Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

bbaldwin7 This has to be the worst major Hollywood production of all time. Incredibly miscast throughout with unspeakable dialogue, beyond boring plot, trite art direction, and ridiculous costuming. Even the desert settings are totally wrong. The entire look of the film appears to be that of a Mongolian western. It's so bad that it makes the tepid Yugoslavian-based remake of a decade later (at half the price) look like a good movie. There are simply no words adequate to convey the disaster filmed here. That $6 million dollars could be assigned to this script is simply beyond belief. It's pure torture to sit through, unless perhaps, you're totally drunk and looking for the ultimate comedy of filmic errors.

Alexander Kislun "The Conqueror" is often considered as the worst film ever made. That means that we can put it together with "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Jack and Jill", for example, can't we? And if we do, we will find plenty defects in it.On the other hand, we can compare the worst film ever made with the best one (indeed, why not?). For instance, with "The Searchers". These movies have many common details: they were produced in the same year, in the same Utah desert. They have very similar plot (that's why I can define "The Conqueror" as the sub-genre of western - it is eastern) and the leading hero in both movies ... one and the same John Wayne. Just ask yourself, can't Temujin be called the Searcher and can't Ethan Edwards be called the Conqueror? I guess, they sure can. But it does not matter, "The Searchers" is considered as the best movie ever made, "The Conqueror" - as the worst one...If it is not appropriate to compare "The Conqueror" with western, let's compare it with epic film/peplum. And once again ask yourself, are "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur (1959)", "Spartacus" better than "The Conqueror"? They also have common details: the historical plots with inevitable historical mistakes, the American actors portraying Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Mongolians, including beautiful leading actresses who do not have any Oriental features and famous actors with funny Western accents... But it doesn't matter again: "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus" are the best movies ever made and "The Conqueror" - ...One can argue about this movie, one can find positive and negative details in it. But let's be objective: if "The Conqueror" is not the best movie, it is definitely, definitely not the worst one ever made.

sddavis63 It's a Howard Hughes production, which in itself makes this worth watching. Of even more interest, this stars John Wayne as Temudjin - Genghis Khan - as it shows that title character rising to power as Khan of the Mongols and ultimately a good part of the world. Wayne is a curious choice for the role. I've never found him to be the most versatile of actors. He plays cowboys extremely well and he plays soldiers reasonably well. As Khan, he gets to spend a lot of time on a horse and he leads a lot of Mongols into battle. Combining the two types of characters he plays so well, you'd think this movie was tailor made for him. The problem is that he neither looks nor sounds like a typical Mongol! Frankly, Wayne's presence here is unfortunately somewhat distracting. The story here isn't all that bad, and for the type of historic epic that was often made in this era, it's fairly close to the historical facts in many ways, but there's also a lot that distracts from the history. The romance, for example, between Temudjin and Bortai (Susan Hayward.) The romance was too forced and simply seemed unnatural for the context. There's also an extended scene in a rival Khan's court which features a series of dancing girls who seem to have come out of a Las Vegas show. That also took away from the credibility of the movie. The sets were all right but unspectacular and the dialogue came across at times as somewhat stilted (I'm not even really sure that that means but the word seems to fit!)Let's be honest. This is not by any definition a great movie - or even a particularly good one. It is, however, definitely a curiosity worth watching if you're a movie buff, primarily for the combination of Wayne and Hughes.

michaelstep2004 Back in 2001 I reviewed this kitsch masterpiece here and focused on its sheer badness. I recently acquired a new remastered DVD which allowed me to throw away my junky, ancient, badly cut VHS version. And I also watched it on a 54" TV screen.Well...it IS spectacular. The locations are gorgeous, if hardly Mongolian, although the yurts look pretty authentic. Except for the ridiculous dancing girls, the costumes are terrific, if sometimes obviously Greco-Roman rather than Asian. Susan Hayward is very beautiful in her trademark petulant way. And John Wayne actually does have some good moments in an impossible role. The battle scenes are clumsily handled, though, and watching all those tripped-up horses is pretty painful.My previous review also slightly misquoted the wonderfully awful dialogue, which will never pale for me as the most unforgettable element of this movie. But I kept to its true spirit. However, I left out one shimmering verbal gem, the closing words of the film: "The riches of Cathay he laid at the feet of his Tartar woman. For a hundred years the children of their loins ruled half the world." Just simply, The Conqueror is immortal.