Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Director Oliver Stone is a sometimes-brilliant troublemaker. Underline "sometimes."

He's riled up critics, politicians, and even Christians to both protest and praise his work. He's made films about controversial wars (Platoon), controversial leaders (JFK, Nixon), and reckless visionaries (The Doors). In Alexander, he has all three interests wrapped up in one movie, starring Colin Farrell as the famous conqueror, Angelina Jolie as his mother, Val Kilmer as his father, and Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy.

Nevertheless, mainstream critics are almost unanimously sending Stone the same message—in spite of Farrell's drastic new hairdo, Alexander has failed to conquer the big screen. Religious press critics are similarly disappointed.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, "Stone's film is probably better than Troy, which suffered from pedestrian direction, stilted performances, and a hack musical score that sounded like it was written in a weekend; in place of those things, Stone gives us some truly stirring visuals, music that soars and charges more often than not, and, um, performances that … Well, um, okay, about those performances … " He goes on to talk about how the film is flawed, about its dismaying depictions of women, the historical chapters it overlooks, and a surprisingly timely political subtext.

Gene Edward Veith (World) begins his review by posing "leftist filmmaker" Oliver Stone a question: "If it's OK for Alexander the Great to conquer Iraq, why is it wrong for George W. Bush?" He goes on to explain: "In his movie Alexander … Mr. Stone praises the conqueror of the known world for his multiculturalism and for promoting a one-world government!"

Veith goes on to say that Stone's Alexander "displays no charisma or any reason why soldiers would follow him halfway around the world. The movie skips the most interesting parts of his story, jumping from his adolescence to his final victory over the Persians, leaving out everything in between. This is not Alexander the Great. This is Alexander the Awful."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "bold. Stone has crafted an audacious film, dazzling viewers with epic battle scenes and eye-filling re-creations of splendiferous antiquity, while making sure that the movie's sweeping scope and din of charging chariots don't drown out the human drama at its heart. Though Christian viewers may find the film's brutalities and hedonism (not to mention Alexander's omnivorous sexual appetites) repelling, they must take into account the pre-Christian historical context of the world in which the events takes place."

DiCerto also mentions some "epic flaws," including "interminable pacing, a disjointed script, one-dimensional characters, scene-chewing performances, risibly campy dialogue delivered in an odd assortment of accents … and an overly florid score."

"Alexander could have been a fascinating historical and social study for both adults and teens," writes Tom Neven (Plugged In). "But the relative restraint Stone showed in dealing with Alexander's bisexuality is nowhere in evidence in his handling of rape and battle scenes."

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) reports that Stone's version of Alexander "isn't nearly as good, or remotely as interesting, as the real one.A disappointment, to be sure."

Chris Monroe (Christian Spotlight) says, "It was surprisingly difficult to find much entertaining here. The fact that it was extremely difficult to sympathize with the characters made it all the more disengaging."

next page... |  1 of 4

December (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48