SYNOPSICS
Genghis Khan (1965) is a English movie. Henry Levin has directed this movie. Stephen Boyd,Omar Sharif,James Mason,Eli Wallach are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1965. Genghis Khan (1965) is considered one of the best Adventure,Drama,History,War movie in India and around the world.
Mostly fictionalized account of the life of Genghis Khan (Omar Sharif), the Mongol warlord whose thirteenth century armies conquered much of the known world. Named Temujin (Carlo Cura), he was taken prisoner by the rival warlord Jamuga (Stephen Boyd), and as punishment, was forced to wear a large round wooden stock that severely restricted his movements. With the help of two supporters, the wiseman Geen (Sir Michael Hordern) and the strongman Sengal (Woody Strode), he manages to escape. He now begins his quest to unify all of the Mongol tribes. He faces great success, but his old nemesis Jamuga keeps appearing at various times in his life, leading to a final battle between the two.
Same Actors
Genghis Khan (1965) Reviews
just to be different ...
I have to admit I didn't think this film was half as bad as I have been led to believe through negative reviews here on IMdB and elsewhere. So, if it isn't all bad ... I agree it isn't historically accurate but neither was Elizabeth and 100s of other 'historical' films. It is a bit leaden in places, true. Francoise Dorleac gets a bit tiresome although even she has her moments. The script may be a bit dodgy in places but looking at what we get in recent years ... I don't have a problem with Sharif in the title role at all - I thought he was fine. The 'Chinese' being Mason and Morley was distracting but even at their worst these two were always entertaining. Eli Wallach and Michael Hordern make interesting appearances. Even done on the cheap the film doesn't look bad and I enjoyed it better than, say, Demetrius and the Gladiators. And then there was cute Stephen Boyd if all else failed, always a pleasure to watch. Genghis Khan a turkey? Let's just say 'I've seen worse'.
Why Worry About Authenticity? Enjoy!
Historical accuracy is not very likely in an epic like this, but that's not the point, especially after so many years have passed since it was made. Considering 'Genghis Khan' now, it stands out as a dandy museum piece, not only in the 'they don't make 'em like this any more' category, but because it's such a full-blown try at making a splash in the epic film sweepstakes of the 1960s. Yeah, it's a tinker-toy epic, but great fun, despite aiming at serious drama. Only 'Marco the Magnificent' outdoes it for 'Mutinational Production Prize' of its era. Interestingly, it's a 'gap-filler' epic. That is, in the years when every ancient or legendary subject/culture seemed to be tackled by producers, hoping to strike 'Ben-Hur' gold, filmmakers shopped around history, looking for unique subjects to make an impression. Sooner or later the great Khan's number was going to come up. 'The Conqueror' with John Wayne seems more like a western (duh!), while 'Genghis' actually has a central Asian feel to it. Like its mate, 'The Long Ships', this is a Yugoslavian-filmed venture, a mini attempt to emulate Sam Bronston's epic production efforts over in Spain. After Bronston's great empire unfortunately folded, other attempts to take up the epic gauntlet were made. This is one of the most sincere. A great cast, pretty respectable art direction, a sense of epic sweep, and a predictable but often witty script, they're all here. I'm sure the distinguished cast did it for the money, but at least they probably had a good time doing it. At its best it's a decent try at being epic. At its worst, it's a curiosity, but a pretty amusing one. Highlights: - Dusan Radic's fantastic score. He achieves a Rosza-like standard, I think. I await its' much-deserved DVD appearance.
Confused, Revisionist Epic
I remembered enjoying this film when I saw it as a pre-teen on television in the '60's. I have remained an avid fan of adventure films and epics. So, when it was aired yesterday on TCM, I tuned in with anticipation. It had not aged well. Perhaps all of the anomalies are more difficult for a mature movie fan to accept. The best parts of this film are the locations, the sets, the costumes and the props. Even so, the sets are never quite convincingly grand enough. They retain the flavor of sets. The photography never captures the locations in a way that conveys the vastness of Central Asia. And the impact of the costumes and props is diminished by the fact that they are at the service of a predominantly Caucasian cast attempting to portray the tribes of Mongolia. Blonde Francoise Dorleac, who portrays Genghis Khan's wife is the most glaring racial anomaly. But the entire cast is similarly anomalous. At least Stephen Boyd and Omar Shariff aren't blond. But Englishmen, James Mason and Robert Morley look hopelessly out of place. (I personally wondered how people of Oriental heritage reacted to Mason's stereotypical pronunciation of the letter "L" as an "R!") I don't really find a lot of fault with the portrayals offered by Mason and Morley, although I do agree with the suggestion of several reviewers that they seem like they wandered in from a production of the Mikado. Lastly, I cringed at the soundtrack - typically Occidental-sounding pseudo-epic orchestrations with grandiose flourishes. The heroic-sounding 4/4 marches were typical of the Sword and Sandal epics of the day. Only a stray chord here and there suggested an Oriental setting. In that era, it was inconceivable to cast Orientals in the principal roles of a film of this one's pretensions. Under the circumstances Hollywood would have done better to simply avoid attempts to depict tales of Asian peoples. In the end, bizarre casting and completely Occidental-sounding music render this film difficult to swallow for a film-goer looking for anything beyond a shallow adventure story. With the number of Oriental actors in Hollywood films today, a GOOD portrayal of the life of Genghis Khan is ripe for filming!
A last flirtation with the epic genre!
Not quite as bad as John Wayne's famed turkey THE CONQUEROR, but getting there. Problem was with this flick, the makers dumped historical accuracy in favor of developing a Ben-Hur-Messala type confrontation between Genghis Khan (Sharif, at the height of his popularity) and his nemesis, a scowling bewhiskered Jamuga (none other than "Messala" himself - Stephen Boyd) Plenty of Mongol action and cruelty and the concluding battle between Sharif and Boyd is pretty in-your-face stuff. Production values were OK and suitably epic-ish in feel. The wheels start to fall off though with Robert Morley as the Chinese Emperor, some throwback to his role in 55 DAYS IN PEKING and worse, mega-british James Mason as Kam Ling, as likely a chinese adviser to Morley as Adam Sandler playing Abraham Lincoln. In a minor role as Subatai, Kenneth Cope is struggling to hold down any credibility whatsoever, having been first-string comic relief to David Frost on the THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS TV show. Not for the epic Hall of Fame I'm afraid!
Wildly Inaccurate Historical Epic
This has about as much to do with the real Genghis Khan as the Hughes film"The Conquerer".If you want to know about the real historical figure,read Lamb's 1920s book.That aside,we have to appreciate the production values of the film.Sets,props,etc.,are all ok.None of these people,however,can scarcely be imagined as Central Asians.Greek Savalas and Alabaman Strode come closest.Wallach,as the Shah,makes an acceptable sly villain,and not an unbelievable Levantine.Everybody else is not only much too European,but much too Nordic,as well.(Sharif is only a minor exception to this generalisation.)And Morley,Mason,and Hordern all act as though they wandered in from a road company of "The Mikado".Watch this film for amusement,and perhaps free-wheeling historical fiction(aka Robert E. Howard),but don't take it too seriously.