methods and behaviour, is also tolerated by those around him and the message, at least from the media editor and her team (acknowledging one dissenting voice in the film), is that it is OK to be cruel and to hurt others if it is in the pursuit of personal ambition. Both are valid observations and comments on today's society, whether we, the viewers, happen to agree with them or not.

The film also has a touch of originality which isn't easy to do these days when so many movies have already been made. Yes there are studies out there of psychos, yes there are films that vilify the media and there are films about morbid voyeurism and about the exploitation of victims of crime for personal gain. The originality comes from putting them all together. I couldn't really think of a parallel, although others might.

This is well worth watching. You may not ultimately enjoy the film, after all it isn't pleasant, but I am fairly sure you will remember it.

As a fellow ex oxford student I can say with some confidence that this is an appalling and terrible portrayal of university life and an embarrassment of a film.

In fact, it does a real disservice to the university and to the acting and directing professions.

Wooden characters, terrible stereotypes, disinterested and low quality acting, inaccurate representations.

Only nice thing I can say is you get some decent shots of the university camps. Brought back some memories. It is a pretty place if you want to visit.

Go and watch flies buzzing around a tree, it is more interesting.

If I could rank it zero I would.