Alexandre

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.

Saw Alexander last night and loved it. Would I recommend it? Yes-BUT-be forewarned, this is not your classic historical epic so leave behind all ideas of what an historic epic film should be and bring along an open the mind for a wonderful ride. After all, one doesn't expect Ben-Hur or The Robe or The Ten Commandments from Oliver Stone. He uses jumpy camera shots and grainy filters as well as wonderful color filters that give the battle scenes a viscerally disturbing edge, taking the viewer out of their complacent acceptance of 21st century, violent battle scenes and making them squirm. I felt the desiccating heat at Gaugamel as well as the cloying humidity of the Indian forests. The grandeur of the CGI presentation of Babylon was awe inspiring as was the set for the Library at Alexandria.

The subtle presentation of the film in Greek Tragedy format worked well for me, from Pharoah Ptolomy representing the chorus through the Oedipal angst of Alexander's love/hate relationship with his parents. The costuming was perfection, as was the architecture. Not once was I jolted by an incorrect piece of art, jewelry, fabric or weapon. The use of a Gypsy Horse (or Irish Cob) for Bucephalus was a striking choice. They are a majestic breed and, although I am under-educated as to what his actual breed was, he was well cast.

Before seeing the film I was only aware of Messers Stone and Farrell and Ms. Jolie's involvement so I was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of Brian Blessed as the wrestling master and Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Cassander, and I was thrilled by the Vangelis score! I have not heard a Vangelis score since The Bounty.

As for the representation of love between Alexander and Hephaestion, my hat is off to Oliver Stone for his presentation of a love that transcended gender and was as true as that Paris held for Helen. Unlike the recent film of Troy, in which the lovers Achilles and Patroclus were made into platonic cousins, Oliver Stone has courageously represented an historic love to a culture wherein the attitude towards male/male pairings have become anethema. That the Great General Alexander had a male life companion is a simple fact of history as we know it. In my years at school it was not presented as either laudable or offensive, it was simply a researched fact. History as we know it tells us that the Greece of Alexander's time looked upon such pairings as Alexander's and Hephaestion's as something acceptable as long as they grew in knowledge and virtue. Christopher Plummer's Aristotle sums this up in one simple speech near the beginning of the film and, by taking Ganymede to his side, the greatest of all Greek Gods, Zeus, sanctioned such pairings. Like it as not, right or wrong, the *gender issue* and *gay issue* are a none other than a matter of popular opinion, and popular opinion at the time of Alexander was that men lay down with men as well as women. It simply was, and that is how Oliver Stone handled it-simply-without defense or apology and that took guts.

Even without the *controversial* relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion, this would have been a 9.5 out of 10 for me.

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.

The story of Alexander the great, the King of Macedonia who sweep across much of the world as it was known at the time. With flashbacks to his relationship with his father King Philip and mother Olympias, we follow Alexander as a boy taught by Aristotle and his rise to power and first conquers all of Persia before moving eastward into deeper Asia as he attempts to reach the Ocean to return to Macedonia. However this road is tough and his men struggle with his methods of ruling his conquered territories and with the seemingly never-ending quest.

Despite the fact that this was slated (maybe because it was slated) I decided to give a try for myself. The only option available to me for rental was the slightly shorter Director's Cut, so I took that one and my comments are based around that – how different it is from the original release into cinemas I'm unsure but it was what I had. Taking the eagle of the early scenes as my guide and looking at film from a great height, it is actually not too bad. Cosmetically it all looks good with lots of money spent on the CGI, the battle scenes, the cast, the costumes and so on. However the reality is that every audience must watch this scene by scene and deal with it line by line and it is at this level where the film doesn't really work.

To give it its dues though, the overall sweep is good and the battle scenes are impressive even to this post-Lord of the Rings viewer and it is fair to say that the money is right up on there on the screen. Talk about the narrative, the script, the performances, the delivery though and it is a different story. Whether the story is historically accurate or not I cannot say but, like with many of these things, I am happy to take the overall story as reasonably educational while also recognising that much of it will have been either made up for the sake of the telling or simplified for the same reason. The problem for me was not with the accuracy but more with the script. It is written like speeches rather than conversations; nobody seems to talk so much as proclaim. This makes the characters harder to get into and comes over like the writers were forcing themes rather than building them into their characters.

I actually liked the flashback structure as it gave us both elements of Alexander building towards the conclusion of the film. That said though, it is a bit laboured at times and not every timeshift works as well as it should have done or contributes as much as I suspect it was supposed to. Stone's direction is impressive in regards the battle scenes but it is as writer and deliverer of the story that he falls down; even his "cut" contains structural problems and failings.

Without a good script the starry cast mostly struggle. It doesn't help that the themes are mostly handed to the cast in clumps rather than being woven into the dialogue and the characters. Unlike many reviewers I didn't really mind the use of Irish accents; it was a bit funny at first but I got used to the device of the accents representing a certain people. Farrell is left exposed by his director. I do not mean the shot of his balls but more the fact that he seems rudderless in his performance, never being consistent and swinging wildly with each scene. It doesn't help that each line he says is delivered like it is "the most important thing ever™" – with this in mind I didn't care what he looked like, it was more fundamental issues I had with him. Leto, Meyers, Beattie and others provide unremarkable support but the bigger worry is in the A-list names that misfire. Contrary to what some have said, I thought Jolie did a pretty good job with her manipulative character; it is not her fault that she is too young for the role and I'm not entirely sure why she was cast as I can think of a handful of older actresses who could have risen to the role. More disappointing was Dawson who offers little apart from a nude scene (which is an absurdly comic sex scene in itself). Contrary to what my girlfriend might say, I do think Dawson is a good actress and although the male part of me appreciated seeing her naked, I cannot help but wonder why her real talents were wasted in a role that gave her nothing to work with and very little to do anyway. Hopkins is a good narrator and as a device he holds the film together well. Blessed provides a slice of his usual ham then disappears, Plummer likewise while Kilmer does an OK job as the father of the piece.

Overall then this is not as terrible a film as the critics would have led you to believe but this is not to be confused with me saying that it is "good". The overall sweep of the film is OK while technically it is professional and impressive but the script is poor, the characters delivered on a basic "and here's the theme for this scene" level, while the performances are either weak or, at best, well-meaning. Like I say it isn't as totally valueless as some have claimed but what potential there is, is mostly missed.

With such an epic story, you would think someone like Stone would produce an epic film. From the random accents of the characters (specifically, I have no idea what Jolie was trying to do), to some pretty atrocious acting from Farrell-he's capable of much better, but this was at the height of his grandiosity and ego. There are so many moments where it feels like the film is onto something, only to have it stop and spin off into another, pointless direction. Bottom line: a $155 mil film about Alexander the Great should have been iconic, but Alexander falls flat on its face from the weight of the egos involved.