Benedito Dias Rodrigues Was in 1978 or 1979 that l'd watched this picture for first time on TV once,now revisiting this Epic l was deeply disappointed,for economic reasons was shooting in Spain that actually there's nothing in common with Greece landscape or Persia...second the battles were not convincing at all,hard to watching such few fighting those great battles...anyway who save the movie is Fredric March as King Philip whom is pretty good acting as mad King and concentrating all power in your hands,instead Richard Burton wasn't a good enough to play Alexander,,,firstly according history Alexander was more strong and tall and Burton don't filled the role,but the movie is watchable for historic reasons only!!!

ThatMOVIENut From legendary writer/director Robert Rossen (Diary of Anne Frank, The Huster, All The King's Men) comes the larger than life story of the one and only Alexander The Great of Macedon. The film documents the Greek conqueror's life from spirited youth in his homeland to ruler of Asia. Unlike the 2004 Stone film, this one is more squarely focused in Greece, most of the film dealing with domestic disputes between the Greeks and Macedonians, as well as Alexander's troubled relationship with his father, Philip.Incredibly melodramatic and surprisingly tacky, Rossen's tale of the Macedonian conqueror is a lot of things, and most of them not good. The production values are unbelievably poor, which is odd given this made during the heyday of the historical epic. Be it fake costumes, flexible armour, or pitifully trying to pass off 1950s Spain as Ancient Macedon, the houses being an instant giveaway, it's just startling, Not to mention, Mario Nascimbene's score is just a monotonous and lazy drone of percussion, almost sounding like parodies of Hans Zimmer that can be found on Youtube. Oh, and the battles? Just a bunch of dressed up idiots running into each other. That's it.Furthermore, the film is very lopsided when it comes to Alexander's life, focusing almost exclusively on his upbringing, with a little on the campaign against Persia. This leads to glossing over the Indian campaign, the mass Greek/Persian marriages and ultimately, the man's final legacy to the world; the union of cultures. How someone like Rossen missed such a powerful idea is beyond me. And even when we focus on the home stuff, it's just passing muster with so-so dialogue and characterization, and again, the production values only serve to distract even more.In some deference, we do have a talented cast here, boasting the likes of Richard Burton, Peter Cushing, Stanley Baker and Frederic March, and all do their expected best. Burton is a little awkward at first, mainly due to his blonde wig, but he is suitably commanding yet spirited. Still, this is just not enough.Frankly, for all its jumbling and Angelina Jolie, Stone's 'Alexander' is the better film, with superior battles, more of Alexander's life on display, and an outstanding score by Vangelis. This, however, is for genre enthusiasts only, as there is little here to make a trip worthwhile. If you still want classic epics, go with Ben Hur instead.

DICK STEEL 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.

Martin Bradley Terrible. Why did so many major directors become a cropper when faced with fancy dress? Or more specifically, with swords and sandals and all things pertaining to the Bible. And how could so many good actors turn into shop-front dummies or develop the personalities of automatons when cast in this kind of drivel? Chewing the scenery was never an option since the scenery was always bigger than they were.Here, the director becoming a cropper was Robert Rossen, (this was the nadir of an on-again, off-again career), and the actors following suit include Richard Burton, (in a blonde wig and very little else, as Alexander), Fredric March, Claire Bloom and Danielle Darrieux, who still manages to crawl out of this cess-pit of a movie smelling of roses, while a stock-pile of familiar British faces, (Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Barry Jones, Stanley Baker et al), play sundry Greeks and Persians. As a history lesson it would send any sixth grader to sleep, (you have to wait an eternity just to get a decent battle). I've always felt the recent Oliver Stone version was mightily under-valued. Compared to this, it's a bloody masterpiece!