Alfred the Great

This movie is dire. It paints England in the squalid colours of cliché and melodrama, where there should be character and drama. The script is mainly at blame here, with its stagy monologues and all-too-often speeches. But, "once more unto the breach" this is not. It is wooden and bereft of any real sense of emotion or motivation for the characters. As a result we are dragged through the major events of Alfred's life without any real notion of what made the man tick. What we have instead is a real Bastard - a man who is arrogant and tyrannical, self opinionated and full of self loathing. So you wonder if you care at all.

David Hemmings is as wooden as the script itself and poor Michael York suffers so much from being a stereotype that he might as well be a cartoon character. Nothing works here. It's long, it's boring, and Hemmings ranting in yet another tirade of opinion does nothing but annoy.

The battle scenes are awful - and I don't mean in the light of today's battle scenes. I mean these are terribly choreographed jumbles which, even when they are trying to be clever with military formations, just look like a load of soccer hooligans going at each other in a field. It's wholly uninspiring stuff! Bare in mind that Spartacus was 1960 and The 300 Spartans (which the film alludes to) was 1961, El Cid 1963, the list goes on... and while this film is an English and not Sword'n'Sandal Epic I see no reason why it could not at least aspire to set pieces such as feature in The Vikings (1958).

The Danes wander around chanting in formation and the chanting is nothing short of infuriating because it goes on and on and on throughout the entire picture. Also the depiction of these pagans is nothing short of ignorant. Yes, certain Gods are mentioned, but any understanding of how these people really thought of them and worshipped them is sold down the river for yet more clichés of the "evil-pagan" vs the "good-christian" - utter rubbish! There are no "real" scenes of Danes at all, and it is films like this that merely fuel ignorance, not dispel it. It all stinks of really bad direction and ill-thought out production.

The colour is drab and lifeless, and life is depicted as not much short of squalid, which we know it wasn't. I kept expecting the Monty Python team to pop up, "there's some lovely mud down 'ere" (a lá The Holy Grail). The costume department do seem to have been more on the ball, but the dull colours only amplify the banal palate of the picture, with it's uninspired wallpaper score and it's pseudo-theatrical pretensions. Even the photography and the editing are dull.

Only Ian McKellen appears to come out of this picture without egg on his face - and that's because he looks wholly uncomfortable in the film, probably wondering what the hell he's doing in this tripe.

And the "Gutts-Ache" of my title is a favoured saying of Alfred in the film awe inspiring script - "you make my guts ache"!!! Dross...

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"...

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.

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.

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.