Benedito Dias Rodrigues
Was in 1978 or 1979 that l'd watched this picture for first time on TV once,now revisiting this Epic l was deeply disappointed,for economic reasons was shooting in Spain that actually there's 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 role,but the movie is watchable for historic reasons only!!!
Stephen Alfieri
"Alexander the Great" is not, by any means a great film. Let's start off there. Actually, for an "historical epic", it's really pretty boring, without much going for it.Perhaps the most moving thing about this film is Richard Burton's hair. Burton, looks to be much older than his actual 29 years of age. Fredric March wears a ridiculous looking beard, but fortunately, is killed off half way thru the picture. Claire Bloom is lovely as ever.I don't know what Robert Rossen intended with this picture, but the fight sequences are pretty boring and the script isn't interesting enough to make it a real sweeping epic (even though it is filmed in Cinemascope).In the end, "Alexander the Great" is a historical bore. Watch it until Fredric March dies, then turn it off.5 out of 10
david-sarkies
Hopefully everybody knows who Alexander of Macedon is, and for those who don't, we was the Macedonian who, in a few short years, conquered all of modern day Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and northwestern India. He was gone down in history as one of the greatest generals that the world has ever known, but despite his conquests, was he really a great man? Well, history has recorded that he was, but we look at his achievements over two thousand years after his death, and the closest record we have of his exploits was from Arian, who wrote over 100 years after his death.Whether Alexander truly a great man is not a question that this movie seeks to answer, though it does explore his character (based upon the mythology that has arisen around him) and follows him from birth to death (though does not strictly follow his entire life, but rather important events). The movie focuses on his birth (with his mum prophesying that she has given birth to a god), his coming of age when he is given rule over Macedonea while his father is away at war, his first victory on the field, and his father's death. Once his father is dead (after being assassinated by one of Alexander's friends), Alexander then raises his army and invades Persia. The main events are then his conquest of Anatolia, his battle with Darius, the death of Darius, his entry into Babylon, his decision to return home after killing his friend in a drunken brawl (which occurs in India) and finally his death in Babylon. The scope of the story of Alexander of Macedon is huge, almost too big to fit into a full length feature film.This movie is not so much a character study of this man, but rather following him as he comes of age and then sets out on his goal to first conquer Persia, and then conquer the world. However is character does come out, namely the oedipal complex with his mother (and in turn his dilemma when Phillip, his father, decides to get rid of his mother for a younger girl), and his hubris. While his hubris is not his ultimate downfall, it is his desire to conquer to the end that he forgets that those who follow him are far from home, and in the end the only thing they want is to return to Macedon (though Alexander's army was made up of many more people than just Macedonians). In the end, when he dies of a sudden illness, he is left with the question as to succession, to which he replies, 'my kingdom goes to the strongest'. Once again, not strictly true, as he did have an heir, but his heir did not possess Alexander's qualities, and his kingdom ended up being divided amongst his generals.As for the movie, it was enjoyable, maybe not faithful to the true story, but since the story of Alexander is sketchy beyond what we know, I guess it will be ever difficult to know the truth about this man beyond the legend that has developed around him.
ragosaal
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.
