If history is any indication, Alexander the Great was an extremely bold and charismatic figure who fell in love with his own greatness so much so that he didn't know when to stop conquering and just live out a satisfied existence.

It is fitting, then, that the movie based on his life follows the same pattern.

Alexander -- the new film from the equally bold and charismatic Oliver Stone --makes like the ruler of Macedonia and snuffs out frame after frame of film, never allowing us to feel comfortable, much less follow along with the elaborate, three-hour story.

Stone's new film is a sprawling sword-and-sandals epic that puts a nice finish on what seemed to be a year of endless movies on the battlefront.

Before this we had both Troy and King Arthur, among many others.

I would like to say this picture was the epic that put those others to shame--a truly masterful piece of cinema from one of the greatest directors of our time--but the fact of the matter is, this is just another in a long line of disappointments.

What makes this film so disappointing is the amount of work Stone had put into his so-called "dream" project.

For 15 years he struggled to bring his portrait of Alexander the Great to the screen, and now that it has happened, we can feel nothing more than a letdown while viewing this film.

There is no need to question whether or not Stone was the right filmmaker for this project--his passion for Alexander the Great is present in every scene of the film. But therein lies the complication: Stone has so much he wants to say about this revered leader that it feels as if we're constantly playing catch-up with him. He is miles ahead of us when it comes to understanding Alexander, and that is why the film's convoluted script will confuse many people.

As the film's narrator Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) ran through the most important battles, decisions and circumstances Alexander faced in his short lifetime, I couldn't help but feel as though I was back in history class. There were points in the film where I thought about daydreaming and were it not for this review, I may have.

Part of the core problem of Alexander is that Stone hesitates about what he wants to tell us. From my chair, I got the feeling that Colin Farrell's Alexander was indeed a gay man and that his marriage to Roxane (Rosario Dawson) was purely political. I got the feeling that there was supposed to be more of a sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion (Jared Leto). But if this was the case -- as I'm sure Stone intended it to be -- why not make it clear for the viewer?

Rather than expand on this idea, Stone takes the audience on a wild ride through kingdoms and wars and flashbacks of Alexander's father Philip's (Val Kilmer) death.

He hides the deeper meanings of his film in order to get the most out of his limited screen time.

While battle scenes in blockbusters such as this are almost obligatory nowadays, several other scenes could have been cut out to allow us a little bit of breathing room.

While Stone would tell you different, part of the failure of Alexander lies on Colin Farrell's shoulders. A fine young actor, and a talent that surely will be recognized for years to come, Farrell was obviously not ready for a film of this magnitude. He seems lost in the grand battle sequences, confused and altogether too small in stature for this kind of role.

Indeed when Oliver Stone set out to make Alexander, he imagined something as large and grandiose as the conqueror himself. He wanted audiences around the world to come to know someone he had idolized growing up.

Stone may not be able to keep us on board for his voyage through history, but if nothing else, he has written one gigantic love letter to his hero.