Oliver Stone's "Final Cut" version of his much maligned Alexander the Great biographical motion picture is simply the most monumentally redeeming subsequent edit from a theatrical debacle ever.

There's actually four different versions available (theatrical, director's cut, final cut, ultimate cut). The rejiggering I'm most staunchly voutching for is the third version, officially titled in full as "ALEXANDER REVISITED: THE FINAL CUT". All the versions are significantly different in narrative context and structural articulation (well the "Ultimate" is just a shorter refinement of the "Final" I guess). However, at an unabashed 3 hours and 34 minutes, The Final Cut is the most poignantly pregnant - some 40 minutes heavier than the theatrical, even while trimming out some content from that initial release. Ironically, whereas the theatrical felt like a hard long bloated slog, this substantially more voluminous revisitation carries itself with so much more deftly assured confidence of momentive purpose that its approprately earned heartiness gives the sense of no time wasted at all. Actually, dissecting all of the various incarnations of the seemingly same production is a truly fascinating excercise if you're really curious to. Especially because of how flat-out awful the theatrical version was. While the Final Cut version does retain some flaws, it approaches something approximating masterpiece level status in its epic resonance.

The things you may have initially hated will all still be present - but this time they're also accounted for!

The Final Cut version adds back much essential scenes and nuances, as well as more brutal edits of battle that actually inform the circumstaces and stakes far more effectively. The situational geography and ingenious war tactics are readdressed with much more clarity. And it returns to the original scripted and shot intention for a non linear narrative with scenes jumping from various time periods to contextually strengthen and impact character dynamics and motivations by contrasting juxtaposition. Plus, it may have legendary greek composer Vangelis' most robustly stirring music score!

It's a complicated subject, from a sprawling script, and an audaciously daring director - but the 3rd time's the charm. Oliver Stone's true vision of Alexander is well worth reassessment. Trust me.

Being a fan of the classical school of acting I have a particular fondness for the 1956 Alexander The Great that starred Richard Burton. He was a guy born to play roles like that, just like Charlton Heston. Still Oliver Stone's Alexander has much to recommend it, especially with them finally dealing with the fact the man was gay in a society that sexual orientation didn't matter. In 1956 they could only be most subtle on that issue and Burton's Alexander contained not a trace.

The love of his life was a childhood friend named Hephastrion and the relationship between Colin Farrell and Jared Leto as Alexander and Hephastrion is quite clear. But one of the duties of a monarch is to provide for orderly succession in any culture. When Farrell marries Rosario Dawson the Babylonian princess it is to provide heirs for a world he's uniting.

Which brings me to his relationship with his father Philip of Macedon played here by Val Kilmer. One thing you can't have is whispers about paternity even if Zeus is the biological father which Queen Olympias keeps saying about her son. Angelina Jolie is Olympias and she's got a most tempestuous relationship with Kilmer. A few hints in that direction lead him to silencing those rumors and in turn a court party centered around Prince Alexander takes action to insure his successor.

Like so many adventurer/conquerors Alexander is convinced of the superiority of the Greek way of life. Still even after conquest he does leave local customs intact if for no other reason is that you can't keep leaving occupying forces lest you diminish your conquering army. A unique idea for its day, practiced most recently by General Douglas MacArthur when he was running Japan and quite well.

Oliver Stone offers some new and fresh insights to Alexander where we finally now talk about his sexual orientation. For those who protested this film, I say Alexander is here and queer.

Although I'd never seen it before, I knew that Alexander was a troubled film. The sheer number of different edits and versions available on DVD is testament to that – none of them successfully capture the 'spark' that would make the film a crowd-pleaser in the same way that TROY enthralled the masses. Despite the problems – and there are a fair few of them, not least the long-winded nature of the narrative (Hopkins' character is laboured and dull) and the slow moving and extraneous scenes – this is still a film I enjoyed. It's a pretty good retelling of the ancient story, employing a large cast, most of whom get the chance to shine on more than one occasion, and the spectacle is suitably impressive.

Colin Farrell is something of an obscure choice as the Macedonian hero, but I was surprised to find he actually fits the part very well. He brings a high level of humanity to the part, making us focus on his character's warmth and integrity. Angelina Jolie is cast as his mother, even though she's only a year or so older than him in real life; this matters not. She, too, is effective as a sinister witch-type character whose overriding love for her son also makes her sympathetic to the viewer. Val Kilmer has fun as Alexander's one-eyed tyrant of a father, Philip.

There's plenty of globe-trotting going on along here, along with debates, arguments, and cold-blooded murder. There are only one or two battle sequences, but they're big in scale and rather effective. By far the best is the fight in the jungles of India, in which Alexander and his men find themselves up against an army mounted on hulking elephants. Stone directs this part very well, soaking the screen in a blood-red canvas to ably evoke the chaotic events unfolding in front of us. It's gruesome, brutal, moving and disturbing, all as warfare should be, and in fact one of the best battle sequences I've witnessed in a film yet. It's a shame the whole of the film couldn't follow the same standard. Still, it tells an engaging story and, while it might vary in terms of effectiveness, believability and scope, as a whole I liked it, if not overly so.