The film's original screenplay was derived in part from the book Alexander the Great, published in 1973 by the University of Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox.

[5] Oliver Stone's third version, Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut (2007), sold nearly a million copies and became one of the highest-selling catalog items from Warner Bros (as of 2012[update]).

[4] Alexander grows up with his mother Olympias and his tutor Aristotle, where he finds interest in love, honor, music, exploration, poetry and military combat.

Ptolemy's memoirs of Alexander were eventually burned, lost forever with other scrolls of the Library of Alexandria by the end of the Roman Empire.

A group of 25 Greek lawyers initially threatened to file a lawsuit against both Stone and the Warner Bros film studio for what they claimed was an inaccurate portrayal of history.

"We are not saying that we are against gays," said Yannis Varnakos, "but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander".

In the making of Alexander, Oliver Stone had consulted the Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox, as well as his colleagues and other British experts.

[10] Stone also consulted CUNY Queens College historian John Maxwell O'Brien (in part from his book Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy: A Biography) though he remains uncredited in the film.

[11] Eugene N. Borza, a professor emeritus focusing on Ancient Macedon has said: "The re-enactment of the enormously complex battle of Gaugamela is impressive, not only reproducing several of the main events of the conflict, but indicating how difficult it was for large armies to operate on a desert plain made opaque by dust and chaotic by the clash of arms," and praised its depiction of the Macedonian phalanx.

"[12] Eugene N. Borza had also praised the detailed setpieces depicting the Achaemenid Babylon as "spectacular," such as the interior and exterior designs and noting how the trinkets and jewelry were based on actual recent archaeological findings.

He concludes that, as a motion picture that "captures the Zeitgeist" (spirit of the times) of the "ancient Greek" era, "no film... can rival Oliver Stone's Alexander.

"[13] According to Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Professor of Ancient History at Cardiff University: "Oliver Stone's movie Alexander (2004) displays all the familiar Orientalist notions about the inferiority and picturesqueness of Eastern societies.

So much so, indeed, that in terms of its portrayal of East–West relationships, Alexander has to be seen as a stale cultural statement and a worn-out reflection of the continuing Western preoccupation with an imaginary exotic Orient.

They marched in discipline [sic], and music was actually used..."[16] Stone has, in his various commentaries in the film's DVD,[citation needed] defended the most glaring historical issues in regard to Persian and Indian history, by saying he had no resources to portray accurately a multitude of battles at the expense of storytelling.

The website's critical consensus states: "Even at nearly three hours long, this ponderous, talky, and emotionally distant biopic fails to illuminate Alexander's life.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, giving the film two out of four stars, wrote in his review, "[W]e welcome the scenes of battle, pomp and circumstance because at least for a time we are free of the endless narration of Ptolemy the historian.

"[25] Faint praise came from Todd McCarthy of Variety who wrote, "Oliver Stone's Alexander is at best an honorable failure, an intelligent and ambitious picture that crucially lacks dramatic flair and emotional involvement.

[29][30] Critic Peter Sobczynski said "The various expansions and rejiggerings have improved it immeasurably, and what was once a head-scratching mess has reformed into an undeniably fascinating example of epic cinema.