rdoyle29
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.
jubilee77
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.
DICK STEEL
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.
Neil Doyle
When a film is more of a chore to sit through than a pleasure, you know something is wrong. "Alexander the Great" is lavishly produced and handsome to look at with impressive sets and costumes, but even the battle scenes are dull, as staged by director Robert Rossen.RICHARD BURTON is physically impressive as Alexander (with blonde wig), but recites his lines without any real passion or conviction. FREDRIC MARCH is better as his father, but when he dies midway through the story, the film suffers and goes downhill until the end. CLAIRE BLOOM is spirited in the leading femme role and has a few scenes that she plays very well.But too many talky speeches between battles are part of the problem. The script never allows any of the characters to be really fleshed out. In the end, one is left with the feeling that whatever history has been told is on the modest side, and instead there's a sand and sandal type of feeling--a Hollywoodized version of history--that one is left to ponder.Burton uses his voice effectively at times, but it's not one of his best performances.Summing up: History on the dull side.
