Alexander was indeed a great film. That being said... as a sucker for historical epics, it was unlikely that I wouldn't think so. Still, Stone does many things right in this movie. The sets/CGIs and Gaugamela battle sequence are outstanding. The soundtrack by Vangelis is a masterpiece from a great composer. The pace of this movie is impeccable... it never dulls in my opinion. Some scenes are truly great, such as the boy Alexander learning from Aristotle, taming Bucephalus, or Philip the Barbarian's "Everything you need to know about Classical Myth to Rule the World in Five Minutes" speech. I was also impressed at the way Stone captured the idealism of Alexander, something very appropriate for contemporary events taking place in today's Babylon. Finally, Ptolemy's narration and the use of maps seemed oh so very Kubrickesque to me. I loved it... a movie that didn't talk down to its audience!

On the downside, I agree with Ebert's evaluation of Colin Farrell. Farrell just didn't convey that intrinsic charisma that you would think would have been necessary to lead 40,000 men to the ends of the known world. I found Connor Paolo and Jessie Kamm much more convincing as Alexander than Colin Farrell!!

Although I believe Stone may have been trying to capture the deterioration of Alexander and Hephaistion into luxury and despotism, they both look like they are suffering from AIDS by the end of this movie. Hephaistion, in particular, is sidelined in the latter parts to look on, drearily, as Alexander takes a wife and approaches madness; his appearance becomes gaunt and pale. Was Stone suggesting something by this? Is he advocating a common stereotype? Still, on the whole, I think Stone did well in portraying the homosexuality in the film. It was a little less blatant than I'd been expecting but he captured nicely the fact that in the classical world, homosexuality was not an alternative lifestyle but a common aspect of classical and Hellenistic Greek male sexuality. There were even some hints of pederasty in the early stages of the movie, which kind of surprised me.

Angelina Jolie, while stunningly beautiful in this movie, uses an accent here that makes it sound like she's from Transylvania and about to "suck your blooood." It's really bizarre and awfully distracting.

Although I liked the performances of Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins, they were too obvious for their roles. It took a moment but as soon as I recognized them under their makeup, I just couldn't forget that I was looking at Kilmer and Hopkins and not Philip and Ptolemy.

The camera work and the endless swelling of the music leading to Alexander's injury on the battlefield was poorly done. The red filter was completely unnecessary and detracted from the feel of those scenes and the endless swelling of the music felt abusive. One also has to wonder why Stone couldn't have had Alexander's injury take place in a siege as described in the classical sources.

This brings me to my final disappointment with the film. There was no siege of Tyre. I had hoped to see that done on screen and would have given ample, as they built the siege craft, to develop characters and intrigue between generals. In fact, lots of stuff missing from this film that I might have wanted to see but at three hours in its present cut one can understand the need to edit some of this out.

All in all... great stuff... I have to disagree with Johann though... this isn't Stone's best... JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven & Earth, Nixon, Joy Luck Club, and Platoon are all better in my opinion and I have a feeling I'd even think NBK and the Doors are better. I liked Alexander more than some of these because it's my particular interest area but it wasn't a better movie per se. Too many shortcomings...

...now if only Scorsese would have stayed the course on his Alexander project... if Luhrman still completes his... I'll look forward to that.