As long as you don't mind the historical inaccuracies, this movie may prove helpful for the Alexander fanatic (like myself). After 1st seeing this film, I was horrified by the botch job that was done on the real Alexander story, but after forcing myself to sit through it a 2nd time I was able to lighten up a bit on the factual content, and just look for any great scenes that this film had to offer. Particularly, is the scene where Alexander goes to Athen's and the background shows a beautifully recreated shiny white Erectheon. Later, Alexander walks through the Parthenon...a dream scene of ancient history buffs everywhere. Another good scene was right before the Battle at the River Granicus. Here Alexander eyes his opponents on the opposite river bank, and comments on who will be the 1st to fall...Richard Burton did a great job in some scenes, but overall seemed to lack the charisma that exemplified Alexander. He has the look, but the British accent doesn't suit Alexander very well. I could go on, but really, see it yourself, or better yet, read "The Campaigns of Alexander" by Arrian, it is much more than any movie could ever be on this enigmatic historical figure.
49 Reviews
A philosophical epic
Erik G.10 February 1999
I have always been fascinated by the short and violent life of Alexander of Macedonia, which of course makes me biased in reviewing this film. It has been said of this film that Robert Rossen, who produced, wrote and directed this film, was aiming for a masterpiece but failed honorably. While this is true in a way, I still enjoyed it more than that. This movie is not fast in pace, and the direction is not perfect either, but it feels authentic. I'm sure that not everything portrayed is true to history (does anyone really care?), but it is convincing, and the acting is solid. Richard Burton is a very good Alexander, and he adds a lot of subtle edges to this enigmatic figure from history (just ignore the silly blond wig...) All in all, Alexander the Great is a good film, perhaps too ambitious, and even though it is not very accessible to viewers not familiar with the territory, it is still quite dramatic, convincing and enjoyable if you like historical epics. And even though the film doesn't ask you to care too much about the characters, it is still an interesting, intellectual, and high minded story you probably will not forget. If you keep in mind that it is the events of history that are really on display here, and not so much the individual players, you may enjoy it as I did.
Lavish and dramatic epic about the greatest conqueror being spectacularly filmed in Spain
ma-cortes3 August 2011
Historic , big-budgeted and breathtaking epic movie with stunningly mounted battle scenes , but overlong , and a little boring pacing ; being many years later remade by Oliver Stone (2003) in a mammoth version . The movie centers Alexander the Great (Richard Burton at his stormy best and subsequently played by Colin Farrell) , the famous Greek conqueror of the fourth century and disciple of Aristoteles , he was born in Pella and died Babylone (356-323 B.C) . He was son of Philip II (Fredric March and in Oliver Stone's rendition played by Val Kilmer) , King of Macedonya , who vanquished the Greeks in Queronea , unified the cities and Greece in the league of Corinto , but he was cruelly murdered . It starts the year 326 B.C. in a divided , troubled , bloody Greece . Olympia (a delightful Danielle Darrieux , later performed by Angelina Jolie) , Alexander's mother , will stop at nothing to rule over for her son and proclaim him King . Alexander , disciple of Aristoteles (Barry Jones , after interpreted by Christopher Plummer), will fight Persians commanded by Dario the Great (Harry Andrews) who will be vanquished in Granico, Issos and Gaugamela. Alexander conquered Tracia , destroyed Tebas , submitted Capadocia, Lydia , Biblos , Sidon , Tiro , Jerusalem , Susa , Babylone , Persepolis (with firing included), Mesopotamia , Asyria and founded Alexandropolis . Alexander resolved the Gordian knot (by king Gordio) whose prophecy would become him as Emperor of Asia . But a vengeful Alexander kills various friends and generals as Cleitos (Gustavo Rojo) , Parmenius (Niall MacGuinnis) and Philotas (Ruben Rojo) . Emperor Alexander married Babylonian princess named Roxana and arrived in Samarcanda , Khiver pass (Afganistan) , Hifasis and India , crossed the Hindo-Kush where he was infected by fevers and died at 33 years old (323 before Christ) . The empire will split amongst various generals : Ptolemy inherits Egypt and Palestina ; Antioco : Antioquia ; Seleuco takes Syria , and Casandro rules over Macedonia and Greece . So mighty ... it staggers the imagination !The Mighty Story of a Conqueror Who Believed He Was a God!.The colossus who conquered the world! .Conqueror of conquerors! Spectacle of spectacles! The colossus of motion pictures!
Big budget epic about the legendary Greek conqueror . Here we find Alexander is the result of a dysfunctional royal family who wishes create an idealized world modeled in Greek style , this he does by conquering all around the world before dying at the age of 33 years old . The overall casting is important , the remarkable ¨middle order actors¨ include prestigious British actors as Peter Cushing , Stanley Baker , Niall MacGuinnis , Claire Bloom, Michael Hordern as Demosthenes , Helmut Dantine , Barry Jones and Spanish players as Marisa De Leza as Euridice , Gustavo Rojo , Ruben Rojo , Julio Peña , Virgilio Texeira and many others . The great main and secondary casting help to overcome the sluggish developing . Film runtime results to be overlong and a little bit tiring because of the running is about two hours and some and it tires too much. At the picture there are historic events , overwhelming battles , spectacular scenarios and gorgeous landscapes . First-rate production design : impressive temples , palaces , monuments..,the several battle scenes are effectively staged by a cast of thousands , featuring loads of arrows and spears . Grateful acknowledge meant is made of the co-operation shown by the Spanish government , its Army, the Ministry of Information and Turismo and to the officials and people of the various localities in Spain in which this film was made , such as : Madrid , Manzanares , El Molar and Malaga. Colorful and riveting cinematography by Robert Krasker , in Technicolor and Cinemascope ; similar to extraordinary and fascinating Mario Nascimbene's musical score , being well conducted by Franco Ferrara . Robert Rossen's direction is nice , though some moments seem to be a bit confusing and embarrassing . Rating : Although is a much underrated epic , it turns out to be a good movie .
Big budget epic about the legendary Greek conqueror . Here we find Alexander is the result of a dysfunctional royal family who wishes create an idealized world modeled in Greek style , this he does by conquering all around the world before dying at the age of 33 years old . The overall casting is important , the remarkable ¨middle order actors¨ include prestigious British actors as Peter Cushing , Stanley Baker , Niall MacGuinnis , Claire Bloom, Michael Hordern as Demosthenes , Helmut Dantine , Barry Jones and Spanish players as Marisa De Leza as Euridice , Gustavo Rojo , Ruben Rojo , Julio Peña , Virgilio Texeira and many others . The great main and secondary casting help to overcome the sluggish developing . Film runtime results to be overlong and a little bit tiring because of the running is about two hours and some and it tires too much. At the picture there are historic events , overwhelming battles , spectacular scenarios and gorgeous landscapes . First-rate production design : impressive temples , palaces , monuments..,the several battle scenes are effectively staged by a cast of thousands , featuring loads of arrows and spears . Grateful acknowledge meant is made of the co-operation shown by the Spanish government , its Army, the Ministry of Information and Turismo and to the officials and people of the various localities in Spain in which this film was made , such as : Madrid , Manzanares , El Molar and Malaga. Colorful and riveting cinematography by Robert Krasker , in Technicolor and Cinemascope ; similar to extraordinary and fascinating Mario Nascimbene's musical score , being well conducted by Franco Ferrara . Robert Rossen's direction is nice , though some moments seem to be a bit confusing and embarrassing . Rating : Although is a much underrated epic , it turns out to be a good movie .
Fascinating but frustrating!
markcapps14 August 2000
Now, we shouldn't look to Rossen's film for actual history, EXCEPT as reflected in later romance and, indeed, the Alexander legend. The film does indeed egregiously telescope events and make a complete chronological, genealogical and motivational muddle of real historical events. Absolute realism is not the point of the film, however -- Hollywood is guilty of much simplistic remaking of history, but Rossen's film is much more personal and ambitious in grand design if not in little details -- the portrait of Alexander as a man, brilliantly realized on many levels by Richard Burton, is the real focus of the movie. What we have here is a portrait of the disintegration of the character of a promising, ambitious young man, intoxicated with power and the lies accompanying that, and the formative power that the strong personalities of his parents, Olympias and Philip, had over Alex's mind.
For this last reason, I find the first half of the film to be superbly done. His stimulating contact with Aristotle, the camaraderie between him and his companions, and especially his complex relationships with Olympias and Philip are brought out beautifully (if necessarily briefly), by Burton, in the film. (Most of this is derived from the late Greek biographer Plutarch's "Life of Alexander".) Burton plays the young Alexander beautifully, full of emotional ambiguities and hidden resentments. The murder of Attalus after the assassination of Philip is not only presented as the first of Alexander's blood crimes, but as a necessary consequent of his upbringing, as abetted and encouraged by his amazing, monstrous mother. The rest of his career is presented not only as a continuation (and surpassing!) of his father's ambitions, but as a fulfillment of Olympias' own expectations for her son. The psychological complexity here is exquisite, and appropriate.
This fine beginning makes the rest of the film redundant and annoying. We, of course, expect a good exposition of Alex's adult achievements, but Rossen is frustrated at being tied to history here (mostly derived from the ancient historians Arrian and Diodorus), and we are treated to a perfunctory, lazy account of all of his victorious battles and conquests. (For instance, the battles of Ipsus and Gaugamela are conflated into one encounter, and the degeneration of Alex into a paranoid alcoholic is too broadly played.) The usual "cast of thousands" used in the battle scenes are not convincing, and we do not feel that the fates of nations and peoples hang in the balance. We are not granted any glimpse of Alex's genius at tactics and generalship. Darius is a mere cipher, not a convincing King and opponent. Only Peter Cushing as Memnon gives us a spark of convincing opposition to Alexander's tyranny, and he refreshingly reminds us that not all Greeks responded to Alex's call for a "Panhellenic" crusade against Persia. (In historical fact, more Greeks, in all probability, fought AGAINST Alexander than for him!) Memnon's death at the battle at the Granicus is also an unhistorical invention; he died of disease a year or so later, after leading the increasingly successful resistance to Alex in western Asia Minor. His wife Barsine was certainly a captive to Alexander, and probably bore him a son as well, but this fact is blown up far too much in the film. The real Alexander's emotional attachments were homosexual (to Bagoas, Hephaestion, Cleitus, et al.).
In short, the first half of the film is well realized and acute, while the second half is confused, hurried and unsatisfying. We understand much about Alex from the family drama in the first part; we understand little about him from the second. Rossen certainly had limitations in telling this story; if he had a larger budget and less (at the time) conventional restrictions on telling a story, then we would have had a different and better (and much longer!) movie. The golden age of the epic film may well be past, but I think that it can still be told. Consider this review as a challenge: this story can be told, well, and at length, with all the richness and complexity of the real, without sacrificing drama and immediate interest. This is certainly one of the most fascinating stories of recorded history, and it is a shame that Rossen was unable to complete what he had so brilliantly begun.
For this last reason, I find the first half of the film to be superbly done. His stimulating contact with Aristotle, the camaraderie between him and his companions, and especially his complex relationships with Olympias and Philip are brought out beautifully (if necessarily briefly), by Burton, in the film. (Most of this is derived from the late Greek biographer Plutarch's "Life of Alexander".) Burton plays the young Alexander beautifully, full of emotional ambiguities and hidden resentments. The murder of Attalus after the assassination of Philip is not only presented as the first of Alexander's blood crimes, but as a necessary consequent of his upbringing, as abetted and encouraged by his amazing, monstrous mother. The rest of his career is presented not only as a continuation (and surpassing!) of his father's ambitions, but as a fulfillment of Olympias' own expectations for her son. The psychological complexity here is exquisite, and appropriate.
This fine beginning makes the rest of the film redundant and annoying. We, of course, expect a good exposition of Alex's adult achievements, but Rossen is frustrated at being tied to history here (mostly derived from the ancient historians Arrian and Diodorus), and we are treated to a perfunctory, lazy account of all of his victorious battles and conquests. (For instance, the battles of Ipsus and Gaugamela are conflated into one encounter, and the degeneration of Alex into a paranoid alcoholic is too broadly played.) The usual "cast of thousands" used in the battle scenes are not convincing, and we do not feel that the fates of nations and peoples hang in the balance. We are not granted any glimpse of Alex's genius at tactics and generalship. Darius is a mere cipher, not a convincing King and opponent. Only Peter Cushing as Memnon gives us a spark of convincing opposition to Alexander's tyranny, and he refreshingly reminds us that not all Greeks responded to Alex's call for a "Panhellenic" crusade against Persia. (In historical fact, more Greeks, in all probability, fought AGAINST Alexander than for him!) Memnon's death at the battle at the Granicus is also an unhistorical invention; he died of disease a year or so later, after leading the increasingly successful resistance to Alex in western Asia Minor. His wife Barsine was certainly a captive to Alexander, and probably bore him a son as well, but this fact is blown up far too much in the film. The real Alexander's emotional attachments were homosexual (to Bagoas, Hephaestion, Cleitus, et al.).
In short, the first half of the film is well realized and acute, while the second half is confused, hurried and unsatisfying. We understand much about Alex from the family drama in the first part; we understand little about him from the second. Rossen certainly had limitations in telling this story; if he had a larger budget and less (at the time) conventional restrictions on telling a story, then we would have had a different and better (and much longer!) movie. The golden age of the epic film may well be past, but I think that it can still be told. Consider this review as a challenge: this story can be told, well, and at length, with all the richness and complexity of the real, without sacrificing drama and immediate interest. This is certainly one of the most fascinating stories of recorded history, and it is a shame that Rossen was unable to complete what he had so brilliantly begun.
A Nutshell Review: (DVD) Alexander the Great
DICK STEEL22 October 2007
I borrowed this movie with one intent, and that is to see how the subject material was handled in the 50s, compared to the most recent interpretation by Oliver Stone, who gave us an Alexander with Colin Farrell complete with his hair dyed blonde. And while I was lamenting the fact that there were only 2 war scenes on a massive scale included in that version, the hype that surrounded the story of a conqueror seemed to have made way for Stone's very queer depiction on the bisexuality of Alexander, especially with the camera adopting his POV and gazing ever so lovingly at the male species, countless of times until you want to throw up. I guess subtle is never in Stone's books.
Now this version written and directed by Robert Rossen (who also gave us the original Hustler) did away with all that sexuality issues, and neither did it find any need to have gratuitous nudity in watching Alexander make love (in Stone's version, Rosario Dawson went nude in her role as Roxane). Then again it was made about 50 years ago. Anyway, what I found to be a major disappointment, were the battle scenes. Yes, it might be terribly dated by now, and sadly didn't survive the test of time. At certain scenes and angles, it's akin to old martial arts movies, where enemies just circle around you, waiting for their choreographed moves to be executed, or worse, if you pay attention to characters in the background, they surely aren't moving like ferocious warriors, choosing instead to mull around!
Also, we only get one major battle sequence in Alexander the Great, which made the foray into India in Stone's Alexander look like bonus material. In fact, this version took some time to establish key characters, and began with Alexander's father King Philip's (Fredric March) conquests first, interrupted by the birth of his son, and the prophetic signs under which he was born. It took almost 30 minutes before you see any semblance to a fight, and almost one hour before Richard Burton finally takes over the mantle and seeks out his destiny as one of the greatest known world conquerors of all time. However, the film felt like it was in two arcs, the first which dwells on the internal bickering within Greece with its many factions, and the plotting between mother Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) and King Philip, each wanting to win over Alexander's loyalty for their own political purpose. In this version though, which harped on Darrieux's appearance in the credits, I thought she made Angelina Jolie look more formidable in the role. At least Jolie was dripping with evilness and cunning, compared to the more subdued Darrieux.
The latter half dealt with Alexander's conquests through Asia, though most of the facts were glossed over. It was too little too late as most of which are told using montage, intertitles and narration, which made it look like a rush job to end it. While Stone's movie had focused a fair bit over Alexander's obsession with being the Son of God and his increasing obsession over himself and his glories, this version again made those themes look superbly examined in Stone's version. However, one thing's for certain, Richard Burton, even with the horribly blond hair which looked like a wig, was indeed a lot more charismatic and believable than Coliln Farrell. And that also meant when Burton was wearing the horrendous full faced helmet so that the stunt guy can take over!
All in all, a pretty decent effort in telling the story of Alexander the Great, however as mentioned, it didn't really stood up to the test of time.
Now this version written and directed by Robert Rossen (who also gave us the original Hustler) did away with all that sexuality issues, and neither did it find any need to have gratuitous nudity in watching Alexander make love (in Stone's version, Rosario Dawson went nude in her role as Roxane). Then again it was made about 50 years ago. Anyway, what I found to be a major disappointment, were the battle scenes. Yes, it might be terribly dated by now, and sadly didn't survive the test of time. At certain scenes and angles, it's akin to old martial arts movies, where enemies just circle around you, waiting for their choreographed moves to be executed, or worse, if you pay attention to characters in the background, they surely aren't moving like ferocious warriors, choosing instead to mull around!
Also, we only get one major battle sequence in Alexander the Great, which made the foray into India in Stone's Alexander look like bonus material. In fact, this version took some time to establish key characters, and began with Alexander's father King Philip's (Fredric March) conquests first, interrupted by the birth of his son, and the prophetic signs under which he was born. It took almost 30 minutes before you see any semblance to a fight, and almost one hour before Richard Burton finally takes over the mantle and seeks out his destiny as one of the greatest known world conquerors of all time. However, the film felt like it was in two arcs, the first which dwells on the internal bickering within Greece with its many factions, and the plotting between mother Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) and King Philip, each wanting to win over Alexander's loyalty for their own political purpose. In this version though, which harped on Darrieux's appearance in the credits, I thought she made Angelina Jolie look more formidable in the role. At least Jolie was dripping with evilness and cunning, compared to the more subdued Darrieux.
The latter half dealt with Alexander's conquests through Asia, though most of the facts were glossed over. It was too little too late as most of which are told using montage, intertitles and narration, which made it look like a rush job to end it. While Stone's movie had focused a fair bit over Alexander's obsession with being the Son of God and his increasing obsession over himself and his glories, this version again made those themes look superbly examined in Stone's version. However, one thing's for certain, Richard Burton, even with the horribly blond hair which looked like a wig, was indeed a lot more charismatic and believable than Coliln Farrell. And that also meant when Burton was wearing the horrendous full faced helmet so that the stunt guy can take over!
All in all, a pretty decent effort in telling the story of Alexander the Great, however as mentioned, it didn't really stood up to the test of time.
Just Acceptable HIistoric Epical
ragosaal27 October 2006
Though not historically accurate you could say this film is based on Alexandre the Great's impressive figure. The point is that it has some important flaws the demerit the product.
First of all Richard Burton was not the actor to play Alexandre though not for his undoubted acting ability but because he was too old. In fact, he was almost the same age the Macedonian hero was when he died, and it shows clearly (even more when the picture takes his life when he was just an adolescent). Secondly, the film is too slow with lots of talk and little action, but Alexander was mainly a man of action. And finally, the not abundant action sequences lack spectacle and strength, even for the middle 50's. So it appears to me that director Robert Rossen either missed the correct focus to tell this story or got too tight to an erroneously focused script.
However the film might be entertaining for those who like epic films and/or are interested in the historical figure (like me) and has some good moments, good color photography, a fine and adequate musical score and a strong supporting cast.
Frederic March does a good job as Philipus II "the Barbarian", Alexander's father, who created the invincible Macedonian "falange" that was so very well used by his son at war. Danielle Darrieux plays Alexander's ambitious and confronting mother and there are fine performances too by Peter Cushing, Stanley Baker, Helmut Dantine and the always reliable Harry Andrews as Persian king Darius.
Just for a look every once in a while, but no too often.
First of all Richard Burton was not the actor to play Alexandre though not for his undoubted acting ability but because he was too old. In fact, he was almost the same age the Macedonian hero was when he died, and it shows clearly (even more when the picture takes his life when he was just an adolescent). Secondly, the film is too slow with lots of talk and little action, but Alexander was mainly a man of action. And finally, the not abundant action sequences lack spectacle and strength, even for the middle 50's. So it appears to me that director Robert Rossen either missed the correct focus to tell this story or got too tight to an erroneously focused script.
However the film might be entertaining for those who like epic films and/or are interested in the historical figure (like me) and has some good moments, good color photography, a fine and adequate musical score and a strong supporting cast.
Frederic March does a good job as Philipus II "the Barbarian", Alexander's father, who created the invincible Macedonian "falange" that was so very well used by his son at war. Danielle Darrieux plays Alexander's ambitious and confronting mother and there are fine performances too by Peter Cushing, Stanley Baker, Helmut Dantine and the always reliable Harry Andrews as Persian king Darius.
Just for a look every once in a while, but no too often.
Epic Play
michaelarmer24 December 2019
This was supposed to be an epic, but it was hardly that, it was like a Shakespearean play intermingled with a few badly arranged battle scenes, it is only just over 2hrs long, for an epic you would expect it to be in the region of 3hrs, but in fact it was quite boring and should have been made shorter.
Richard Burton overacts in a dodgy blonde wig, but Claire Bloom is very good and quite beautiful (still acting today at aged 89 and still looks great), Fredric March who also acted well as his dad Phillip of Macedonia, but he was only in it for a 1/3 of the movie before his character was killed off, Harry Andrews (from Kent) played Darius the Persian King reasonably ok, but looked well dodgy, he had a few hair accessories as well, Stanley Baker was underused, everyone else was there to make up the numbers.
Spain was the setting for Greece and Persia, so it looked ok (to a point), but scenery was not used much, photography was poor and the direction can't have been up to much, because you had a stellar cast and great scenery which both were not used to their potential, so the result was only a below average film at best. It looks like it was promoted as an epic but made on the cheap. Possibly a good project for a remake, with a good director and cast, they could not do worse than this.
Richard Burton overacts in a dodgy blonde wig, but Claire Bloom is very good and quite beautiful (still acting today at aged 89 and still looks great), Fredric March who also acted well as his dad Phillip of Macedonia, but he was only in it for a 1/3 of the movie before his character was killed off, Harry Andrews (from Kent) played Darius the Persian King reasonably ok, but looked well dodgy, he had a few hair accessories as well, Stanley Baker was underused, everyone else was there to make up the numbers.
Spain was the setting for Greece and Persia, so it looked ok (to a point), but scenery was not used much, photography was poor and the direction can't have been up to much, because you had a stellar cast and great scenery which both were not used to their potential, so the result was only a below average film at best. It looks like it was promoted as an epic but made on the cheap. Possibly a good project for a remake, with a good director and cast, they could not do worse than this.
The original Alexander
jubilee777 October 2008
Throughout his rather short life (33 years quite short for its time), Alexander the Great conquered much of the Middle East and a TV programme titled "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great" by Michael Wood would provide a fascinating but complex insight and on whether one would consider him to be a hero or villain and even two films have been made and it may even explain why these have been so-sos.
On the 1955 film starring Richard Burton, this one was a bit dreary and the likeliest reason for its failure was due to the inability of screenwriter, producer and director Robert Rossen to hold the story together and it sometimes became known as "Alexander the Bore" and Burton may have been miscast as the Greek warrior but the plus side of Burton playing Alexander was his remarkable voice and the fact is that it looked to be that Burton played Alexander the Great in a similar fashion as he did when starring as Marcellus in The Robe.
The Oliver Stone version that was premiered in 2004 looked to be more promising but it's not necessarily better and had also been heavily criticised for a number of reasons. Therefore, the complicated history of a warrior whom conquered the middle east 2.300 years ago may explain the reason for the failure of those two films.
On the 1955 film starring Richard Burton, this one was a bit dreary and the likeliest reason for its failure was due to the inability of screenwriter, producer and director Robert Rossen to hold the story together and it sometimes became known as "Alexander the Bore" and Burton may have been miscast as the Greek warrior but the plus side of Burton playing Alexander was his remarkable voice and the fact is that it looked to be that Burton played Alexander the Great in a similar fashion as he did when starring as Marcellus in The Robe.
The Oliver Stone version that was premiered in 2004 looked to be more promising but it's not necessarily better and had also been heavily criticised for a number of reasons. Therefore, the complicated history of a warrior whom conquered the middle east 2.300 years ago may explain the reason for the failure of those two films.
A colossal bore
dkncd6 November 2007
"Alexander the Great" not surprisingly attempts to portray the life of Alexander the Great. On the surface it seems as though it should be excellent considering that the cast is led by two prolific actors, Richard Burton and Fredric March as Alexander and his father Philip respectively. The film also features elegant costumes and lavish sets laden with depictions of ancient art and architecture. However, all of these attributes disappointingly don't prevent the film from being extremely tedious.
The film starts with Alexander's earlier life in Macedon and is mostly focused on portraying antagonisms between Alexander and Philip and the relationship of Alexander's mother to both. Richard Burton and Fredric March have some fine moments, but for the most part their dialogue is uninteresting, which makes the film mostly dull since most of the scenes in the film show lengthy discourses. There are jokes added as well that are often followed by a number laughing, but the humor is mostly stale. There is one amusing point where Philip suggests that Alexander should wait until he is dead before naming a city after himself, but this represents an exception rather than the norm. Barry Jones did give an enjoyable performance as Aristotle, although he is only a marginal element in the film.
During this first phase of the film the Battle of Chaeronea of is also portrayed, where forces led by Philip and Alexander defeated a combined Athenian and Theban force in order to unite Greece under Macedonian rule. The battle, despite having an array of extras in it, is handled clumsily. It starts with brief shots of infantry and cavalry crossing a stream and then fighting out of formation. Then the focused is placed on Philip fighting one-on-one and Alexander charging in after him. This portrayal seems to bear little to no resemblance to the actual battle of history, is short in duration and not particularly exciting.
Shortly after half way through the film, Philip dies and the film moves to a portrayal of Alexander's military exploits in Persia. It is in this stage we are introduced to Memnon, a Greek fighting with the Persians. Peter Cushing gives a strong performance as Memnon armed with sharp lines, making his the top performance of the film though the character is seen in relatively few scenes. Harry Andrews is also notable as the Persian emperor Darius, though Darius is never made particularly interesting in the context of an opponent to Alexander. However, the scene representing the correspondence between Darius and Alexander showing the "clash of egos" was well-done.
Most of this phase of the film is a rotation between short battle scenes and more mostly dull dialogue with some rare decent scenes. The Battle of the Granicus is shown basically as a brief cavalry charge. The treatment of Granicus is better than the treatment of Chaeronea, but not much better. There is another final battle between Alexander and Darius, presumably intended to represent the Battle of Gaugamela. The battle starts with a Perisan chariot charge and seems as though it will be interesting, but it quickly culminates in a brief uninteresting cavalry charge as well. The main problem with these battle scenes is that they fail to give a sense of Alexander's military genius. It seems as though he just accumulated territory through a series of brief heroic cavalry charges and the film never represents the tactics used in any of the battles. These are also a series of brief and unnecessary battle clips overlapped by a map of Persia to represent the conquests not shown in "fuller" battles. After Alexander's conquests, the film ends poorly with an uninteresting "harmony and unity" speech from Alexander for Greeks and Persians. "Alexander the Great" is a colossal bore, and I strongly recommend avoiding it.
The film starts with Alexander's earlier life in Macedon and is mostly focused on portraying antagonisms between Alexander and Philip and the relationship of Alexander's mother to both. Richard Burton and Fredric March have some fine moments, but for the most part their dialogue is uninteresting, which makes the film mostly dull since most of the scenes in the film show lengthy discourses. There are jokes added as well that are often followed by a number laughing, but the humor is mostly stale. There is one amusing point where Philip suggests that Alexander should wait until he is dead before naming a city after himself, but this represents an exception rather than the norm. Barry Jones did give an enjoyable performance as Aristotle, although he is only a marginal element in the film.
During this first phase of the film the Battle of Chaeronea of is also portrayed, where forces led by Philip and Alexander defeated a combined Athenian and Theban force in order to unite Greece under Macedonian rule. The battle, despite having an array of extras in it, is handled clumsily. It starts with brief shots of infantry and cavalry crossing a stream and then fighting out of formation. Then the focused is placed on Philip fighting one-on-one and Alexander charging in after him. This portrayal seems to bear little to no resemblance to the actual battle of history, is short in duration and not particularly exciting.
Shortly after half way through the film, Philip dies and the film moves to a portrayal of Alexander's military exploits in Persia. It is in this stage we are introduced to Memnon, a Greek fighting with the Persians. Peter Cushing gives a strong performance as Memnon armed with sharp lines, making his the top performance of the film though the character is seen in relatively few scenes. Harry Andrews is also notable as the Persian emperor Darius, though Darius is never made particularly interesting in the context of an opponent to Alexander. However, the scene representing the correspondence between Darius and Alexander showing the "clash of egos" was well-done.
Most of this phase of the film is a rotation between short battle scenes and more mostly dull dialogue with some rare decent scenes. The Battle of the Granicus is shown basically as a brief cavalry charge. The treatment of Granicus is better than the treatment of Chaeronea, but not much better. There is another final battle between Alexander and Darius, presumably intended to represent the Battle of Gaugamela. The battle starts with a Perisan chariot charge and seems as though it will be interesting, but it quickly culminates in a brief uninteresting cavalry charge as well. The main problem with these battle scenes is that they fail to give a sense of Alexander's military genius. It seems as though he just accumulated territory through a series of brief heroic cavalry charges and the film never represents the tactics used in any of the battles. These are also a series of brief and unnecessary battle clips overlapped by a map of Persia to represent the conquests not shown in "fuller" battles. After Alexander's conquests, the film ends poorly with an uninteresting "harmony and unity" speech from Alexander for Greeks and Persians. "Alexander the Great" is a colossal bore, and I strongly recommend avoiding it.
Syrup moves faster, in the winter.
dave-84721 August 2020
The story of Alexander the Great is fascinating, and, handled by the right Director, should hold your attention.
This, however, is not that production.
It is a plodding, ponderous examination of the progression of Alexander from a spoiled teenager trying to please his father, to an early death after conquering the better part of the known world ... while trying to please his dead father.
The acting is often stilted from all principals, with occasional flashes of the rapid and inspired delivery that served Burton so well in his career. The best acting in the entire film was done by Fredric March. When he and Burton were together you could see the scene working. No long, awkward pauses between dialogue unless the scene called for it. March was Excellent as Philip
The battle scenes are almost comical at times. When Philip is in battle, back to a large rock, with enemy soldiers closing in on him, you can see them holding back, waiting for the rescuing Alexander to swoop in to the rescue his father. Waiting for HIS entrance so he can kill them as the script decrees. It's almost as if the battle scenes were shot by a 2nd or 3rd unit under the direction of an apprenticing Director.
The scenery is great, although Spain isn't a really good substitute for Persia. The sets are grand, and look very real instead of like plaster and cardboard.
The scene of the departing Macedonian fleet is quite impressive, as is the long shot of the Persian army camped the night before The Grand Battle of Issus.
But too often through the production what could be an excellent scene is brought to a screeching halt by, well... bad acting. A better score might have helped. Or rather a more involved score. Long stretches of acting are done with no atmosphere setting background score whatsoever.
A lot of the movie felt more like the Dailys just strung together by a ham fisted editor rather than a finished film after a competent editor was able to tighten up everything.
This was originally supposed to be a 3+ hour movie, complete with an intermission. We should all be thankful that it was cut down to the 2hr, 23 min. film we are discussing. And truthfully, if the editing were tightened up, and the frequent pregnant pauses were excised, the existing film might have come in at slightly over 2 hours instead.
I waited a long time to see this film, having heard that it was pretty good. It was not worthy of the anticipation.
This, however, is not that production.
It is a plodding, ponderous examination of the progression of Alexander from a spoiled teenager trying to please his father, to an early death after conquering the better part of the known world ... while trying to please his dead father.
The acting is often stilted from all principals, with occasional flashes of the rapid and inspired delivery that served Burton so well in his career. The best acting in the entire film was done by Fredric March. When he and Burton were together you could see the scene working. No long, awkward pauses between dialogue unless the scene called for it. March was Excellent as Philip
The battle scenes are almost comical at times. When Philip is in battle, back to a large rock, with enemy soldiers closing in on him, you can see them holding back, waiting for the rescuing Alexander to swoop in to the rescue his father. Waiting for HIS entrance so he can kill them as the script decrees. It's almost as if the battle scenes were shot by a 2nd or 3rd unit under the direction of an apprenticing Director.
The scenery is great, although Spain isn't a really good substitute for Persia. The sets are grand, and look very real instead of like plaster and cardboard.
The scene of the departing Macedonian fleet is quite impressive, as is the long shot of the Persian army camped the night before The Grand Battle of Issus.
But too often through the production what could be an excellent scene is brought to a screeching halt by, well... bad acting. A better score might have helped. Or rather a more involved score. Long stretches of acting are done with no atmosphere setting background score whatsoever.
A lot of the movie felt more like the Dailys just strung together by a ham fisted editor rather than a finished film after a competent editor was able to tighten up everything.
This was originally supposed to be a 3+ hour movie, complete with an intermission. We should all be thankful that it was cut down to the 2hr, 23 min. film we are discussing. And truthfully, if the editing were tightened up, and the frequent pregnant pauses were excised, the existing film might have come in at slightly over 2 hours instead.
I waited a long time to see this film, having heard that it was pretty good. It was not worthy of the anticipation.
Considering the Talent Involved, Disastrous
joe-pearce-120 September 2015
I really don't care about the historical inaccuracies in this film, but if you're going to be inaccurate, at least make the result involving. I cannot recall another movie with this much superb acting talent, and with the actors involved actually given lots of lines to speak, that came out so uninspiring and flatfooted. Since the actors pretty much do their jobs well, then it has to be laid down to the screenplay and the direction that this intended intelligent man's spectacle comes off so badly. I have never considered Richard Burton a great actor - not ever - but he had an absolutely wonderful voice that he used in place of great acting most of the time, and when he did truly get into a character, it was almost always one in which he could not use that voice all that much to make overwhelmingly resonant pronouncements to the world. In other words, he was at his best as downtrodden characters like the ones he played in THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD and WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFF? When given 'big' dialog, he tended to coast on his voice - even in something as intimate as HAMLET. So, we get a certain level of professionalism out of him in much of the rest, and it is so here - maybe a little less so at that. I don't find him, as some others have, looking too old for the role. To me, he looks like someone in his 20s who has a voice in its 40s, but otherwise he's not terrible. What he is not, and rarely was, is truly charismatic. Fredric March as his father here pretty much offers what Burton lacks, but for two big problems - 1) he dies off in the middle of the film, and 2) as the King of Macedonia with a totally American accent, he sounds completely out of place given that every other speaking role in the film is done by British actors with good old-fashioned British Shakespearean deliveries; where did this guy come from? Ah, but the screenplay is written for such actors and they do well by it (especially Peter Cushing, Barry Jones, Michael Hordern and Niall MacGinnis). The problem is that it is not a very cinematic screenplay they are acting, but one that leaves them talking at each other incessantly in what really seems like a Shakespeare stage play transferred to the movies; indeed, if you take the large scale battle scenes out, what you have is a perfect vehicle for a Shakespeare play, and it really is amazing that the Bard never thought to write one on Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, the dialog, while often highly literate, is NOT by Shakespeare, but by Rossen. Despite what appears to be Rossen's serious intention to give us an Ancient Family Drama Writ Large, it doesn't work out that way, and I found it impossible to care very much for anybody in the film. As for the remainder of the movie (like when they all shut up and just fight), the battle scenes are incredibly klutzy and unreal - guys more or less standing around kind of hitting at each other while two guys in front of the camera try harder - that kind of thing. This has nothing to do with special effects, as we got great battle scenes all the way back to the silent film era without the benefit of computer-generated trickery. If any single word describes this film, it is "leaden". But, hey, you can't find a conglomeration of actors like these in any film anymore, so on that basis alone, I'll give it a 6 (if they replaced them with dubbed-in Spaghetti Western types, it would rate a 2!).
Tedious
gridoon24 December 2001
I think Rossen tried simultaneously to condense Alexander's adventurous life into a two-hour movie AND to present a revisionist and thoughtful take on the character of that famous historical figure...but it didn't quite work. Narrative omissions aside (where is the middle of the three major battles that Alexander fought against the Persians?), it is a tedious epic with unimpressive battle scenes and, yes, too much talk. Burton is badly miscast as Alexander; he looks too old, especially in the early scenes when he's supposed to be a teenager(!), and lacks the proper athleticism. This would earn two stars for the production values alone, but read a book on the subject instead.
Draggy, would be epic.
dmatthews032 November 2001
This is one of those international productions popular in the 1950's. Made in Spain with British, American and French actors.
Robert Rossen is a good director with many fine movies to his credit but really doesn't seem to have the flair for historical epics. There is too much talk and the battle scenes tend to be rather confusing and poorly choreographed.
Richard Burton does his best, his magnificent voice can make something of the most mundane dialogue and he certainly looks virile despite a rather swish looking blonde wig.
A good supporting cast is largely wasted.
Robert Rossen is a good director with many fine movies to his credit but really doesn't seem to have the flair for historical epics. There is too much talk and the battle scenes tend to be rather confusing and poorly choreographed.
Richard Burton does his best, his magnificent voice can make something of the most mundane dialogue and he certainly looks virile despite a rather swish looking blonde wig.
A good supporting cast is largely wasted.
Beautifully photographed and well-played portrayal ...
dwpollar12 March 2001
Beautifully photographed and well-played portrayal of Alexander by Burton despite confusing ideals that were probably accurate for those who look to many Gods for their answers. As good and realistic as probably could be done without too many Hollywood-type additions.
A long slog through some good acting and little else
rdoyle2930 August 2017
Richard Burton stars as Alexander in this epic Cinemascope biopic. The first half focuses on Alexander's relationship with his father Philip of Macedonia (an almost unrecognizable Fredric March) who conquered Greece, and the second on Alexander's conquering of the rest of the known world after his father's assassination. Burton is good, and it's a handsomely mounted production, but it ultimately feels like over 2 hours that leads not much of anywhere. The intriguing supporting cast includes Harry Andrews as the Persian King Darius, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Peter Wyngarde.
Abominable Production
pietclausen9 May 2021
This film is more a Shakespearian play than a portrayal of a great warrior and most disappointing to watch. If you want to see a movie which relates to the life of Alexander the Great, you can do no better than to look at the movie 'Alexander' made in 2004, written and directed by Oliver Stone. All historical movies have taken certain liberties in the details, but this latter movie fits the bill admirably.
"There are so many worlds and I have not yet conquered even one."
brogmiller25 July 2022
Robert Rossen directed only ten films, three of which are undisputed classics. This is certainly not one of them but is not without interest. It is customary to take a swipe at Hollywood historical epics and when Charlton Heston turned down the role of Alexander he said ''it is the easiest kind of movie to make badly."
Mr. Rossen has again written the screenplay and has evidently read his Plutarch. As played by Richard Burton the title character is resolute, courageous and combines a thirst for glory with a passion for supremacy. He also possesses a keen intellect which is due not least to his being tutored by none other than Aristotle. He is capable of both great magnaminity and excessive cruelty but of course the cruelty has been toned down here in keeping with the compromises of the Hollywood of the time. Not content with conquering the Persian empire he continued into India and of the 120,000 foot and 15,000 horse he took in, scarcely a quarter came out. He died at just thirty-three and his tombstone read "A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough."
Viewed as a biopic it is somewhat bare-boned which is typical of the genre but hopefully it should encourage a few to read more of Alexander's life and complex character and to judge him in the context of his times.
Plenty of 'dubbing' going on of course, most of which is voiced by Robert Rietty whilst a band of sterling British thesps bring their own voices with them notably Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Niall MacGiness and Barry Jones. As for the ladies, Claire Bloom is alas far too twee and Danielle Darrieux far too French. The most fascinating casting is that of Fredric March as Philip of Macedon who is riveting in the role and brings all the subtleties of characterisation one has come to expect from this brilliant artiste.
Following this and 'The Robe', Mr. Burton vowed to make no more sword and sandals movies but of course he had not reckoned on the lure of Cleopatra. Never say never again.
Mr. Rossen has again written the screenplay and has evidently read his Plutarch. As played by Richard Burton the title character is resolute, courageous and combines a thirst for glory with a passion for supremacy. He also possesses a keen intellect which is due not least to his being tutored by none other than Aristotle. He is capable of both great magnaminity and excessive cruelty but of course the cruelty has been toned down here in keeping with the compromises of the Hollywood of the time. Not content with conquering the Persian empire he continued into India and of the 120,000 foot and 15,000 horse he took in, scarcely a quarter came out. He died at just thirty-three and his tombstone read "A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough."
Viewed as a biopic it is somewhat bare-boned which is typical of the genre but hopefully it should encourage a few to read more of Alexander's life and complex character and to judge him in the context of his times.
Plenty of 'dubbing' going on of course, most of which is voiced by Robert Rietty whilst a band of sterling British thesps bring their own voices with them notably Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Niall MacGiness and Barry Jones. As for the ladies, Claire Bloom is alas far too twee and Danielle Darrieux far too French. The most fascinating casting is that of Fredric March as Philip of Macedon who is riveting in the role and brings all the subtleties of characterisation one has come to expect from this brilliant artiste.
Following this and 'The Robe', Mr. Burton vowed to make no more sword and sandals movies but of course he had not reckoned on the lure of Cleopatra. Never say never again.
RE-WATCHED AFTER 50 YEARS
larryanderson30 January 2022
I saw this as a kid, thought it was great and was hooked on ancient history. I also watched all of the Sword & Sandal movies that followed. I watched every one of the HERCULES/MACISTE type movies (1957 to 1966). Recently I re-watched ALEXANDER THE GREAT and only now can see how truly BAD it is by comparison. The terrible helmets and armor used in Alexander is very evident in 2022. Good story but very EPISODIC and drawn-out boring.
Lumbering, dull epic
BrianG9 December 2000
This film should have been much, much better than it is. Robert Rossen was a top-notch director, the cast is full of first-rank British and American actors, and United Artists put a lot of money into it. Unfortunately, the film is almost a complete dud.
Rossen's script is awful (besides the numerous and annoying historical errors, the dialogue is just plain laughable), most of the cast appears to have just woken up from a deep sleep (only Peter Cushing and Frederic March give anything even resembling a performance; Claire Bloom just stands around and looks gorgeous, which she does very well). Richard Burton seems to want to give one, and at times you can see the beginning of a spark, but it appears that he either is reined in or just gives up, which is a shame. Also, for a spectacle, the "action" scenes are pathetic. There's no urgency in them, you don't get any sense of the fanaticism and dedication that carried the Macedonian army to world conquest; it looks like a bunch of extras (in this case, the Spanish army) standing around waiting to get paid and not wanting to work real hard for it. UA obviously had money to spend on this film; they should have hired a top second-unit director like Yakima Canutt or Andrew Marton to do the action scenes and they would have turned out much, much better.
All in all, considering the talent involved, this film is a major disappointment. It moves like molasses, and doesn't reflect well on Rossen, Burton, or anyone else involved with it. Too bad. To paraphrase another movie, "It coulda been a contender."
Rossen's script is awful (besides the numerous and annoying historical errors, the dialogue is just plain laughable), most of the cast appears to have just woken up from a deep sleep (only Peter Cushing and Frederic March give anything even resembling a performance; Claire Bloom just stands around and looks gorgeous, which she does very well). Richard Burton seems to want to give one, and at times you can see the beginning of a spark, but it appears that he either is reined in or just gives up, which is a shame. Also, for a spectacle, the "action" scenes are pathetic. There's no urgency in them, you don't get any sense of the fanaticism and dedication that carried the Macedonian army to world conquest; it looks like a bunch of extras (in this case, the Spanish army) standing around waiting to get paid and not wanting to work real hard for it. UA obviously had money to spend on this film; they should have hired a top second-unit director like Yakima Canutt or Andrew Marton to do the action scenes and they would have turned out much, much better.
All in all, considering the talent involved, this film is a major disappointment. It moves like molasses, and doesn't reflect well on Rossen, Burton, or anyone else involved with it. Too bad. To paraphrase another movie, "It coulda been a contender."
Riveting dialogue but glosses over some detail
sivasothi6 December 2004
The dialogue accomplishes so much yet is almost poetic. It is of an elegance rarely seen in modern movies. Many of the key elements in the relationships between Alexander, his men, his parents and his perspectives are explored but battle details are glossed over.
Though far from comprehensive, it tells a good tale and serves as a wonderful introduction to the life of Alexander. I was riveted when I watched this, having read Mary Renault's trilogy. An excellent job!
Oliver Stone's 2004 effort was a let down but the depiction of the Battle of Gaugamela is worth watching.
Though far from comprehensive, it tells a good tale and serves as a wonderful introduction to the life of Alexander. I was riveted when I watched this, having read Mary Renault's trilogy. An excellent job!
Oliver Stone's 2004 effort was a let down but the depiction of the Battle of Gaugamela is worth watching.
Boring
raymond-1512 January 2005
While it may have been a film of epic proportions in its day with well-known actors in the starring roles, a period of fifty years has destroyed all the original magic which may have been associated with this production.
Watching it on TV with all the advertisements destroying any flow of the story, it was a painful 3 hours. I have to admit I included lunch and a short snooze in the viewing time, but it still was a marathon experience.
I always understood that the most remarkable feature of Alexander was his extreme youth, and yet he became the great conqueror defeating so many well-established armies. If we accept this, then Richard Burton being somewhat older was totally miscast.
I was not moved by any of the scenes portrayed in this film. While the costumes and architecture seemed to me to be accurate in detail, the individual scenes were like photographs in a high school text book. Even maps were used to show the advance of the army of warriors. In a word everything seemed so distant and I really cared very little about the outcome of arguments or physical violence among any of the characters. And there was the stentorian delivery of the major speeches which seemed to be devoid of any sincerity.
And as for the sculpted wigs with not a hair out of place, they were positively embarrassing. Perhaps the director wanted it that way. Perhaps he wanted his warriors to appear as if they had stepped out of a classical Greek sculpture.
I think this whole film goes to prove you need more than a group of top ranking stars and a cast of thousands to create a triumphant spectacle that will stand the test of time.
Watching it on TV with all the advertisements destroying any flow of the story, it was a painful 3 hours. I have to admit I included lunch and a short snooze in the viewing time, but it still was a marathon experience.
I always understood that the most remarkable feature of Alexander was his extreme youth, and yet he became the great conqueror defeating so many well-established armies. If we accept this, then Richard Burton being somewhat older was totally miscast.
I was not moved by any of the scenes portrayed in this film. While the costumes and architecture seemed to me to be accurate in detail, the individual scenes were like photographs in a high school text book. Even maps were used to show the advance of the army of warriors. In a word everything seemed so distant and I really cared very little about the outcome of arguments or physical violence among any of the characters. And there was the stentorian delivery of the major speeches which seemed to be devoid of any sincerity.
And as for the sculpted wigs with not a hair out of place, they were positively embarrassing. Perhaps the director wanted it that way. Perhaps he wanted his warriors to appear as if they had stepped out of a classical Greek sculpture.
I think this whole film goes to prove you need more than a group of top ranking stars and a cast of thousands to create a triumphant spectacle that will stand the test of time.
The worst epic ever filmed
HotToastyRag20 July 2017
In the 1950s, it was a big craze in Hollywood to make biblical or otherwise ancient epics. You know the famous ones, and you have your favorites you watch every Easter. Chances are Alexander the Great is not one of them, and for good reason. It's terrible. It's as if Robert Rossen told his cast to overact during the dress rehearsal, and then he accidentally filmed it.
Richard Burton, donning a hilarious blond wig with poufy bangs, plays the title role. Fredric March and Claire Bloom play his parents, and each only wears one expression during their scenes. Claire's says, "I don't think that tuna sandwich agreed with me," and Freddy's says, "Did I walk on the wrong film set by mistake?" Alexander the Great is supposed to be a historical epic with lots of dramatic battle scenes, tension-filled romances, and family arguments. Every attempt is met with failure. Besides 1954's The Silver Chalice, I've never seen a worse ancient epic. You really don't want to watch this one, even if it's your favorite genre in the world. It's amazing Hollywood even tried to make another movie of that type after this disaster. It's amazing that Richard Burton had any form of career after 1956. But it's not amazing that every other movie in the world will look good by comparison. Or, in the words of my mom, "No wonder Ben-Hur was a big hit!"
Richard Burton, donning a hilarious blond wig with poufy bangs, plays the title role. Fredric March and Claire Bloom play his parents, and each only wears one expression during their scenes. Claire's says, "I don't think that tuna sandwich agreed with me," and Freddy's says, "Did I walk on the wrong film set by mistake?" Alexander the Great is supposed to be a historical epic with lots of dramatic battle scenes, tension-filled romances, and family arguments. Every attempt is met with failure. Besides 1954's The Silver Chalice, I've never seen a worse ancient epic. You really don't want to watch this one, even if it's your favorite genre in the world. It's amazing Hollywood even tried to make another movie of that type after this disaster. It's amazing that Richard Burton had any form of career after 1956. But it's not amazing that every other movie in the world will look good by comparison. Or, in the words of my mom, "No wonder Ben-Hur was a big hit!"
too much history to pack into a movie
blanche-25 August 2011
Richard Burton is "Alexander the Great" in this 1956 film directed by Robert Rossen. The film also stars Fredric March, Claire Bloom, Danielle Darrieux, Barry Jones, Peter Cushing, and Helmut Dantine.
Rossen was a fine director who was blacklisted in the McCarthy era. Here he takes on a very ambitious project, the story of the great military leader Alexander, and it's a bit too ambitious given his budget, time constraints, and the code.
Richard Burton in an awful wig does a good job -- his performance has several layers, and he is excellent in the declamatory sections. It was hard to buy him totally as Alexander, though, but that's probably the fault of the film. Fredric March plays Philip, his father and rival, and he's excellent, as are the scenes between father and son. That seems to be the problem with the film -- the relationships are fascinating, and perhaps it was less necessary to concentrate on making a spectacle or epic. Rossen was forced to leave out several battles and combine others.
However, there were some striking scenes and moments. Philip's death was one, Alexander walking through the Parthenon, and Alexander seeing his enemies across the river before the Battle of the River Granicus.
The film sort of plods along. Alexander's conquests were remarkable for the way they changed entire cultures. But these conquests were massive and you need a three to four hour film. Concentrating on the psychology of Alexander, his father, his mother, and his relationships would have been a better way to go.
Rossen was a fine director who was blacklisted in the McCarthy era. Here he takes on a very ambitious project, the story of the great military leader Alexander, and it's a bit too ambitious given his budget, time constraints, and the code.
Richard Burton in an awful wig does a good job -- his performance has several layers, and he is excellent in the declamatory sections. It was hard to buy him totally as Alexander, though, but that's probably the fault of the film. Fredric March plays Philip, his father and rival, and he's excellent, as are the scenes between father and son. That seems to be the problem with the film -- the relationships are fascinating, and perhaps it was less necessary to concentrate on making a spectacle or epic. Rossen was forced to leave out several battles and combine others.
However, there were some striking scenes and moments. Philip's death was one, Alexander walking through the Parthenon, and Alexander seeing his enemies across the river before the Battle of the River Granicus.
The film sort of plods along. Alexander's conquests were remarkable for the way they changed entire cultures. But these conquests were massive and you need a three to four hour film. Concentrating on the psychology of Alexander, his father, his mother, and his relationships would have been a better way to go.
Burton,s historical roles
moatazmohsen7814 November 2005
Richard Burton played many historical roles as:mark Anthony,Alexander the great,Trotsky,he was very genius in this kind of roles because this kind is the factual examen for the good actor and this role of Alexander is the base of the better (Mark Anthony)in his history
He is looks like Alexander in his shape and he played his role in goodly way that transport the short life of Alexander in
150 minutes but the film left the story of entering Egypt and Iraq and it made a spotlight on the life of him and the analysis of hopeless case of his character as the same of the story of hamlet who was sadness from his mother
He is looks like Alexander in his shape and he played his role in goodly way that transport the short life of Alexander in
150 minutes but the film left the story of entering Egypt and Iraq and it made a spotlight on the life of him and the analysis of hopeless case of his character as the same of the story of hamlet who was sadness from his mother
Alexander of the Mascedon.... SPAIN!!!
elo-equipamentos18 April 2017
Was in 1978 or 1979 that l'd watched this picture for first time on TV once, now revisiting this Epic, l stayed deeply disappointed,for economic reasons it was shooting in Spain that actually there nothing in common with Greece landscape or Persia, second the battles were not convincing at all, hard to watching such few fighting those great battles, anyway who save the movie is Fredric March as King Philip whom is pretty good acting as mad King and concentrating all power in your hands, instead Richard Burton wasn't a good enough to play Alexander, firstly according history Alexander was more strong and tall and Burton don't filled the character, however the movie is watchable for historic reasons only!!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
