ALEXANDER (R) **1/2

 

Directed by Oliver Stone. 178 minutes.

Starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Jared Leto, Rosario Dawson, Anthony Hopkins, and Jonathan Rhys-Myers. Released by Warner Brothers Pictures.

 

Oliver Stone’s three hour opus, Alexander, is one of maximum ambition and only minimal payoff. There is much to admire in this sprawling, reaching film, but ultimately it is a fumble, though not as bad as you may have been led to believe. There are some obvious and strangely simultaneous comparisons to be made between the titular character of this film and actual politicians in the world right now; other critics have already explored such similarities. Therefore, I will skip them, mostly because they are unintentional. Oliver Stone said that he has been preparing a film about the life of Alexander the Great for years. I believe him.

 

This film is all over the place, which is occasionally good since so much material has to be covered and might turn boring if it were told in a structurally sensible way. Alexander (Colin Farrell) is heir to the throne in Greece, meant to follow his nasty, one-eyed father, King Philip (Val Kilmer). However, things are not so well between Philip and his equally nasty wife, Olympias (Angelina Jolie), who warns her son that Philip may instead kill them both. There’s an ultimatum for you. Alexander defies his father, Philip is murdered and the boy takes the throne. The second two hours mostly follow Alexander’s conquests around the globe, including a battle against the Persians (slightly forgettable) and an ending fight in the forest against barbarians on elephants (unforgettable). In between, Alexander marries Roxanne (Rosario Dawson, nude and scowling a lot here), while his eye is actually on Hephaistion (Jared Leto), his boyhood friend with whom he exchanges a lot of meaningful and lusty glances.

 

The first problem here is that Alexander is simply too long. Many of Stone’s other films have been very long as well, namely Nixon, JFK, or Born on the 4^th of July. The difference is that in those films, the stories and characters develop and further their journeys, while Alexander does much of the same for three hours. He is one of the most interesting characters in world history, but three hours is not necessary to capture his life, especially when the three hours are devoted to Alexander battling, screaming, calling out betrayals, and conquering.

 

If the screenplay here often recycles old clichés about bravery, heroism, and immortality, the visuals certainly make up for it. Early battles are a bit musty-looking, but they continually get better. By the end, in the forest sequence, Stone has mastered the epic battle scene, though we have seen them time and again in recent years in films like Gladiator, Troy, and the Lord of the Rings films. The cinematography, though occasionally oddly shaky, is overall good and the sets are phenomenal. The actors give it their best, though Angelina Jolie has given this same accent one too many times and Farrell, though he often captures the ferocity that must have been Alexander, accidentally slips an Irish accent a few times. Jared Leto, underused here if you look at his character’s historical significance to the titular character, also has a somewhat wandering accent.

 

Oliver Stone is one of the most exciting directors of the 1980s and 1990s, though he has not directed a film that I have loved since Nixon. His ground is mostly political and occasionally cultural (Natural Born Killers) and, in those realms, he dominates. From 1986 to 1995, he was probably the best American filmmaker and one of the best in the world as well. I can see why he would want to direct Alexander; and the film pays off now and then. Stone seems fascinated by men that hold power in one form or another over others and how the actions of flawed people make for historical significance. I think Alexander is certainly worth seeing, though I agree with a character toward the end of the film who says, to sum it up, that they prefer a leader who aims high, even if they do not always hit the mark. That is how I feel about this film, which aims very high and only occasionally lands a direct hit. Yet, I’ll take an unsuccessful, ambitious film over a successful one that takes few risks.