Alexander, Revisited - The Final Cut (2004)

 A glorious mess, now in a spectacular HD transfer
The film:

It's kind of funny how popular entertainment works. All I remember hearing about Oliver Stone's "Alexander" is that it was a horribly acted, poorly constructed shambles of a movie. Scanning the torrent of vituperative scorn heaped upon this film will give you an idea of the climate at the time of its release. Needless to say, I was dubious. Any movie that scores lower than Jessica Simpson's "Dukes of Hazzard" must be an abomination, right?

However, I am a Stone fan, and was inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt. I loved JFK, Nixon and Natural Born Killers, and enjoyed Any Given Sunday and The Doors. At his best, Stone excels at getting truly absorbing character portraits up on the screen, and setting them against an expansive backdrop which captures the essence of the period.

Alexander, starring Collin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, Jared Leto and Christopher Plummer, both succeeds and fails in these categories. Some of the characters are endlessly fascinating, some are rather threadbare. Certain aspects of the period are wonderfully represented, and some are sort of left up to the viewer to fill in the blanks. Some performances are pitch perfect, others, while enjoyable, are painfully weird and out of place. All told, Alexander is somewhat weak in comparison with Stone's best.

So why did I enjoy it so much?

Looking at the above-listed stars, it's easy to see that Stone has assembled a particularly good ensemble cast. The weakest of the bunch are Farrell and Jolie. However, each actor does an admirable job of creating a character, Farrell and Jolie included. If anything, Jolie's performance is hampered only by her youth (she is only one year Farrell's senior, yet plays his mother), and her wretched accent (somewhere between Eartha Kitt and Austin Powers' Frau Farbissina). Farrell's performance is just a bit shallow - he looks heroic and manly in battle sequences, certainly, but doesn't do much beyond that. Sometimes, he really seems to nail complex emotions. Other times, it's just a bit poster-board and flat.

The rest of the cast, however, including the lesser-known supporting players in Alexander's army, are uniformly terrific. Particularly good are Plummer as Aristotle, Kilmer as a drunken King Philip, Hopkins as an aged Ptolemy, and Jared Leto as Alexander's male lover, Hephaistion. Rosario Dawson plays Alexander's asian bride Roxane, though beyond her pendulous naked breasts and dancing ability, I can't say I got much out of it (Dawson really shines in 2005's Sin City, though). To me, though, the performance that makes the movie what it is is by Connor Paolo, as a young Alexander. This 14 year-old actor absolutely nails the portrayal of a young, idealistic prince with adolescent dreams of grandeur. This portrayal really lends a depth to the later plot, acted by Farrell, which Farrell himself really doesn't provide.

But any Stone movie review eventually comes down to Stone himself. How well did he construct the story, and how well did he execute it and edit it together?

My main gripe with the story of Alexander is its naivete. I really have to wonder how historically accurate it is to portray Alexander as an idealistic dreamer who longed to unite the world in a Pax Romana-esque explosion of culture and personal improvement. Certainly, all of these things may have been present in the man, and they may have been ancillary effects of his conquest, but it is pretty tough to swallow as Farrell dreamily describes his vision of a great society to his male lover Leto. The story functions much better when Alexander is instead portrayed as a conqueror impelled by his family demons to push across the globe for something he knows not what.

Nonetheless, the film is truly wondrous at times in its evocation of ancient times and places - Babylon is a singular cinematic achievement - utilizing CGI nearly seamlessly to truly give the impression of a "wonder of the world." Similarly teriffic cinematography and composition are achieved in portrayals of India, Egypt and the steppes of the Himalayas. The scenes of Greece and Macedonia also shine, especially in HD, really placing you there in the time. This film is Stone at his finest visually, creating a world which draws you in.

I for one really liked the way the so-called "gay" element of the movie was handled - watching Alexander provides one of the better explications of the homosexual "lover-beloved" relationships that were present in Hellenistic noble circles. Again, this concept was grounded by scenes of the young Alexander and Hephaiston being taught by Aristotle about the idealistic virtues of manly love - scenes which brought into sharp focus what could have seemed gratuitous homoerotic later scenes between Leto, Farrell, and a few others. It's a part of Greek history, and Stone kept it in as a big theme, instead of bending to anachronistic puritanism. Kudos to him for that.

Besides Stone's possible anachronistic interpretation of Alexander's world-uniting motives, historically, this film really can't be faulted. It is true to the sources we have, be they Plutarch and Herodotus, or more modern scholars. Those sources may be tinged by legend or political agenda, but they are all we have. This is a movie which you could show a professor, who would be hard pressed to point out a major error (unlike the barely recognizable "history" of "Kingdom of Heaven.") I would also say, as is Stone's talent, this movie makes you feel like YOU ARE THERE. I would show this film to students to get them excited about the Hellenistic period. (Though at 214 minutes, it might take two class periods...)

As you have read, this cut is 214 minutes. Certainly, this is a long movie. But Stone, in his ability to create scene and to really transport the viewer, makes this movie fly by. It felt like 2 hours, not 3 and a half. Stone has re-ordered the fragmented structure of the film. The previous director's cut grouped various scenes closer together by time period - Alexander's childhood was one big chunk, then his travels were another, intercut with his early reign and death. This cut, on the other hand, basically takes the two time periods (childhood through early reign; travels across Asia and death) and skips back and forth between them, each line running roughly forward. Both cuts can be followed, especially if you have some knowledge of Greek history. I have to say I prefer the first director's cut a bit, since I found the childhood scenes so strong, it was nice to have them in a chunk. But this cut still works. The added material fleshes out the side characters much better than the previous two cuts, which is welcome in any case.

Alexander is an enigmatic movie. It fails at so much, but only because it tried for so much. I was completely absorbed and never bored once during the 3.5 hour running time. I felt transported to the world it created, and my emotions were stirred in a simplistic way by the scenes of glory and adventure on the screen. Ptolemy (played by Hopkins) utters a line which might serve as the movie's epitaph: "His failures were grander than others' successes." So true of Stone. He wears his ambition on his sleeve, is rarely if ever subtle, and draws a lot of critical fire for this. Yet the explosion of creativity which results, whether it succeeds or fails, is never boring. I recommend Alexander for this reason alone.

Let me put it another way: This is a movie that got critically bashed, and I can't really discern why. It's better than "Dukes of Hazzard." It's also better than "Revenge of the Sith," a film from around the same time which received many positive reviews despite its bizarre dialogue, paper-thin character motivations, and plot holes. It's got its problems, but it is also big fun if you're a fan of the historical epic genre, the director, or of the historical period.

The disc:

As far as the quality of the Blu-Ray presentation, let me put it simply. I own Planet Earth, 2001, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Prestige, all renowned for their sterling HD transfers. Alexander tops them all in terms of detail and color. You know how some Blu-Ray discs look fine enough, but really seem like something a particularly good DVD could do? The aforementioned "Kingdom of Heaven" is one such disc to me. This Blu-Ray presentation leaves you with no doubt. This is High Definition, pure and simple, and no 480p DVD disc could do what this disc does. On my 50" SXRD display, the detail is overwhelming, the color is beyond rich and vibrant, and the 3-dimensionality is extraordinary, especially in the festival scene in Greece, the scene in the cold mountain pass, and in the Babylon entrance scene. At its best, this is THE demo disc to really show off your system. There are a few spots where black levels falter (such as the palace in India) or flesh tones are a little hot (Aristotle springs to mind), but these flaws represent 5 minutes or so out of a 214 minute experience. The rest of the film is nothing short of flawless, and the visual splendor aids in drawing you into the film.

The extra materials also excel - two commentaries including a director's track and a historical overview by Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox, two documentaries with amazing behind the scenes access, and a bevy of other features. Really first rate.

If you like history, this is a movie to get. If you like great HD, this disc is a no-brainer. If you like neat and tidy 90 minute films which spoon feed you the plot and who to root for/against, this is NOT the movie for you. It is complex, confusing at times, ambiguous in its morality, violent, lusty, raw, and disgusting. But that's history... have you ever read the bible? Yeesh. This is a movie which inspires love and hate all at once. I for one find it utterly spellbinding, even though I am well aware of its flaws. In the end, I think this is completely appropriate for its subject matter: Alexander the Great, a historical figure who, warts and all, you can't simply ignore and would do well to study. I give this disc 5 stars for its technical brilliance, its creative spark, and its sheer, mesmeric "movie magic." February 8, 2008

 Great Historical Epic!
This Movie has everything one can want in an Epic Historical Movie! From the Great Battle Scenes in Persian Deserts all the way To Indian Jungles, Great Drama, Beautiful Scenery, Great Dialect, Great Story, Awesome Phalanx Formations, this movie is just 3 and a half hours of greatness! December 6, 2007

 Oliver Stoned and Alexander
I have had a sore spot for Oliver Stone since he made the movie JFK, which was and is a travesty. I put off
watching this movie just because he made it, even though I love the epic and historical genre. Well I finally
gave in and watched it. I force myself to respect the readership of these forums and not use prolific profanity
in describing this movie. I will settle for this advice -- Don't waste your time. dxr December 5, 2007

 Not a great movie, but entertaining nonetheless.
I have never seen any other version. Only this one. It is indeed long. But that's the point of watching a movie on disk: there is always the pause button. Also, with an intermission, it allows the user to take in the experience, as I did, in two sittings.

Did the movie convey the temper of the times and what it might actually have been like to have campaigned toward what must have seemed the ends of the earth? Yes. Another point, though: if violence and the full range of human sensuality and sexuality might offend, don't pick this up. However, if you want to get a genuine feel for those violent and sensual times, I recommend this.

Fortunately, too, the film utilized Robin Lane Fox, a biographer of Alexander, as a technical source. So, even when Stone might have seemed to have pushed the edge here and there, historical context extisted in which to ground some of his interpretations--or there's no specific evidence either way and Stone's interpretation is as fair and truthful as anyone's. And, at this point of human history, that's the best we can do. The principals involved *could* have acted the way they act here, and they are not always nice people.

Visually, the film is stunning in Blu-ray. I was glad I bought and watched it.
November 27, 2007

 An incremental improvement
This third video release of Oliver Stone's epic about Alexander the Great not only adds 40 minutes of new footage but radically restructures the film. There is a lot more jumping back and forth in time, tied together by Anthony Hopkins's narration. The two big battle scenes have been moved close to the beginning and the ending, bookending the rest of the picture. To some extent, this revision of the narrative improves the picture, but ultimately, this is still a coffee table movie.

Watching Alexander on Blu-Ray is nothing short of breathtaking. It's stunning how much effort went into the set decoration, makeup, costumes, and overall production design, and all of that work makes for a visual feast in high-definition. The scene of Alexander entering Babylon, for example, bursts off the screen with vivid, crisp colors, creating a genuine sense of another time and place. Photography is spectacular throughout, from the battle scenes to sweeping mountain and jungle shots.

None of this makes up for the muddled script and incoherent characterizations that hobble the picture. One long rambling scene after another features Colin Farrell as Alexander speechifying to swelling music. Farrell seems to be shouting, screaming, or crying in almost every scene, a poster child for scenery-chewing. No doubt this is what Oliver Stone asked him to do, but he lacks a certain three-dimensional quality. We never understand much about Alexander and his motivations. Jared Leto, as Alexander's closest friend Hephaiston, is a much stronger screen presence; even Anthony Hopkins's narration is more involving.

At 214 minutes, this requires some patience to get through, although it's never exactly boring, just slow-moving. If you didn't like the theatrical release or the slightly shorter Director's Cut, it's unlikely you'll like this new version more. If you were a fan of the original, however, this is worth a look, especially if you can see it in high definition. Even some coffee table books are worth buying just to look at. November 15, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...