No.  The acting was poor, the dialogue was terrible in spots, but the story was great.  The story of Alexander the great is a classic any way you cut it, and the only thing most people can do is fuck it up.

Skiing.  Indeed.  Makes me think of the incredibly large B*b B@nk.  A rotund man with a personality that could light up a room.  Owner of the filthies home bathroom I have ever seen.  Could talk the panties off of a nun.  Shift co-ordinator out at the camp.  Was freely expressive with declarations of love, the type that endeared people to him, a charm that was infectious.  Red haired, irreverant.  Made a lot of gay jokes, innuendo, even at me at the bar after shift.  As in, "Lookit Argentum!  He's over there, thinking about going ski-in'.", only to then make a gesture as if he had a cock in each hand, pantomiming sucking them off in turn while stroking both in rythm, an act that looked strangely, and only slightly like actually going skiing.  "Skiin'.  Like downhill skiin'.  That's what I call it,"  he'd say as he trailed off as the pitchers mounted up and I fixed him with my typical, "yeah, right, dumbass" stare (patent pending)

I felt sorriest for Alexander's horse when he died, after beckoning him into battle, beautiful black stallion, coaching the horse past his fears as his army was encircled by Indians on the subcontinent, firecely painted and riding trumpeting elephants, "Come, Eucephalus, one more time."

And the majestic beast reared into the heart of the enemy, towards the opposing general in magenta turbin, who was casting javelins from the back of his pachyderm, only to get vicsiously, horribly cut down, as much a vitctim of Alexander's hubris as his bad judgement, his finaly, undying loyalty paid out in blood, stabbed squealing as he fell by Sihks.

I felt viscerally bad.  I felt like crying.  Later, when Jared Leto, Alexander's lover and boon companion finally bites it from typhus, I felt nothing.  No reason to(feel anything).  The horse was a better actor.

If nothing else, the movie made me think of great men, and the things they accomplished, the things they understood.  It took Alexander, more or less, six years to take the persian empire, which, by then, was the nut of the world.  Yes, this discounts China and India, but does account for most of the known world.  He willed civilization to be.

In the same manner, Jesus Christ in only three years changed the course of civilization irrevocably, forever.  Six to build it, three to change it.  A great man can follow his vision and accomplish great things, immortality, in a stunningly short amount of time.

It would behoove one to think like they did, attempt to see and thing the same things.  To function on that level of existence must be incredible.   Three short years, built on the backs of jewish culture.  Six years with the blood and sweat of a burgeoning Macedonian nation.  All with vision.  All with charisma, will, and drive.  Being in the right place at the right time. 

With the right elements, a man of talent and will could accomplish much.

The next revolution will involve the internet.  I'd bet my bottom fucking dollar.

I suppose that's not an outlandishly difficult prognostication.

Here's another one:  Alexander will not make a lot of money.  America will tune out what makes it uncomfortable, and many will tune out what makes them think.   (This is not the year of the gay in america.)

Which is too bad, because it is a story worth knowing.  Or renting, as the case may be.

(side note:  In making an analogy to Braveheart, one can hear the speeches of William of Wallace, as spoken by looney Mel Gibson, and be stirred a little.  The fleeting thought, no matter how poorly put across it was, seemed to be, 'yeah, maybe I'd follow this cat into battle, even if he is a scotsman with an australian accent.'  With colin farrel the fleeting thought was more like, 'noooo, dude, you go fight those cats on your own.'  He did not carry the film.  The shots of Babylon were fucking incredible, though.)