Alexandre Magno

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.

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.

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.

I borrowed this movie with one intent, and that is to see how the subject material was handled in the 50s, compared to the most recent interpretation by Oliver Stone, who gave us an Alexander with Colin Farrell complete with his hair dyed blonde. And while I was lamenting the fact that there were only 2 war scenes on a massive scale included in that version, the hype that surrounded the story of a conqueror seemed to have made way for Stone's very queer depiction on the bisexuality of Alexander, especially with the camera adopting his POV and gazing ever so lovingly at the male species, countless of times until you want to throw up. I guess subtle is never in Stone's books.

Now this version written and directed by Robert Rossen (who also gave us the original Hustler) did away with all that sexuality issues, and neither did it find any need to have gratuitous nudity in watching Alexander make love (in Stone's version, Rosario Dawson went nude in her role as Roxane). Then again it was made about 50 years ago. Anyway, what I found to be a major disappointment, were the battle scenes. Yes, it might be terribly dated by now, and sadly didn't survive the test of time. At certain scenes and angles, it's akin to old martial arts movies, where enemies just circle around you, waiting for their choreographed moves to be executed, or worse, if you pay attention to characters in the background, they surely aren't moving like ferocious warriors, choosing instead to mull around!

Also, we only get one major battle sequence in Alexander the Great, which made the foray into India in Stone's Alexander look like bonus material. In fact, this version took some time to establish key characters, and began with Alexander's father King Philip's (Fredric March) conquests first, interrupted by the birth of his son, and the prophetic signs under which he was born. It took almost 30 minutes before you see any semblance to a fight, and almost one hour before Richard Burton finally takes over the mantle and seeks out his destiny as one of the greatest known world conquerors of all time. However, the film felt like it was in two arcs, the first which dwells on the internal bickering within Greece with its many factions, and the plotting between mother Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) and King Philip, each wanting to win over Alexander's loyalty for their own political purpose. In this version though, which harped on Darrieux's appearance in the credits, I thought she made Angelina Jolie look more formidable in the role. At least Jolie was dripping with evilness and cunning, compared to the more subdued Darrieux.

The latter half dealt with Alexander's conquests through Asia, though most of the facts were glossed over. It was too little too late as most of which are told using montage, intertitles and narration, which made it look like a rush job to end it. While Stone's movie had focused a fair bit over Alexander's obsession with being the Son of God and his increasing obsession over himself and his glories, this version again made those themes look superbly examined in Stone's version. However, one thing's for certain, Richard Burton, even with the horribly blond hair which looked like a wig, was indeed a lot more charismatic and believable than Coliln Farrell. And that also meant when Burton was wearing the horrendous full faced helmet so that the stunt guy can take over!

All in all, a pretty decent effort in telling the story of Alexander the Great, however as mentioned, it didn't really stood up to the test of time.

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.