« Hamline student struck and killed | Main | From Holidazzle to the mall, the skinny on Cities celebrations »
December 07, 2004
‘Alexander’ flawed, but worth it for the battle scenes
Oliver Stone’s Alexander, starring Colin Farrell, is a perfectly enjoyable action movie.
It has impressive sets, exciting battle scenes, and sexy stars to keep you entertained while eating a bucket of popcorn covered in butter-flavored oil.
However, the movie seems to have missed the summer movie season by a few months.
While a blockbuster may not be welcome amid all the Oscar contenders and holiday films, it’s still an action-packed good time.
Alexander, quite predictably, tells the story of Alexander the Great, who, around 350 B.C.E., conquered 90 percent of the world č all before turning 25.
Young Alexander learns to fight and ride horses and studies philosophy.
He respects and emulates his father, but resents him for mistreating his mother (Oedipus, anyone?).
Alexander has a complex relationship with his mother as well; she hates his father and is working to ensure that Alexander becomes his successor.
The film displays the range of feelings Alexander directs toward his parents, though it doesn’t understand or care what those feelings are. That is representative of most of the weaknesses of the movie: Nothing is taken to its natural conclusion.
Much of the movie is spent telling the audience that Alexander loves his friend Hephaistion more than any other.
After establishing that the two men are in love, they are never seen in a single intimate situation č or even speaking to one another.
It would be incorrect to blame this on homophobia, as Alexander does kiss men in the movie č just not his life partner.
Equally convoluted is the character of Olympias, Alexander’s mother, played awkwardly by Angelina Jolie. Olympias’s only motivation in the movie is to see her son take the throne. He does. After that, however, she remains a character, even though no other character interacts with her.
Her presence is tolerated simply because she is played by such an appealing actress. However, for some unexplicable reason, Jolie decided to speak in a made-up accent no other character has. This adds an unintentional, but welcome, element of humor to her otherwise pointless scenes.
Alexander isn’t all bad. In fact, it’s far from it. The battle sequences are the biggest, loudest and bloodiest of the year.
And there’s something truly exciting about seeing hundreds of extras lined up in full gear to fight. The fighting here is a lot more graphic and artful than anything in this year’s other Gladiator wannabe, Troy.
Alexander can also boast the best use of elephants in an action sequence (next to Lord of the Rings, of course).
The other strong point is the CGI-created cities, in which much of the story takes place. The scale of these ancient metropoli is what makes them truly amazing.
We get to see, among other glorious sights, the remains of the tower of Babylon in all its glory. Each city
Alexander and his cohorts conquer brings with it new palaces and landscapes to marvel at.
Along with each new city comes a new population with costumes, accents and dances to show off for the audience.
One of the lessons of Alexander is that if we have no fear, we can conquer death.
Sadly the filmmakers must have been afraid, because death is their biggest failure.
The movie doesn’t realize that death is not an ending, especially to a three-hour movie, and that the narrative flow of a story shouldn’t always stop because a major character dies.
The themes and issues in the film aren’t resolved at its close, so the ending is false and unsatisfying.
While flawed, Alexander is still entertaining and exciting as an action movie. It doesn’t belong between Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan in your video collection, but it may have a nice place between, say, Die Hard and Men in Black č and that’s not so bad after all.
Posted by msveum at December 7, 2004 01:02 PM