Alfred the Great

I liked this. Set in England in the 870s it tells the story of one of the great Kings in history. Hemmings does a great job as the complicated cynical Alfred who wants to be a priest but is forced into becoming King because his leadership qualities are badly needed against the marauding Danes. Hemmings Alfred is a formidable character but he's refreshingly no Hollywood hero. The battle scenes are excellent when you consider this was made on a low budget way back in 1969. There's a great aerial shot of a battle focusing on Alfred who's just come from the monastery to answer his country's call, giving off the impression that while he might prefer to be a holy man of letters, he can still effortlessly slide into the battlefield in an I can take or leave this manner. Hence his greatness.

At least for this period, and in a so accurate and careful way in terms of historical details, this movie from UK - and plus directed by a very eclectic film maker Clive Donner, who had not really a personal style - is far far far far better than most of todays straight to DVDs or streaming platforms craps, most of them from eastern Europe and helped by CGI galore, and certainly not by powerful or concincing actors. I repeat, there was great great care in the making of this film, it is also far more true than it would have been produced by Hollywood - which did not care about actual facts at all, prefering epic side with thousands of extras in awesome and gruesome battle scenes. But here you ALSO have terrific battle scenes, such as the last one. So, in this movie, you have both, quality in terms of script and also the spectacular elements which is not the least at all. My favourite from Clive Donner. Battle scenes and overall story telling has nothing to envy to BRAVEHART.

When I saw this film for the first time back when it was released, I was vastly disappointed. I wanted better dialogue, better costumes, and above all more fidelity to actual history. Some of the big plot engines, especially the one involving Michael York's and Prunella Ransome's characters, never happened in reality, and I have this stickler historical mentality that feels if you make a historical movie about real people, it should be, you know, accurate.

I was a critic at the time, and as I recall, I gave it a fairly scathing review. But upon subsequent catch-as-catch-can late-night viewings (and why why WHY isn't this out on video and DVD?), I have come to temper my opinion. Michael York especially is outstanding---when he's onscreen you can't take your eyes off him, though I very much doubt the real-life Guthrum the Dane looked anywhere near so cute---and I so wish that Clive Donner and the writers had given his rather swoonalicious Guthrum---the Beatle Viking!---a whole lot more to do.

(It's not in the movie, but in historical fact Alfred and Guthrum made a peace treaty afterwards that split England between them, Alf taking the south and west and Guthrum taking the north and east. So really Alfred bargained for his peace, and if it's Alfred the Great, it should darn well be Guthrum the Great as well...)

David Hemmings's performance is as good as can be expected, given some of the thankless dialogue, and he is both tortured and twinkly; while Prunella Ransome's Queen Aelhswith is not only decorative but intriguingly liberated for a noble ninth-century lady (however historically inaccurate and ultimately unconvincing).

And the supporting cast is nothing short of tremendous: Ian McKellen (and you can see Gandalf the Grey in his eyes...), Colin Blakely, Vivian Merchant (who reportedly insisted on playing her character as a mute after a dialogue rewrite was not forthcoming), Julian Glover, Peter Vaughan, Sinead Cusack in her film debut.

Pity the script didn't give any of them but McKellen anything to really get into, though Vaughan munches a bit of scenery. If they'd had something better to work with, "Alfred the Great" might have been the Anglo-Saxon "Lawrence of Arabia"...

Though I'm quite aware of this film's shortcomings (length and the multitude of exotic names, etc.), I must say that I think Leonard Maltin does this film a disservice. It accurately portrays some of the most important events in English history, and also paints a fine portrait of a monarch torn between earthly passions and the desire for spiritual purity. It is only by truly balancing these two forces that a man can succeed, and Alfred did so.

The conflicting forces in the film also symbolize Alfred's inner struggle -- the church representing his spiritual desires and the Danes standing for the passions and lusts of the physical world. Certainly the Battle of Athelney Marsh, one of the pivotal events in British history, is stirringly portrayed, particularly when the peasants and commoners rise up to save their king. This film, despite its flaws and its abysmal box office performance, remains a personal favorite of mine.

A pretty decent film overall. "Chapters" in the story change with a gimmicky visual effect of Hemmings' face looking at itself in transition (from would-be priest to young king, from ruler to man on the run, etc.), it's sometimes hard to catch the names of the individual characters (and the final credits don't help much), and the battle scenes (though staged well) might be seen as overlong. But the film tells its story effectively, brings the characters and events to life and gives us a nice look at 9th century England, and how its people rallied around a king who learned from his early mistakes. I found the actors believable in their roles, the interpretation of events plausible and came away feeling like I knew something about King Alfred and his thoughts. Wouldn't take it as light entertainment, but would recommend it as dramatised history. --Of course, Hemmings' Alfred relies on cleverness, while York's Viking leader Guthrum leans mainly on bravado; familiar parts for both.