Alexander, the King of Macedonia and one of the greatest army leaders in the history of warfare, conquers much of the known world.Alexander, the King of Macedonia and one of the greatest army leaders in the history of warfare, conquers much of the known world.Alexander, the King of Macedonia and one of the greatest army leaders in the history of warfare, conquers much of the known world.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 6 wins & 19 nominations total
- Young Ptolemy
- (as Robert Earley)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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?
Alexander is an historical epic based on the life of Alexander the Great. Off the bat I have to say that this "Final Cut" version of the film is the only one I have seen. Upon its initial home format release - the first theatrical version - I lasted an hour and 15 minutes before growing restless and sought enjoyment elsewhere. Consequently as a massive fan of historical epics through the years, it has been a constant nagging itch for me to see Alexander in its entirety. So with Oliver Stone tinkering away with versions - convinced he has made a worthwhile epic - I finally delved in.
The Final Cut, as far as I'm aware, is a vast improvement on that savagely received theatrical release, well that is said by those who tried again instead of calling quits at the first production. Straight away I could see the difference, where once was a plodding first hour, now sits a vibrancy, with Stone seemingly saying that he can do great action and drama, just please hang around during all the historical chatter, sexual connotation, family strife and conquering machinations, and I will enthral you as a whole.
By his own admission, Stone reveals he took on a most complex historical character and in his eyes has made a film to befit such complexity. We get a splintered narrative, as we kick off with the crux of Alexander the Great, the leader, while Alexander's childhood and family forming is interspersed at various junctures. The battles are high in intensity and blood letting - exhilarating at times - but more crucially they let us engage with the tactical "ahead of their time" manoeuvres of Alexander the Great. This version mostly flows alright, and I got to feel how Alexander's mind was working in the process, even if come pics closure I didn't fully know the man.
Epically cast of course, some of them work, others not so much. Farrell's looked odd, in the way that Pitt's was in Troy (released this same year as Alexander), but apart from the accent issue he grows into the role and is fiercely committed. Jolie is just wrong for the role of domineering Olympias, worse still the scenes she does with Farrell are damp and threaten to derail the drama already built up. This latter point is more annoying given a great thread involving Dawson as Alexander's wife Roxanne is built up superbly, only to not be pulled until some drama very late in the play. The rest of the cast come through as ok for period flavours (expected for Hopkins, Plummer and Meyers, interesting as regards Leto).
This is not the life ambition masterpiece Stone wanted to make, even if he proclaims on the extras that he's happy and content with The Final Cut version. This cut still shows some cracks, but these are not seismic enough to hurt the film. For there's a lot of grandeur, blood stirring and thought gone into the production, and there's a lot to be said for that in this day and age of soulless cash making filmic exercises. Honourable failure then? Yes for sure, but a better film in this form than some may have thought possible back in 2004. 7/10
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe biography of Alexander by Oxford University professor Robin Lane Fox was an original inspiration and source of information for writer and director Oliver Stone. As a historical advisor, Professor Fox didn't get on-screen credit. His price for giving his advice was to be allowed to take a place at the head of what is one of the largest cavalry charges ever filmed. Professor Fox was used to riding around the English countryside, but gladly dressed up as a Macedonean cavalry officer to live his dream of charging for Alexander.
- GoofsPtolemy I is depicted recounting the story of Alexander in 283 B.C. The Lighthouse at Alexandria, seen in the background, was built during the reign of his son Ptolemy II, around 270 B.C.
- Quotes
Old Ptolemy: The truth is never simple and yet it is. The truth is we did kill him. By silence we consented... because we couldn't go on. But by Ares, what did we have to look forward to but to be discarded in the end like Cleitus? After all this time, to give away our wealth to Asian sycophants we despised? Mixing the races? Harmony? Oh, he talked of these things. I never believe in his dream. None of us did. That's the truth of his life. The dreamers exhaust us. They must die before they kill us with their blasted dreams.
- Alternate versionsThe Director's Cut is 9 minutes shorter than the 175-minute theatrical version. It is a reworked version although seamless to many. 18 minutes were cut and 9 added. Many of the added or extended sequences involve Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie's characters. The battle of Gaugamela now starts earlier. Taking a cue from classic movie epics, the opening reel now set up the basic themes with greater economy: Alexander's Oedipal relationship with his parents, Olympias' ambitions for her son, the boy's need to surpass his father, and the entirely natural way in which myth/religion is shown as integral to the ancients' behavior. Oliver Stone reworked the third act, too, juxtaposing events in India and Greece. Jolie's Olympias emerges now more as a genuinely pathetic figure in the whole tragedy. Ptolemy's final scene was edited. Stone also slightly reworked Alexander's death scene because of audience feedback, adding 17 seconds to the scene.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Charging for Alexander (2004)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Alejandro Magno
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $155,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $34,297,191
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $13,687,087
- Nov 28, 2004
- Gross worldwide
- $167,298,192
- Runtime2 hours 55 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1