A question for leftist-revisionist filmmaker Oliver Stone: If it's OK for Alexander the Great to conquer Iraq, why is it wrong for George W. Bush? In his movie Alexander (rated R for sex and violence), Mr. Stone praises the conqueror of the known world for his multiculturalism and for promoting a one-world government!
Alexander, one of the most fascinating characters of ancient history, combined genius and megalomania, but here he 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.
The movie shows a glimpse of the Macedonian phalanx, with its tight formations and hedge of long spears, but instead of Alexander's ground-breaking military tactics, mostly we get the usual Hollywood battle scenes of individual sword fights.
Worst of all is Mr. Stone's depiction of Alexander as a gay poster boy, complete with a dominating mother, a boyfriend in eyeliner, a eunuch dancer, and a posse of pretty lads in short skirts.
Some fans of the king are attacking the film, insisting that there is no historical evidence that Alexander, who had several wives, had sex with men. This may be true, but there are hints that he may have. Homosexual vice was rampant among the ancient Greeks, especially in the army.
Once military service ended, the men married and lived as heterosexuals. This suggests that homosexuality is not genetic but cultural. This also refutes liberal theologians who claim the Bible's teachings against homosexuality are only "cultural." The Apostle Paul countered a culture more permissive than ours.
This is not Alexander the Great. This is Alexander the Awful.