Alexander (Two Disc Edition) [DVD] [2004]

Alexander is brilliant. It is historically accurate in many ways and tells a near on complete and interesting story of his life (as the film is three hours long).

Oliver Stone shows his directorial talent by creating many unforgetable images and excellent scenery and backdrops. And the BATTLE SCENES, well, they are just superb. Both the sandy battle at Gualamela and the huge invasion of India at the end of the film are both excellent with some quality cinematography and a great musical soundtrack to back them up. If you are going to watch Alexander just for the battle scenes then believe me, you will not be dissapointed!

Now I come to comparing the DVDs.
As most DVD Talk forums would agree with me, this version, the two disc theatrical version is so much better than the directors cut. I have seen both and would tell anyone to purcahse this version instead. The directors cut is shorter and has way too many flashbacks (nine years before, ten years after, nine years on, 2 years later) making the direcots cut DVD a mess/shambles which could esialy confuse anyone. If you are buying this DVD for the action then it doesn't matter what version you buy because there are no alterations in the action sequences at all, both are the same.
Overall, the Direcotrs Cut DVD is in a huge mess and is actually shorter than the original film which really is a bad thing. The theatrical version is a three hour 2 disc film which tells the COMPLETE story of Alexander and hasen't missed anything out at all. The only downside is that the theatrical version is spread over 2 discs so you have to change discs in between film but I actully prefer this as you can watch what is a three hour epic in two smaller chunks. The directors cut is all on one disc but has cut out nearly 15 minutes of the film and has only had some scenes 're-configured' with hardly any 'decent' scenes being added. Hence I would urge all to purchase the 2 disc theatrical version. It may cost more but it is worth it.

On the whole, Alexander is actually an excellent film and I ugre everyone to ignore what the critics have said and wtahc this tremendous epic (with some quality battle scenes included). I would also like to say that if you are going to buy Alexander get the Theatrical 2 Disc Special Edition and not the directors cut.

And then, of course, there’s the supporting cast, Val Kilmer occasionally channelling Robert Newton’s Long John Silver, Angelina Jolie coming across like Irene Papas on steroids (not to mention with added collagen) and Anthony Hopkins looking for another bit of scenery to chew on. (On a purely trivial note it’s strange to note how much Rory McCann looks like either a young Sean Connery or a middle-aged Victor Argo depending on what angle he’s photographed from.) Although there’s a method to his madness, it’s hard not to think Stone is taking the Mick with all the Celtic accents and at times its surprisingly difficult to decipher what is being said, more because of mumbling and slurred pronunciation than the regional dialect, to be fair.

There’s intelligence at work here, as witnessed by the cave scene where the terrible price of greatness among the mythological heroes Alexander idolises is outlined, but often more in intent than execution. When it does work, it works well - the bloody battle of Guagamela seen intermittently from an eagle’s eye view, the scenes in a gorgeously realized Babylon – but all too often there’s too little of what made Alexander great. Indeed, there’s too little of everything despite its running time. Relationships aren’t convincingly sketched out and the big dramatic scenes are clumsily executed and emotionally uninvolving: his scenes with his mother or the fatal argument with Cleitus just show up the inadequacies of the cast and lack power or focus. Stone’s tendency to idealize Alexander doesn’t help, even if his script acknowledges the fact. For all his talk of being driven by a dream, it’s never really communicated what that dream was beyond a desire for personal glory and a place among the immortals, nor does he deal with the fact that Alexander left no legacy but chaos. As a result, the last hour, when things start to go bad for Al, gets duller than it needs to be. Still, Vangelis’ score is excellent

It’s strange that so many American critics focused on the bisexuality: in truth, it’s one of the least gay sword-and-sandals epics, simply avoiding all the euphemisms to deal with it head-on. That said, I could have done without Farrell flittering his eyelids like a little girl ever time he’s with Hephaistion.

Before I go much further, I must say that I found the film to be good on the whole. I would probably grade it overall a 'B'; the acting for the most part would be a little less than this, and the effects a bit more (particularly the battle scenes, which for computer-generation, were very well done, especially the battle at Gaugamela, and the battle near the Ganges). The music, done by Vangelis (think 'Chariots of Fire'), was superb. As entertainment, the film was a good evening's outing, and I didn't find myself squirming in my seat as much as I thought I might at the prospect of a three-hour film. The computer-generated scenes in Babylon, and the on-location settings of Morocco and Thailand were glorious cinematography.

The character of Alexander in history is one of mythology, one that was so powerful that it inspired the Roman leaders from Julius Caesar forward to global conquest (an irony of history is that the Roman Empire, which supposedly covered the 'known world', didn't cover half of Alexander's empire). Colin Farrell's performance here was not one that is inspiring; his speeches to the troops lack the kind of power that an Olivier or Brannagh might have in a performance of Henry V -- yet this is precisely what was needed. Alexander is a man who inspired tens of thousands of men to follow him beyond the ends of the known world, but that doesn't quite come across on the film. We don't get the power of Alexander's personality either at Gaugamela or at the Ganges.

Angelina Jolie is lovely as ever, but her part as an abused woman who uses quasi-supernatural sorcery to bring about her ends (Alexander's rise to the throne) is melodramatic -- one gets the sense that this might have been the writing or directing as much as it was Jolie's own performance. As Olympias, Alexander's mother, she seems a bit too young (Jolie is probably better cast as Farrell's love interest, rather than his matron figure). The other women in Alexander's life are portrayed as rather flat characters too, even the high-spirited Asian tribeswoman he takes as a wife.

There's lots of innuendo, but not much sexual content here. Philip of Macedon, Alexander's father (played by a barely recognisable Val Kilmer), has an almost-rape scene with Olympias, while the boy Alexander watches from behind the bedding; Alexander almost repeats this scene at one point, and has an interesting wedding night with his Asian bride, but nothing ever really seems consummated; Alexander's affections for many of his male friends is a bit overplayed in some respects, and greatly wanting in others. Again there is a lack of satisfaction all around.

This is a very different film for Oliver Stone. Perhaps one constant theme (given that Alexander's decision to stop going forward toward the East comes after a terrible battle in which his force loses) Stone seems to work into everything is that there is no way to win a war in Southeast Asia, even back in Alexander's time. There are hints at a political agenda here as well -- Alexander is constantly praised, and constantly praising himself, for not asking others to do in battle what he himself wouldn't do. Is this an indirect slap at the current administration? With Oliver Stone, one never knows.

There are a few interesting cameos -- Christopher Plummer plays the philosopher Aristotle, recruited to teach the young Alexander, and who despite being on screen but a few minutes at the beginning of the tale is referred to again and again. Brian Blessed has an even smaller role, essentially just to walk on and separate two wrestlers, telling the child Alexander that he must win on his own merits. For this thirty-second scene, Blessed received a primary credit in the film! Good work if you can get it.

Costuming was great, very appropriate to the time, and resisting temptation to add modernisations to all the outfits. The choreography for the battle scenes, both computer-generated and real-life stunts, were well played. The battle against the Persian king Darius was in real-life the last battle in which the chariot played a major offensive function, due to tactics developed by Philip and Alexander's Greek armies which are displayed in the goings on here.

Thus, this is a hard film to categorise. Good in parts, and not so hot in others, it is still well worth seeing. The history doesn't deviate too far from the known path to be too distracting, and the film, while not quite living up to its larger-than-life subject, does provide some entertainment. Some judicious editing might make it a bit more palatable. I'd give it three-and-a-half stars, were such permitted. As it is, I'll round up to four.