Movie Review: Alexander (2004)

So, yes, this movie is not exactly new. It came out in 2004, and right now, it is obviously 2012. I have had eight years to see this movie, and yet never actually did until just recently. But it was enough to leave an impression.

Let me say outright, I try and be careful with such movies that purport to be based upon history. As a history major, it is hard for me to accept that people can take such liberties with what happened, and bend it whichever way that they want to, making it instead what they want it to be, or making it mere entertainment.

That said, it is also interesting, admittedly. It has an amazing, and star-studded cast that includes Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, Val Kilmer, and the star, Colin Farrell. They are all capable actors, and delivered fairly strongly in their various roles. Farrell may have been a bit over the top in his dramaticism, yet he took a big risk with this role, and so should be given credit. Some other big-time actors specifically declined this role, due to some frontal nudity (very little of it) and some scenes  of homosexuality, which while increasingly accepted among major movies and actors, was still a bit of a risk for a sex figure.

I rather enjoyed visiting ancient Greece/Macedonia on the big screen – at least according to Oliver Stone, that is. The fictional Alexander, played by Colin Farrell, was almost a sex symbol who lived a wild and dramatic life, and at least in this particular movie, seemed to prefer and love men over women. Farrell plays his role well, although one wonders if the real life Alexander was anywhere near as dramatic as Farrell's depiction in this movie.

Angelina Jolie was a bit over the top in her deviousness, as well, matching Farrell's over the top drama. Val Kilmer was quite decent in his role as King Phillip II, the father of Alexander, and his predecessor to the throne.

As usual, Anthony Hopkins delivers strongly in his role, which was a more or less reduced one of a general, Ptolemy, who fought alongside Alexander on his campaigns, and is shown essentially doing dictation that focuses on Alexander's life and times, and the glorious campaigns and surprising contradictions that he brings to light. Oliver Stone gives himself an out in the movie vis-à-vis any potential historical accuracies, when Hopkins' character, the older version of Ptolemy, says towards the end of the movie to throw away this story, and not to allow the great Alexander to be remembered in this light.

On paper, the list of accomplishments, if you will, of the real life Alexander were considerable. He ascended to the Macedonian throne, his father had created the League of Corninth, in which member states agreed not to fight amongst one another. This alliance was deemed a triumph, and thus allowed Alexander's father, King Phillip II, to wage the war that Alexander would eventually take over and gain immortality with. Alexander was never defeated on the battlefield, and essentially built an empire that stretched from Macedonia in eastern Europe, through the Middle East and Persia, and all the way to parts of India. At the time, it was almost the entire known world that he had managed to conquer. With all of the imagery and epic mythology of ancient Greece, Alexander is a leader who seems to stand on mythical ground. That he essentially marched through the known world, taking over one land after another and winning one battle after another, makes him perhaps the most ideal historical political figure in Greek history to focus such a movie on.

Plus, the drama that is known of his personal life does indeed make for an interesting tale in history, and so it is not surprising

Whether riddled with historical inaccuracies or not, it is, in the end, just a movie, and meant to be entertaining. It succeeds in this, as well as in focusing on an important and memorable chapter in history, when one man came as close as anyone had gotten, or perhaps even would get, to conquering the world. It also offers a glimpse of the ancient Greek world in a different light than what is often offered. This is a very colorful film, and thus we can better imagine the ancient Greek world in all of it's splendor, rather than mere white washed architecture, crumbling ruins of palaces and temples that once were, or through marble statues of white, and perhaps some vases an artifacts, often illustrating some epic events in ancient Greek mythology.

Here is an interpretation of Greece that offers a glimpse into it's richness of color on an everyday level. It delves into some of the finer aspects of Greco culture, such as it's famous mythology, but it also briefly hints at some of the smaller, more puzzling and perhaps troubling aspects, such as the tendency towards taking sexual advantage over young men.

It also documents the actual battles and victories of Alexander on the field, and tries to convey his military genius, the different approach and tactics that he took, and his relative fearlessness.

A movie that still felt new to me, although it is now eight years old, and a movie that, having seen it now, I wonder why it took me so long to finally make the time or effort to see it. Not a movie for historical accuracy necessarily, but it has some historical relevance, and is nonetheless undeniably entertaining.