Customer Reviews

Alexander the Great [VHS]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I see that all other reviews where written before the Oct. 19th 04 release of this DVD, therefore referring to VHS only. I purchased and viewed this today, Oct. 27th. 04. It is not my intention to give this a detailed review as has been done at lenght eleswhere. Not my style anyway.
To write about Greek or Roman history/heros with all the factions and diverse warring rulers of those times is tedious at best. And a hard subject to put into a screenplay, to breathe the least. However this is a literate screenplay and all the players are mentioned, just a bit hard to follow unless you've read your Will Durant. Not just another popcorn flick.

No, I just want to say that if anyone is thinking of buying this DVD, I don't think you'd be disappointed, providing you love all the Hollywood epics of the 50's. If you do you may want this one too! Not the spectacle of Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, King of Kings or the pagentry of Cleopatra, but a worthy entry none the less. Matte paintings used in all aforementioned used here as well, but not as many. The Babalonian City is extraordinary and enough glass paintings to convey an epic, unlike the claustrophobic Spartacus. The sets are somewhat meger, like Spartacus, but what lacks there is made up for in the use of Technicolor and Cinemascope and the absolutely remarkable and stunning wardrobe. This is a terrific transfer and will look even better on your 16 x 9 HDTV! The 480 that DVD's put out look as though you might reach for that goblet on wine on the table.
Spain seems to double well for Greece and Persia and although the battles were not of the rousing kind, one over looks this as a trade off to the overall movie. This film also doesn't have that ''Hollywood touch'' of the others of the 50's and seems more adult for that reason {Barabbas 61' is another}.
So if you're looking for another great but not Great 1950's epic just cut the Grodian Knot and ride out of the store on old Bucephalus!
Oh yes, I hope the up coming new release of Alexander, anticipated and welcomed, surpasses this version as there is nothing much better than a good movie, but this 1956 Richard Burton, Fredric March film may be above the mark in the end, as so many remakes or rehashed films can never come close the their predecessors, even with all of the CGI of today. Look at the disappointing Troy, a DVD I won't be purchasing.

Great entertainment and historically correct, for the most part. Richard Burton plays a convincing Alexander. From the start, with the background on Alexander's youth and his relationship with his father Philip and mother Olympias, the movie awesomely captures history. The battle scenes are recreated very well. I especially liked the post-battle scene at Chaeronea with the drunken Philip's singing echoing through the valley. Only minor errors, such as Darius's daughter being called Roxanne (a Bactrian princess) instead of Statira, can easily be overlooked. Alexander in fact, married both women anyway. The Persians are also shown historically correct for the most part, especially Darius' murder and the scene at Persepolis. For an under two-hour movie, what you get is quite spectacular. Of course, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to film everything in Alexander's life.

With films about Alexander the Great directed by Oliver Stone and Baz Luhrmann supposedly being released in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the 1956 film "Alexander the Great" from director Robert Rossen with Richard Burton in the title role is probably going to see renewed interest. However, despite providing a realistic portrayal of a historical legend and being one of the most historically faithful films about the ancient world ever to be made, there is something missing from this would be epic.

"Alexander the Great" was written, produced and directed by Rossen, who had won the Academy Award for "All the King's Men" (1949) and would be nominated gain for "The Hustler" (1961). All three films have in common the realistic portrait of a complex psychological figure. Burton plays Alexander as being both energetic and a visionary, with quicksilver changes in mood. Alexander is both idealistic and practical, intelligent but hot-tempered, courageous but shrewd. Although he conquers the Persian Empire while still basically a boy, this is a conqueror who suffers defeats and almost falls prey to becoming an Oriental potentate just like Darius (Harry Andrews), the Persian king he just conquered. This is a man who can kill a friend in a moment of anger while drunk and weep over the body.

The more you know about the historical Alexander the more impressed you are by the film's fidelity to what appears in Plutarch. Here is the Alexander who worshiped Achilles and loved Homer's "Iliad," who was taught by Aristotle, cut the Gordian knot, destroyed Persepolis, and died a young man at Babylon. The battles sequences, such as the battle at the river Granicus, run rather short, but are not all that bad. The problem is that for all the complexity of Alexander's character and the intensity of Burton's performance, there is no real sense of mission or accomplishment to his conquering the known world. We see what happened, but are curiously unaffected by the film's implicitly explanation for why he did it.

The rationale suggested by the film is found in Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia. Played by Fredric March, Philip has a memorable scene after the battle of Chaeronea against the united city-states of Greece when he gets drunk and mocks the Athenian orator Demosthenes for having called him a barbarian. When Philip is assassinated Alexander chases after the assassin and kills him, and even the most basic understanding of Freudian psychology tells us that the son will spend the rest of his life trying to impress his dead father.

In the end the explanation for conquering the world becomes the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's famous quote for why he climbed Mt. Everest. To wit, "Because it was there." When you are on top of the world, there is a certain logic to such a quip. But when the subject is conquering the known world starting with a relatively small kingdom north of Greece, the same idea seems rather hollow. Hopefully Stone and/or Luhrmann can come up with not only better explanations, but much better films.

I have recently rented or purchased so-called "remastered" films on DVD and have frequently been very disappointed. For instance, "Pope Joan" (1972) starring Liv Ullman, and "Third Man On The Mountain" (1959) starring James MacArthur. Both are terrible film/disc transfers, with scratches, dirt and no color correction. So, I shuddered to think what "Alexander the Great" would look like. To my surprise, and enjoyment, the DVD transfer is very good, with excellent Surround sound. The picture image (widescreen, 2:35.1) is free of dirt, scratches and distortion.

That said, the film is . . . well, what it is. You can't go back and remake this particular version with this cast. So, we're stuck with making the best tranfer we can with what we've got.

I heard that Burton disclaimed his performance because he so strongly disagreed with Robert Rossen's approach. He was probably right. You can see patches of a potentially good film, but Rossen's approach (plodding and episodic), with rough, patchy editing, destroys what vision he may have started with. Characters come and go so frequently that it's hard to keep up without a playbill in your lap. This is because Rossen told Alexander's ENTIRE life story, from birth to death. That's a lot of history, not to mention people, to absorb in just over 2 hours.

Very good actors are given only limited screen time. These seasoned character actors do the best with what they've got, but writer Rossen generally gives them only a thumb-nail sketch of their characters, people who are central to Alexander's life. I get the sense that this is the Reader's Digest version of a much longer movie.

Also, every scene feels exactly like the previous one. Rossen's direction is simple, mechanical and workman-like. Burton doesn't seem to "grow" into the role (but this, again, may be the result of choppy editing). I am reminded that Burton's performance as Antony in "Cleopatra" (1963) was generally panned, but there was a situation where the director was forced by the studio to cut 2 1/2 hours, most of which turned out to be of Burton. Burton's REAL performance as Antony is lying around . . . somewhere. It would be nice to see it.

The rssult (in "Anexander" as in "Cleopatra") is that Burton looks mechanical; he sounds the same at the end as he did in the beginning. It is also true to say that Burton's acting style at this time was generally very much effected and way over-the-top. (Look at the DVD of his Hamlet peformance on Broaway 8 years after "Alexander).

Of course, we can vetch and vetch till Doombsday, but at least the DVD transfer is wholly satisfactory in preserving this interesting piece of movie history.

One of the best things about this epic based on Alexander the Great is watching and listening to Richard Burton ply his magnificent craft. He was 29 at the time this film was made, and his resonant voice is remarkable, and one of the most unique sounds to be heard in the cinema. He is unfortunately wearing a strawberry blonde wig that has so much spray on it, it could be made of plastic, but otherwise makes a marvelous Alexander, in one of his rare appearances in an "ancient costume epic", others being "The Robe" and the infamous "Cleopatra".

Written, directed and produced by Robert Rossen, it has some excellent dialogue, overall fine acting, and of course, battle sequences with 1001 extras. There is also quite a bit of "beefcake", but not many who are ready for the bare chest exposure, including Burton, whose abs are almost absent, and many of the extras are flabby and rotund, and hard to imagine are warriors.
Shot on location in Spain, the cinematography by Robert Krasner, in typical '50s vibrant Technicolor, is wonderful. Claire Bloom is beautiful as Barsine, a dark and hairy, savage and quite unrecognizable Frederick March is terrific as Philip of Macedon, Harry Andrews is a good Darius, and Danielle Darrieux is Alexander's crafty mother. Others of note in the cast are Stanley Baker as Attalus, and Peter Cushing as Memnon.

Though flawed, this is a film that can be viewed repeatedly, for its well written scenes, Burton's acting, and a smattering of history as well, which is condensed and altered to fit the Hollywood format, but has some basis in truth; it is also fascinating to note that if one listens carefully, one will hear things reminiscent of recent news stories; history seems to be a wheel that is ever turning, and for the brief time that Alexander was in power, he would say "The world is my domain, and my mission is to rule it and rebuild it".
Total running time is 136 minutes, and the DVD extra is the original theatrical trailer.

With the recent Oliver Stone movie on Alexander just out, its always interesting to dive back and look at earlier versions of this subject. One thing for sure, Colin Farrell cannot compare to Richard Burton! Burton looks and acts the part, and is not all dolled up with dyed hair! He has a commanding presence about him. This film has a docu-drama quality to it, which may bore the average movie-goer, but at least there is a good effort to re-create the history of the time.

Here we get a stronger portrait of the tortured relationship between Alexander and his father, Philip II. Frederic March is terrific in the role, and again, Val Kilmer loses out badly! The qaulity of acting in this earlier movie far surpases the current epic on many levels. Some may find this film a bit stiff, but at least it keeps close to its subject matter and never loses sight of it. The same cannot be said of the recent Oliver Stone epic.

The production value for 1960 is pretty good, although perhaps not as impressive as the current version. The battle scenes are brief, and not large scale. Both movies fail to show the true origin of the Macedonian Phalanx system and how it would defeat the Persians. Here we see a brief version of the Battle of Cheronea in 336 BC which saw Philip and Alex defeat the last Greek resistence of Macedonia in the form of Athens and Thebes. We get a small Granicus here, and no Issus. Both Movies show Gaugamala (Arbela)and I would have to give the Oliver Stone movie more credit for showing this epic battle more impressively.

This older movie presents a striaght-forward portrait of Alexander. There are no homo-erotic overtones which are popular today, and little deviation from the image we know of him. The style of production is more standard and traditional. Perhaps a little statuesque, some may find this film too stiff and boring, but it is a worthy companion to the current epic which seeks to wow its audience with special effects and visually imagery. None of that here! Burton gives a moody and convinving look at the great Macedonian, without having to show a lurid image. Of course there are many views of Alexander to chose from, and one must decide which one suits their interests best. If the more traditional view is sought then this movie should fit the bill nicely.

Someday, someone is going to make a great film about Alexander. Writer/director Robert Rossen took a crack at it in the mid-1950's, an era of epic films. The result was interesting but ultimately disappointing. Perhaps Rossen tried to squeeze too much into a standard running time. Some scenes, usually the historic ones, seem rushed and truncated while others, the fictionalised ones, seem superfluous. Visually, the film is quite good. In fact, it is one of those films where the stills are more impressive than the actual scenes.

But Rossen obviously wanted to make an "intelligent" epic. Some of the script and casting reflect that. The supporting cast has a number of respected British thesps -Claire Bloom, Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Stanley Baker. But there are also a lot of Italians whose dialogue is dubbed by those same two guys who did all the film dubbing in the 1950's. One can only wonder who chose Fredric March (hammy as ever) as Philip of Macedon or Danielle Darrieux (who apparently had only one facial expression) as his mischievous queen.

But the critical casting was Richard Burton as Alexander. He certainly looks the part, despite the blonde hair. But he frequently suffers from his career-long inability to adapt his stage-acting technique to the more intimate demands of cinema. Or maybe that's how he thought a wannabe god should behave. You sit there praying for him to lighten up - just a little.

For the rest, the many battle scenes tend to be confusing rather than spectacular, the uncertain pace suggests a lot of pre-release cuts were made, and the music not only sounds primitive but seems to have been recorded in somebody's basement. Still, the film is an interesting failure. But you end up admiring its ambitions more than its results.

The acting and set design of Alexander the Great are first rate. Unfortunately, in an effort to compress the story into a 2 1/2 hour movie, the script takes great liberties with historical accuracy. The fact that the daughter of Darius is wrongly named Roxane is the least of the problems with this movie. Some of the most glaring problems occur when several historical characters are rolled into one movie character. The fate of the Rhodian general Memnon is completely inaccurate. The movie depicts a written document by Darius falling into Alexander's hands. This event is based on ages-old propaganda most likely perpetuated by both Alexander and his followers, meant to justify his claim to the Achaemenid throne. The epic quality of the Alexander story is completely lost as the movie jumps from scene to scene in an effort to finish the movie in 2 1/2 hours. Interestingly, the movie spends an inordinate amount of time developing the character of the young Alexander in Macedonia. Once he begins his military campaigns, however, the movie unfolds quickly and unevenly. I realize that squeezing Alexander's life into one movie is difficult, but it would have been better to leave out some details rather than falsify them. The movie was made in the 1950s, and I am sure that more information on Alexander and the Persians has come to light since then. So we may forgive the moviemakers for some of the inaccuracies in the movie. It would have been nice if more time had been spent developing the character of Darius. For a great historical narrative on Alexander which steers clear of the biased Greek descriptions, read the superb biography 'Alexander of Macedon' by Peter Green.

Despite a static script, that would seem to be made for a theatrical stage, the presence of this splendid cast and a talented director, the refulgent brightness of Richard Burton in what we might denominate one of the most integral actors never born, finds in this personage the wisest and most available choice at this special moment.

The introspective gaze around this Macedonian conqueror, the epitome of the hero through his epic vision makes of this film a very good option to watch, as well as an invitation to get into his colossal project.

Richard Burton(The Robe,An Excellent film way Better than This) makes an impressive yet at times over dramatic(They are the Greeks Though?) performance,the movie is okay. The Battle scenes are not "Battle Scenes" as they should be or perhaps Historically Accurate,Alexander while a Great Military Conqueror and Strategist was not so great after all,While we can(according to "History" and "Historians") Credit the Greeks with Democracy(In Athens at Least)they ultimately failed(Besides Aristotle)and like most civilizations disappeared.The movie is worth watching But I prefer the Biblical Epics of the same Era.