FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

joe-pearce-1 I really don't care about the historical inaccuracies in this film, but if you're going to be inaccurate, at least make the result involving. I cannot recall another movie with this much superb acting talent, and with the actors involved actually given lots of lines to speak, that came out so uninspiring and flatfooted. Since the actors pretty much do their jobs well, then it has to be laid down to the screenplay and the direction that this intended intelligent man's spectacle comes off so badly. I have never considered Richard Burton a great actor - not ever - but he had an absolutely wonderful voice that he used in place of great acting most of the time, and when he did truly get into a character, it was almost always one in which he could not use that voice all that much to make overwhelmingly resonant pronouncements to the world. In other words, he was at his best as downtrodden characters like the ones he played in THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD and WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFF? When given 'big' dialog, he tended to coast on his voice - even in something as intimate as HAMLET. So, we get a certain level of professionalism out of him in much of the rest, and it is so here - maybe a little less so at that. I don't find him, as some others have, looking too old for the role. To me, he looks like someone in his 20s who has a voice in its 40s, but otherwise he's not terrible. What he is not, and rarely was, is truly charismatic. Fredric March as his father here pretty much offers what Burton lacks, but for two big problems - 1) he dies off in the middle of the film, and 2) as the King of Macedonia with a totally American accent, he sounds completely out of place given that every other speaking role in the film is done by British actors with good old-fashioned British Shakespearean deliveries; where did this guy come from? Ah, but the screenplay is written for such actors and they do well by it (especially Peter Cushing, Barry Jones, Michael Hordern and Niall MacGinnis). The problem is that it is not a very cinematic screenplay they are acting, but one that leaves them talking at each other incessantly in what really seems like a Shakespeare stage play transferred to the movies; indeed, if you take the large scale battle scenes out, what you have is a perfect vehicle for a Shakespeare play, and it really is amazing that the Bard never thought to write one on Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, the dialog, while often highly literate, is NOT by Shakespeare, but by Rossen. Despite what appears to be Rossen's serious intention to give us an Ancient Family Drama Writ Large, it doesn't work out that way, and I found it impossible to care very much for anybody in the film. As for the remainder of the movie (like when they all shut up and just fight), the battle scenes are incredibly klutzy and unreal - guys more or less standing around kind of hitting at each other while two guys in front of the camera try harder - that kind of thing. This has nothing to do with special effects, as we got great battle scenes all the way back to the silent film era without the benefit of computer-generated trickery. If any single word describes this film, it is "leaden". But, hey, you can't find a conglomeration of actors like these in any film anymore, so on that basis alone, I'll give it a 6 (if they replaced them with dubbed-in Spaghetti Western types, it would rate a 2!).

Neil Doyle When a film is more of a chore to sit through than a pleasure, you know something is wrong. "Alexander the Great" is lavishly produced and handsome to look at with impressive sets and costumes, but even the battle scenes are dull, as staged by director Robert Rossen.RICHARD BURTON is physically impressive as Alexander (with blonde wig), but recites his lines without any real passion or conviction. FREDRIC MARCH is better as his father, but when he dies midway through the story, the film suffers and goes downhill until the end. CLAIRE BLOOM is spirited in the leading femme role and has a few scenes that she plays very well.But too many talky speeches between battles are part of the problem. The script never allows any of the characters to be really fleshed out. In the end, one is left with the feeling that whatever history has been told is on the modest side, and instead there's a sand and sandal type of feeling--a Hollywoodized version of history--that one is left to ponder.Burton uses his voice effectively at times, but it's not one of his best performances.Summing up: History on the dull side.

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.

julian_west Perhaps epic in its day, this DVD re-issue comes across as dated and very lame.The action sequences are run-of-the-mill, the special effects a joke, and the actors' performances leaden (like they all have jalapeño peppers up their butts!)The film sports the very annoying, heavy-handed, over-melodramatic acting of old Hollywood movies.The soundtrack is pompous and sucks! The camera-work is run-of-the-mill.For a far-better film of a similar nature, watch "Troy" (2004) instead!!