Anyone who remotely paid attention to movie-going culture during the late 1990s and early 2000s

knows that the historical epic genre received a rebirth in Hollywood.

With the success of films like Mel Gibson's Braveheart and even Lord of the Rings to some extent,

Hollywood felt that audiences were ready to accept films once again that were either greater than two hours in length or about historical events.

In particular, the ancient world of classical Greece and Rome made a huge comeback,

something that fell out of vogue with the end of the 1960s sword and sandal craze.

With the critical but not necessarily financial success of Ridley Scott's Gladiator,

Hollywood was inundated with a flood of ancient themed films that sought to capitalize on the sudden renewed interest in the Greeks and Romans.

300, The Passion of the Christ, Centurion, The Eagle, HBO's Rome and Star Spartacus television series.

We even had niche movies, subjects like the Trojan War in 2004's Troy, and 2004's King Arthur

set in late antique Britain.

As an easily impressionable history geek who loved Gladiator, I tried to see every one of them.

One peculiar film slipped by my sights, though, a film simply titled Alexander.

Despite having a highly respected director like Oliver Stone, a high budget for 2004 standards with $155 million in the bank,

a star-set-casted cast with faces like Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie, and a soundtrack by

Vangelis of Blade Runner fame, it seems like it had everything going for it.

But it seemed to slip the public's eye as well. Critics and audiences pan the film, and it barely

made enough money to cover its budget, and it has since been pointed to as the shining example

of the declining interest and eventual burnout of the public's desire for historical and epic works

that occurred at the time.

Alexander is a film based upon the titular character Alexander the Great.

Far from being a straightforward narrative, it is a plot that careens back and forth over

...