Alexander - not so great Apr 05, 2008 - 16:32 PM
DVD Review: "Alexander" 
The movie was sort of a jumble with a lot of expository stuff to explain what was going on rather than just letting the visuals tell it. Also, while Mr. Oliver Stone didn't hold back much on the man-on-man scenes, whenever he had the guys start talking romantically he made them both doey-eyed weak-kneed women. I kept questioning "who's the butch one here? Are they both lipstick lesbians?" I thought it an odd choice for a director who by many accounts is an unreconstructed Neanderthal, the guy who made "Platoon" and "On Any Given Sunday" with Al Pacino bouncing around with prostitutes (oops, I mean "escorts"). He did have Rosario Dawson do full-frontal, which was a treat I'll admit, and had the courage to have Colin do a full on kiss with another man, but mostly it was significant glances and man-hugs with their loving expressions over the other man's shoulder. What to make of it? A "Caligula" take on it would be too extreme, but I kept thinking that while gays would probably flock to it, most would be making fun of it afterwards as a hetero's weak attempt at displaying man-love. I just didn't buy it.
Also something that was being sold but not bought was Angelina Jolie as Colin's mama. She doesn't age at all, and was all snake this and histrionics that (you'll have to see it, or perhaps the dvd). She was in her element as evil-crazy-woman, but squinting your eyes and making your voice tremble is not acting. She's got charisma, though. Val Kilmer was great as Alexander's father, and I was kind of curious what his take would be if he was starring as Alexander (he was the first choice years ago, then became too old and took on the role of the father). Anthony Hopkins was wasted as a talking head explaining the history of Alexander. I was going "What the hell! You're making Hannibal the Cannibal give a history lesson? Where's his fire? Where's the liver giblets with fava beans and a nice chianti?" He did the doddering old man bit, but I was thinking he could have at least done the fiery old warrior who became excited as he relived history, not the eloquent historian who seemed like he had never lived through it version (he was supposedly one of Alexander's soldiers and right hand men).
The battle scenes were also a jumble. "Troy" at least broke things down to set pieces, and worked up the drama giving the fight some significance. This was all shaky camera this and confusion that, which may have captured the footman's view of things, but gave me no understanding of how they could have prevailed against a force five times their size. Anyway, that's my rant. I was hoping by the end of the film I'd feel the same sort of wrung out spent feeling as I did the end of say "Braveheart" or "The Last of the Mohicans," where great deeds were done by heroes living out events larger than themselves and making the greatest sacrifice. Instead I got Colin's man-boy and weak man-love, bad acting and jumbled fight scenes. I mean, one can be forgiven on the love scenes, but I expected better fight scenes from Mr. Stone. In the end it was just "Alexander" not all that "Great".
Back to Diary |
|
Email