By now I am sure you have realised I can be quite opinionated and obsessive when it comes to
films, but when it comes to historical films I can add an element of hypocrisy to my views as well. As a student of history I have always had a view that historical films should be accurate. For years to come, they effectively will be as meaningful as any historical documentary or book that will shape future generations' understanding of the past. The hypocrisy of my views comes in where this is not the defining factor to the film, if my enjoyment of the film outweighs the inaccuracy.
Alexander brings us the directing talent of Oliver Stone, who also co-wrote the screenplay, this film coming off the back of his success in the 90's with such films as Any Given Sunday, Nixon and Natural Born Killers. Lest we forget JFK, The Doors and Born on the Fourth of July, that were the three proceeding films, so you can view this film as coming off the back of six critically successful films spanning a decade for who was at the time an influential director.
Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death - Alexander (Colin Farrell)
The film tracks the life of Alexander the Great up to his death and ultimately the fracturing of the empire he had dreamed of and fought to create. I watched the director's cut which is shorter than the original release, and rather than track his life in chronological order, follows the flashback format that tells of his relationship with his parents and those around him. What follows is the portrayal of a difficult and confrontational relationship with his parents that creates an element of distance and distrust in all relationships he has. Alexander seems to have a sense of adoring love for his father that is equalled only by his disdain for his father's interactions in relation to Alexander's mother. The first we see of them is an early scene depicting King Philip's drunken rape of Olympias, Alexander's mother. I'll be honest, this was edited into the wrong part of the film, with little to no context and understanding for the dynamic of the relationships, don't get me wrong it is an important event and I can see the point that is trying to be proved but it's not done well enough for the viewer to fully understand what overall impact that event would have.
All men reach and fall.... - Old Ptomely (Anthony Hopkins)
Through the tales told by Old Ptolemy, we are taken on a journey through the life of Alexander with a soft narrative that guides and explains where is needed. Within the first twenty minutes of the film there are so many ancient Greek myths and names mentioned, that try to give you an insight into what shaped the great kings morals and dreams, that it does get a little confusing. I think you would had to have studied Greek mythology in depth to truly grasp what is clearly an attempt to bring some quick understanding to the audience. But like a lot of the narration it feels very shoehorned in to fit a much larger tale into the allotted time given to the movie. In history, for any great leader to come to power their predecessor must first be deposed or alternatively they must die in some form or another. For Alexander his father was murdered in front of a crowd and the blame is put squarely on Olympia's shoulders as the architect of such a coup. However, this event is again very rushed and lacks any real detail to flesh out what must have been a defining point in the life of someone that history reveres as one of the greatest kings.
What follows is the rise of the Empire they create and also a focus on the sexuality of Alexander, making a point not of his dalliance into the world of homosexuality but how this was negatively viewed by some within his ranks. The conquest is tracked all the way through to its historically correct end and the King's return home from India. I have more issues with the editing, cinematography and direction than I have with anything else. The first battle scene has your standard motivational speech that is cut with other events that just sap all of the emotional excitement out of it and the battle scenes themselves are filmed as if you are in the mix, you're right there but only cause confusion mixed with a mishmash of chaos. There are also so many slow motion scenes that again it just saps the pace out of it, when you compare it to say the first battle of Gladiator then the way these battles are presented is found wanting on every level, not to mention the decision for one battle to be presented with the red tint turned all the way up. Again I get the idea behind it but it doesn't work and would be more effective with a static camera and normal contrast.
It was said later that Alexander was never defeated in his lifetime, except by Hephaiston’s thighs - Old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins)
The cast is a tricky one for me. On face value there is a strong line-up, not the strongest but I would have been quite proud if I was the casting director for this. Sir Anthony Hopkins is cast as Old Ptolemy, his beautiful silky voice narrating so peacefully through the tale he has to tell. To say he is tested would be folly, he is just a character that he plays well or should I say narrates perfectly. King Philip is brought to us by Val Kilmer who, whilst I would never say is one of the greats, is not offensive in any of his previous acting exploits. Alas here he falls very short with no convincing delivery in any of the scenes to the point where I am not sure if we are supposed to like him or despise him, but that does have something to do with the script he has been given. The other side is Angelina Jolie who plays Alexander's mother, Olympias. Again this is an underwhelming performance that leaves me unsure whether I am supposed to like or dislike her character, it is clear that Alexander is supposed to be besotted with her during his youth but from the writing and editing it is very unclear as to why.
The main man himself, the only casting I cannot understand, is played by Colin Farrell whom I can only assume had a massive swing of popularity as a film star at the time. Let me be clear, I am not saying he acts poorly, I just feel he was not correctly cast for the role and as a result of his casting the character is not as good as it could have been and some poor decisions were made directly due to his casting.
The world is yours. Take it! - Olympias (Angelina Jolie)
To give that comment some context, the accents of the characters make no sense whatsoever unless you attribute this to the fact that Colin Farrell is Irish. King Philip (Kilmer) has an Irish accent, all of Alexander's childhood peers have Irish accents and of course Alexander has an Irish accent. Kilmer can't pull off an Irish accent, half of his peers when older, struggle with an Irish accent and even more so, Ptolemy turns from Irish when young and into his thirties but then strangely becomes Welsh when portrayed by Hopkins. Other than that no one else is forced to have an Irish Accent and it stands out like a sore thumb which as I believe can only be because of the casting of Farrell. That aside Farrell is just not the type of actor who can pull off such power and pose as a great leader of a large empire; he falls short in the big speeches and his emotional scenes left me thinking Alexander the Great was a spoilt brat who wasn't really loved by anyone.
What really hurt this film, in my opinion, was the focus on the sexuality of the great King along with the disdain shown by some of the people around him. Such focus pulled you away from the historical narrative and brought it to a personal issue level that showed that he was in conflict with his desire for sexual fluidity that it almost seems to be a defining factor. I honestly don't know the motive behind this, I am not sure if the writers were trying to make a humanity statement at the time, but I couldn't gain any understanding as to why this point was dwelled upon and the director got this point very wrong.
To say I hated this film would be wrong but equally I didn't like it. From the overacting to the bad editing I think all involved with the making of this just got it wrong. Whilst the story was great, the film was too slow, the editing left you confused, the camera work sometimes left you even more confused, the script was a bit weak and I honestly think they tried to cram far too much into a film that focused on the wrong aspects of Alexander the Great. Whether it be because of the poor script or the averagely poor acting, I was left with little or no investment in the title character let alone any of his ensemble and I can truly say I just don't think I could ever watch this film again.
Farquaad's Score: 2 stars or 4/10
IMDB: 5.6/10 (156,810)
Metascore: 39 (42 Critic Reviews)
Comments