The Movie:

While Oliver Stone's epic cinematic vision of a film detailing the life and times of Alexander The Great sounded like as close to a sure thing as you can find in Hollywood these days, sadly the final product met with bad reviews and miserable box office results. Three years since its theatrical review, the film has been released in its theatrical cut, in an alternate director's cut, and now in its third incarnation, Alexander Revisited - The Final Cut. Was the third time the charm for Stone? Not really. The same problems that plagued the other two versions hurt this one as well but the longer running time does allow for better character development and a few of the added scenes certainly do help things. While this remains a very flawed film, it's far from the complete disaster some have made it out to be and this supposed Final Edit is the best version of Stone's vision so far.

The film follows the story of Alexander The Great (Colin Ferrell), one of the most famous conquerors in all of history. We learn of his boyhood struggles to come to terms with the strange affections of his 'barbarian' mother, Olympias (Angelina Jolie) as well as the begrudgingly respectful relationship that he had with his father, King Philip (Val Kilmer). Upon Philip's death, he was given the Macedonian throne and once the considerable army was under his control, he set out to conquer Persia and beyond. As the central plot plays out, so do a few interesting subplots such as Alexander's difficulty conceiving an heir to his throne with his first wife, Roxane (Rosario Dawson), his difficulty accepting theories and studies taught to him in his youth by none other than Aristotle (Christopher Plummer) and his homosexual relationships with boyhood friend Hephaistion (Jared Leto) and a servant named Bagoas (Francisco Bosch). We learn how he inspired a high ranking solider named Ptolemy (played in his youth by Robert Early, his adult years by Elliott Cowan and in his senior years by Anthony Hopkins who also narrates and bookends the movie) as well as his problems maintaining control over his army once things turned sour in India towards the end of his campaign.

The theatrical cut of Alexander ran for 175 minutes, the director's cut for 167 minutes, and this Final Cutfor 213 minutes. What makes up the forty-odd minutes of running time added to this release? The subplots involving Ptolemy and Olympias are fleshed out with both characters receiving more screen time here, and the relationships the grow between Alexander his first wife Roxane (and her jealousy over his interest in men), his mother Olympias, and his father, Philip, are also elaborated on a fair amount. The film also deals with Alexander's homosexual relationships to a considerably more graphic degree, demonstrating what was only hinted at in the theatrical cut without ever delving into the realm of exploitation. On top of the character development and relationship expansions scenes, the battle scenes also appear to be longer and a fair bit gorier. Both the opening battle and the finale that occur in the wilds of India are very hard-hitting and intensely brutal in their depiction of war. Aristotle gets more screen time here, and a post battle sequence shows some of Alexander's compassion and caring for the men under his command.

The added character development makes for a stronger narrative and more interesting personalities on screen and the more intense battle sequences certainly add to the already impressively staged scenes of mass carnage. In those ways, this is an improved version of Alexander. That said, the film does still suffer from some odd casting and the problems that have trailed the first two versions are still here in this third. Angelina Jolie is still too young to play Colin Farrell's mother even if she's wearing make up to give her a more elderly appearance. Stone's decision to have the Macedonian's speak with Irish accents and the Greeks with English accents still sticks out like a sore thumb. The picture still feels bloated in spots and it still jumps around a bit too much for its own good. Likewise, Stone's movie doesn't pay enough attention to Alexander's strengths as a military leader or to his inventive work as a strategist, and instead it focuses more on his inner conflicts and turmoil leaving us wondering just how he became such a great conqueror in the first place. More emphasis on the military aspect of Alexander's story would have made for a more complete and potentially more exciting film. There are moments where Stone tries to explain the reasons for Alexander's incessant push for more and more territory and where he tries to explain his love for battle and combat, but he never really succeeds at it, and as such, Alexander is just kind of this guy who was really good at war but who had much bigger problems in his personal life.

That said, all complaints aside, Alexander in any of its forms is not as horrible a film as some would have us believe. The flaws are there and they're quite obvious but the film does manage to get more than a few things right. First off, the entire production looks gorgeous. From the palaces to the battlefields, everything is picture perfect. There's an insane amount of detail obvious in the sets, the costumes and the backgrounds and it's obvious that the production team really did strive to make sure that the film looked as epic and grandiose as it needed to. Accent aside, Farrell does make for a likeable lead even if he's not quite as charismatic as he could have been. Angelina Jolie is wasted in her part, but Val Kilmer is impressive as Philip and Jared Leto is wonderfully sympathetic as Alexander's first true love, Hephaistion. Vangelis' score is suitably epic and sounds as pompous as you would hope a film about Alexander The Great would, and as mentioned, the battle scenes are truly fantastic. No, Alexander is not a bad film at all - it's just not as good as it should have been or as it could have been.

Video:

Alexander - Revisited is presented in a gorgeous VC-1 encoded 2.35.1 anamorphic widescreen transfer presented in full 1080p, and, in short, it looks fantastic. Color reproduction is fantastic and black levels are always rich and deep. Most impressive is the level of detail present in the picture in both the foreground and the background. You can literally count the hairs on the performers' heads if you're so inclined. Flesh tones look dead on and there are no problems with print damage or heavy grain (a fine coat is noticeable in some scenes but it just contributes to the filmic look of the transfer). Some of the outdoor scenes are a little bleached out looking as they've been intentionally over exposed for dramatic effect but even these scenes look very good. Shadow detail is great, contrast looks to be properly set, and aside from a few blink and you'll miss it moments where some mild pixelation occurs during very fast movement, there's absolutely nothing worth complaining about in terms of how this HD-DVD looks.