Genghis Khan

1965 "Only once in the furied history of adventure and conquest...did one man rule so vast an empire!"
5.8| 2h7m| en
Details

This is the story of the shy Mongol boy Temujin who,during the 13th century, becomes the fearless Mongol leader Genghis Khan that unites all Mongol tribes and conquers India,China,Persia,Korea and parts of Rusia,Europe and Middle-East.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??
SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless
Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.
Poseidon-3 One of the world's most legendary conquerors gets a heroic sheen in this colorful and often inaccurate latter day epic. Sharif plays the title role, a young Mongol who watches his father die at the hands of his rival Boyd and is then burdened with a large yoke around his neck, thus rendering him incapable of much, if any, physical threat. One day, Boyd makes the mistake of taking the yoke off and from then on the two are locked in combat to the death. In this rendition of the story, Sharif is bent on a united tribe of Mongols, something Boyd is against, preferring his independence. Boyd would rather team with other leaders, such as Wallach, to stamp out Sharif. Meanwhile, Sharif aligns with and learns from the Chinese, though they do not wish to see him leave once he has aided them in their own struggles. Sharif is noble and driven and even, at times, tender, not qualities that are always associated with the name Genghis Khan, but which are intended here. Boyd is one-dimensionally nasty throughout. The character he is playing was, in real life, a one-time ally, but that is not explored. Rather the script plays up a longstanding enmity that can only be stopped by the death of one or both of them. Dorleac, with 1960s bangs, plays Sharif's devoted wife and support system. It's a mostly decorative role aside from a few feisty moments, but she fills it well enough. Savalas is billed high, but is given next to nothing to do in the somewhat crowded landscape. Wallach appears briefly, but is at least permitted to make some sort of impression. Hordern rather hams it up as Sharif's partially blind mentor while Strode, as his muscular aide, provides silent strength. Two notable actors appear in faux-Asian makeup, as was the custom of the day. Morley, as the Chinese Emperor, fares best despite his inappropriateness to the role. His ever-individual style adds texture and humor to the part. Mason, face fixed in a permanent grin and speaking in the most stereotypical manner imaginable, is less impressive. It's a performance that will likely offend those who lean towards the sensitive in cases like this. Almost worthless as a history lesson, the film does succeed in delivering a fairly grand adventure with terrific music, decent battle sequences and positively jaw-dropping scenery. Though a pat approach to the script and an overriding simplicity threaten to mar the movie irrevocably, for those who aren't too demanding, the finished product is entertaining. Look out for the amusing glimpse of a Chinese princess in which she is nude except for some artfully arranged bits of scenic bric-a-brac surrounding the screened window some men are looking through. The mainstream cinema was still just toying with various amounts of exposed flesh in this time period. Sadly, Dorleac would die within two years in a fiery car accident. Mason, Sharif and Boyd had previously appeared together in the superior, but not very successful, epic The Fall of the Roman Empire."
Samy Selim I actually registered for this service and am writing this review in Defence of Omar Shariff. I saw that the only review on IMDb was rather harsh and unbalanced. Shariff's portrayal of the CHARACTER of the Mongolian Chieftain was a truthful yet poetic performance that John Wayne definitely lacked the depth of character to deliver. There was a comment in that one review about Shariff's "Arabic" accent. In order to enlighten readers, Shariff's Arabic is not that good as education in Egypt in the old days was strictly British and Arabic was strictly forbidden. There is also no such thing as an Arabic accent. Arabs have 22 different dialects in 22 different countries with hundreds of accents per country. Moreover, there is no generic Arabic accent as there is no true generic American or British accent. Yes, James Mason was enchanting in his role as Chinese Ambassador/courtier, but cancelling out Shariff for his accent and his physical appearance would be a critical blunder worthy of a Junior high student with learning disability. I actually see a certain wisdom in casting the modestly framed Shariff as a warlord. This choice would emphasise the idea that the Mongol nation was built by this man using will power and cunning, not mere brute force. THAT is historically accurate. The movie does have many shortcomings, such as simplistic photography that is nowhere near as engaging as it could have been. The score was far too cartoonish for my taste. The Script was choppy when it needed to be flowing and vice versa. The final battle/duel sequence was a serious let down and far too short for such a titanic struggle. As for historical accuracy, I really don't care about that kind of this when I'm watching a movie. History doesn't exist anymore, there's only mythology.
Wayner50 I haven't seen this in years, but I remember it has some exciting battles, some good acting by Omar Sharif, Michael Hordern and Stephen Boyd, some great acting by James Mason and Robert Morley. I guessing that none of the actors were Mongolian or Chinese. Historically inaccurate, but kind of fun, sort of like some of Erroll Flynn's movies, like "The Charge of the Light Brigade". In recorded history, Genghis Khan was a murderous, merciless tyrant, not the idealist he's seen as in this picture, just wanting to unite all the tribes and live their lives out riding around on their horses not being bothered by the meddling Chinese. Even with all that said, it has some spectacular action and some interesting scenes that do have some historical veracity.
mmarotta1 Yes, the quip about the Mikado Road Company is correct. That said, this non-biography is not far as from the Lamb book as the recent TROY was from Homer. It is a fact of mythography that each retelling reflects the time and place. We grant validity to the archaic Sigurd and the medieval Siegfried, and to Wagner's. So, too, is this recasting of Genghis Khan not a biography, but a myth. Accept it for that and the story is as good a movie as "Damn Yankees" was about baseball or "South Pacific" was about World War II. In fact, maybe if this movie had a song or two... "Conquer the World" "Stepping Along the Steppes" "My Horse's Milk" ... well, perhaps not...