Oliver Stone's epic, 'Alexander,' not so great
David Moll
Issue date: 12/15/04 Section: A&E
- Page 1 of 2 next >
"Alexander", Oliver Stone's $150 million film covering the life of Alexander the Great, is an epic Hollywood creation, hewn in much the same way as "Ben Hur". It chronicles the life story of Alexander the Great, a man who was the first empire builder, a brilliant military tactician and the man who set the model from which the Roman Empire arose. But while other epic films remained powerful, emotive and vibrant, "Alexander" starts off formula-driven and grows progressively weaker. The plot goes stale within minutes, and the star cast cannot save this film.
The chief problem, even for history buffs like myself, is the ability to connect with the story. Despite the elaborate costumes and vivid cinematography, it is very difficult to get past the point of seeing Alexander played by Colin Farrell, as opposed to seeing Farrell as Alexander. Likewise, Hopkins seems uninspiring as the elder Ptolemy. Jolie is ravishing as Olympias, but her character is overwrought and ultimately hollow. Kilmer puts in a decent performance as King Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, but the trite dialogue still drags the plot down.
One shining moment stands out - the battle of Gargamela, Persia. A lone visual and emotive high point, it's made vividly clear how intimate and visceral death was. Shown in all its gore and fury, a lifetime of such warfare was utterly hellish. In this battle, Stone pays proper respect to Alexander as the brilliant military tactician he was, vanquishing the numerically superior Persian Army through precise timing and fearless exploitation of his enemies missteps.
But following this horrific battle scene, the whole experience goes numb and ephemeral. All of a sudden, we find ourselves with Alexander as he gazes out over the Himalayas, with little appreciation of the sacrifice and hardship wrought upon his soul and mind - never mind the men whom he led into battle. All we see is a distant, icy gaze and few more scars on Alexander's face.
The failure of this film is not in historical errors or in blatant editorializing; it is the failure to examine what really made Alexander push so far, or what made his relationships to Hephastion and Olympias so passionate and contentious respectively.
The chief problem, even for history buffs like myself, is the ability to connect with the story. Despite the elaborate costumes and vivid cinematography, it is very difficult to get past the point of seeing Alexander played by Colin Farrell, as opposed to seeing Farrell as Alexander. Likewise, Hopkins seems uninspiring as the elder Ptolemy. Jolie is ravishing as Olympias, but her character is overwrought and ultimately hollow. Kilmer puts in a decent performance as King Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, but the trite dialogue still drags the plot down.
One shining moment stands out - the battle of Gargamela, Persia. A lone visual and emotive high point, it's made vividly clear how intimate and visceral death was. Shown in all its gore and fury, a lifetime of such warfare was utterly hellish. In this battle, Stone pays proper respect to Alexander as the brilliant military tactician he was, vanquishing the numerically superior Persian Army through precise timing and fearless exploitation of his enemies missteps.
But following this horrific battle scene, the whole experience goes numb and ephemeral. All of a sudden, we find ourselves with Alexander as he gazes out over the Himalayas, with little appreciation of the sacrifice and hardship wrought upon his soul and mind - never mind the men whom he led into battle. All we see is a distant, icy gaze and few more scars on Alexander's face.
The failure of this film is not in historical errors or in blatant editorializing; it is the failure to examine what really made Alexander push so far, or what made his relationships to Hephastion and Olympias so passionate and contentious respectively.