This film narrates the story of one of history's great military figures, Alexander of the Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian empires. In brief, Alexander was conquering Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East a few hundred years B.C. He died very young and by the time he passed away he had amassed a huge empire, a pretty incredible achievement made even more so by the fact it was done in such a short space of time.
The film is largely a telling of this history, albeit with some creative license here and there according to other commentators who have researched the facts a bit. The story is told to us as a retrospective in the third person, through the eyes of one of Alexander's Generals who outlives him. This format allows the story to jump around chronologically, so that we go back and forth to different periods of Alexander's life and slowly stitch together the bigger picture of the character, his motivations and his achievements.
This format requires the viewer to concentrate a bit harder to follow the story than would be needed if the story is told purely chronologically. But it also gives the film an extra dimension, allowing the viewer to discover more about the central character's motivations as the film evolves rather than laying them all out at the start.
This is a grand film, hugely ambitious in scope, and best viewed in the full 3.5 hour Director cut to fully appreciate the film's scale. The sets are magnificent, lush, visually sumptuous, as are the costumes and the CGI is thankfully quite limited. The battle scenes are chaotic. The dialogue is rich, especially in the scenes with the Generals debating their expedition - almost like a fly on the wall peering over a military soap opera. The cinematography is at times really stunning and the acting is on the whole not bad at all, with decent turns from Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins amongst others.
Overall, rather like Alexander himself, I think this film tries to reach too far. It is too ambitious and it's attempt at scale and grandeur doesn't quite succeed, giving the film a bit of a sprawling and incoherent feel. But the effort is truly admirable and for pure visual pleasure it is certainly worth a watch, and maybe even a re-appraisal.
The film is largely a telling of this history, albeit with some creative license here and there according to other commentators who have researched the facts a bit. The story is told to us as a retrospective in the third person, through the eyes of one of Alexander's Generals who outlives him. This format allows the story to jump around chronologically, so that we go back and forth to different periods of Alexander's life and slowly stitch together the bigger picture of the character, his motivations and his achievements.
This format requires the viewer to concentrate a bit harder to follow the story than would be needed if the story is told purely chronologically. But it also gives the film an extra dimension, allowing the viewer to discover more about the central character's motivations as the film evolves rather than laying them all out at the start.
This is a grand film, hugely ambitious in scope, and best viewed in the full 3.5 hour Director cut to fully appreciate the film's scale. The sets are magnificent, lush, visually sumptuous, as are the costumes and the CGI is thankfully quite limited. The battle scenes are chaotic. The dialogue is rich, especially in the scenes with the Generals debating their expedition - almost like a fly on the wall peering over a military soap opera. The cinematography is at times really stunning and the acting is on the whole not bad at all, with decent turns from Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins amongst others.
Overall, rather like Alexander himself, I think this film tries to reach too far. It is too ambitious and it's attempt at scale and grandeur doesn't quite succeed, giving the film a bit of a sprawling and incoherent feel. But the effort is truly admirable and for pure visual pleasure it is certainly worth a watch, and maybe even a re-appraisal.
Tell Your Friends