IMDb user comments for
Alexander the Great (1956)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

32 comments in total

---

8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Too ambitious for a movie but fun for the Alexander fanatic!, 18 April 2001

Author: Nicholas Christakes (twink@execpc.com) from Park Forest, IL

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.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Tedious, 24 December 2001

Author: gridoon

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.

---

11 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
A philosophical epic, 10 February 1999

Author: Erik Goodwyn (edgood01@homer.louisville.edu) from USA

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.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Well acted and produced - fair direction - but March is best, 29 May 2006

Author: theowinthrop from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Robert Rossen is one of the directors whose career was going well when the blacklist hit, and he found himself in a tailspin. After "Johnny O'Clock", "Body And Soul", and "All The King's Men" Rossen seemed headed for major directing work. Then came the blacklist. In the years of Senator McCarthy Rossen did two projects, "The Brave Bulls" and "Alexander The Great". Then he began regaining his stride with "They Came To Cordura" and finally the film we really recall him for: "The Hustler". But he left a relatively small body of movies, and we can only marvel at the less than ten titles it includes.

This was (unless you count the fictional "They Came To Cordura") the only history film in his work, and it was done in Europe. In fact, of the leads, only one (Fredric March) is American. It is (like all Rossen's work) impressive to look at - he was a master at composition of figures on the screen. Look at the sequence of the assassination of Philip of Macedon. Philip leaves a crowd that remains on the outskirts and ascends steps to a temple. A figure darts out and attacks and kills him. The fate of the character (although there has been a morbidity about Philip since the film began) is re-enforced by the way death seems to reach out an knock him down. As I said, the film is very impressive to see.

I stress this last scene of March's because his Philip has more going for him in the movie than it's erstwhile central figure. Alexander was his father's rival (egged on by his mother as Richard the Lion Hearted is egged on by his mother in "The Lion In Winter"). But Philip is more of a superstitious type than Henry II of England. He is aware that his son is needed as an heir to complete Philip's dream (uniting the Greek state under Macedonian sovereignty into a single power). But he is aware that the signs suggest his heir is going to be his great rival and destroyer (like the Greek Gods led by Zeus overthrew their father Chronus). March's wife, the clever and deadly Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) knows how to push March's buttons about his fears, and March finally does what Henry II threatens to do - divorce his wife and marry again - and breed new "better" sons. It seals his death warrant - Olympias will not tolerate a rival on Philip's throne.

March therefore has a more interesting role than (curiously) Burton as Alexander. I know that sounds strange, but March's personal turmoil is much more interesting to consider and watch. Historically, Philip is frequently overlooked because of his son's stunning military achievements against Persia, and his empire building, but Philip actually was a clever monarch. Interestingly enough, while Alexander's body was eventually buried in a beautiful tomb in Alexandria, Egypt, the tomb has not been found by archaeologists. But twenty years ago Philip's remains were found in Macedonia. Philip, in a sense, has survived his son.

After March leaves the scene, Burton becomes the center of attention - his role in taking over Greece rapidly replaced by his role in bringing down the old Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius I, and Xerxes (see "The Three Hundred Spartans"). Possibly too much is by-passed - the heroic attempts of the last great democrat of Athens, Demosthenes (Michael Hordern), to stop this juggernaut threatening Greeks's city states, is seen too quickly. The confrontation with Darius III (Harry Andrews) is handled too quickly too - not quite the monarch his ancestors who invaded Greece were, his defeat and death are tragic and deserving of deeper plumbing. Rossen decides to concentrate on Alexander and his role of building that empire that stretched from the Nile to the Ganges - one of history's most astounding military achievements. Certain quasi-legendary events are shown - the cutting of the "Gordian Knot" for example. The corrupting influence of the growth of Alexander's power is shown too, up to his premature death. He was an "aged" 33 when he left the scene.

What would he have done if he lived into old age? Would he have noticed on the western boundaries of his empire those two peculiar states, Carthage and Rome? His relations with the Jews in Jerusalem and the Holy Land were quite good (for a change the Jews realized it would make sense not to fight such a powerful invader - in fact to this day Jewish families live up to an agreement with the Greeks to allow their sons, occasionally, to bear the name of "Alexander", the one non-Jewish name allowed). Would Alexander have used Greek culture to unify the entire ancient world? Or would the relative decadence of the Persian world have undermined his plans? A ten year reign some twenty three hundred years ago that is still remembered, is astounding. But where would it have ended?

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Fascinating but frustrating!, 14 August 2000
Author: John Mark Capps (markcapps@ichabod.net) from Austin, Texas, USA

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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Classical Charismatic Conqueror, 29 May 2006

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Alexander the Great set out with an army in 334 BC to conquer the world and had just about conquered double what was known of western civilization at the time. Had he not died at the age of 33 touching on the borders of current India, who knows what might have happened.

Richard Burton with years of classical training behind him plays Alexander as the charismatic prince of Macedonia who arouses both the admiration and jealousy of his father Philip played by Fredric March.

The relationship between Philip and Alexander is what drives the film. The problems between them are not to unusual to more modern monarchies. The crown prince is always a rival source of power, by dint of his position he gets his own personal followers and that is always of concerned to the king.

In addition Philip is in doubt about his kid's paternity, doubt encouraged by his wife Danielle Darrieux, sick and tired of his infidelities.

As played by March, Philip is a parvenu, leading a warrior state and a man of little learning. He remedies that for his son by getting the best teacher around for him in Aristotle, played by Barry Jones. Aristotle gives Alexander the culture that Philip lacks and instills in him a belief of the superiority of Greek Culture against the rest of the world and it was his duty to spread it. Doesn't that ever sound familiar.

When Philip is assassinated, Alexander succeeds him and after securing the backing of the seven leading cities of Greece he moves east and south in an expedition of conquest.

Burton's performance is grand because in his speech and in his closeups you see all the various forces at work in Alexander, the idealism, the egoism, the arrogance, it's all there in various mixtures at any given time of the film.

The open homosexuality that characterized the production of Alexander in 2005 is not present in this film. The film does show Alexander's associates to be male which was not uncommon in Greek society back in the day and that women were there to breed, nothing more. Of course they were something more in terms of their own agendas as Danielle Darrieux plainly shows.

Might be a good idea to view both films back to back and see just how The Code affected productions back in 1956.

---

9 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Colossally bad, 2 February 2004

Author: 'Lix from Burlington, VT

This film is incredibly historically inaccurate, merging and changing personalities and events to force the entirety of this fascinating life into a measly 2-hour Hollywood schlockbuster.

The performances are stiff and unconvincing; I blame the script, direction, and style of (melo-)dramatic acting preferred in the 50's -- Burton, in particular, is considerably better in his movies a decade later.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
A colossal bore, 6 November 2007

Author: Daniel Kincaid from Canada

"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.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Just Acceptable HIistoric Epical, 27 October 2006

Author: ragosaal from Argentina

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.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Draggy, would be epic., 2 November 2001
Author: David Matthews from Toronto, Canada

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history