Great review! Just wanted to impart a quick informative comment on the last part, tho. You mentioned that you "...have not heard of anyone being this lucky before." I'll give you an example that will hopefully show that, as a director, Stone was not so much "lucky," but determined. And that is a quality that shows a truly great director. If you've enjoyed Alexander, then surely you've also had the chance to view Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut?" That film, like Alexander, bombed at the box office. However, Scott's director's cut finally did the film justice, and sadly the film was never given the credit it deserved as a cinematic masterpiece. To Scott's credit, however, he knew what was happening to his film from the get-go. Pressured by the studio to finish quickly, and being reminded constantly of budget and length concerns, he decided to beat the studio at their own game. Frankly, he didn't want a repeat of his "Blade Runner" fiasco from years earlier (4 totally different cuts released over several years). This time, he actually had two scripts for the movie en tow. When they were done filming principal photography on the "studio edition" of the film, they would then use the rest of the filming day to capture scenes for his eventual director's cut. In many cases, these extra scenes weren't in the movie budget, so he (and the producers) forked over the dough themselves to cover production costs. Then, his editor worked on cutting the two films simultaneously. Literally, he was working on his director's cut from the very start. He was determined to make the film his way, which I think is why the theatrical version truly wasn't all that great. I, myself would only offer it 2.5 stars. He just didn't care about that film because it wasn't HIS film - it was the studio's film, the way the studio wanted it. Luckily, however, he was able to see what was happening and make his effort to correct the problem, even if that meant releasing a bad film to save a great film. So, I feel this was probably the same problem Oliver Stone was facing. However, Alexander does seem to be a much larger, more ambitious film, with greater location and timing concerns. So, for Stone, saving the film may not have been so easy from the start. But he also had that great directorial determination. He felt like he wasn't getting his point across, so he gave it another crack. Director's also bear certain rights over the films that bear their namesake, in most cases owning majority share of the rights. This makes it easier for them to say, "I'm going to re-edit this film now, so deal with it," and less likely to say, "I really don't like the way this film turned out, do you mind if I take another whack at it?"
So anyway... there's my two bits. I highly recommend Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut, if you haven't seen it already. And, keep up the good reviews!! :)