'Alexander' traces the short, but adventerous life of the Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.), whom conquered almost the entire known world of his era. From his childhood as the son of King Philip, to acending the thrown at age 20 in 336 B.C. upon his father's murder, and starting in 334 B.C., Alexander crossed into Asia on his 11-year conquest of the known world. From his conquests of Egypt, to battles with the Persians and the capture of Babylon, operations near Maracanda and in Afghanistan, and pushing all the way to India where he reigned unchallenged before his sudden death at age 32. Though Alexander made use of the well-oiled army created by his father, he pushed the limits of Macedonian & Greek power to levels King Philip could not have dreamed of.

Some said, "it couldn't be done". 

Others just merely scoffed "it shouldn't be done", but OLIVER STONE could not, nay would not adhere. 

What could this mystery "it" be?

Could "it" be the search for life in the far off regions of Montana?

Or, could this evasive "it" mean taking on the forces of terror in our world single handedly?

You may be shocked to learn that the "it" I speak of is actually none of these things, but what OLIVER STONE did do was much more momentous and much more unbelievable than anything CRISS ANGEL or DAVID BLAINE could ever hope to perform.  OLIVER STONE has successfully turned a single film magically into a trilogy films.  That film of course is no other than his historical epic ALEXANDER, and the following ALEXANDER: THE DIRECTORS CUT and his newest and third installment to the series ALEXANDER REVISITED (available now from WARNER HOME VIDEO).

Ok, jocularity aside. Yes, this is the third version (a tri-dip?) of OLIVER STONE's film ALEXANDER starring COLIN FARRELL, ANTHONY HOPKINS, ROSARIO DAWSON and ANGELINA JOLIE to only name a few.  "Why the need for three versions of the same film?" some might ask, and to those I say "Why are you asking me?  I had no part in the production or distribution for this film."

Though the answer to this question is rest assuredly not dodged by it's creator, and is held within the director's introduction to this his three and a half hour version of ALEXANDER (and I am not going to give it to you so if you want to know either buy the DVD, or find the leaked footage on youtube!!!).  So huge is this newest version of ALEXANDER that it cannot be contained on just a single disc (and comes with a free pass to WARNER BROS. newest film 300 which is in theaters now!!!), and by "film" I mean the actual movie itself is on two discs, not the film's on one with just bonus materials on disc two.  Yes, this newest "revisitation" is long, like extended edition PETER JACKSON long!   Which I find a little odd seeing as the initial release of ALEXANDER saw the film at its 175 minute theatrical running time, yet the following DIRECTOR'S CUT of the film only found it at 167 minutes running. Though with any epic as this, and with all this film does encompass the longer definitely the better.

Spanning the entire life of one of histories most prolific figures Alexander The Great who's life took him from his home in Macedonia all the way to the far off reaches of Asia and India back in the "300 B.C.-ish" era, told through a mix of facts and mythos (in genuine OLIVER STONE style!) ALEXANDER REVISITED leaves little to be questioned about the existence of the titular Alexander.  From his up bringing, to his famed wars, journeys to the east and pretty much anything else you did (or didn't!) want to know about is exposed and examined, which I am sure will make this MR STONE's final rendition to his portrayal of ALEXANDER.

Now for some opinion.  When ALEXANDER first hit theaters I can honestly say I had little interest in flocking to my local theater to get my ticket.  Though once the first edition hit on DVD, I my normal rent and wasn't overly impressed.  Not to say I hated the film, that I did not!  Though there was nothing that lead me to want to check out a "director's cut" or any further exploration of the film such as this ALEXANDER REVISITED edition, and that I think may be how a lot of people feel.  Well, that may not just be the right way to look at things.  ALEXANDER REVISITED has what its predecessors did not, and that is "balls", and big ones and that!  No, not actually BORAT "balls", the "balls" I speak of are the kind that make films exciting... uhhh.... well the kind that make films exciting for straight dudes (nice save!)  Basically by "balls" I am talking about more sex, more gore and more violence as this rendition of ALEXANDER is the grittiest and in your face of the three versions by far! 

Final thought, TIME TO UPGRADE!