bkoganbing If Genghis Khan were made today a whole lot of Asian players would be in the various roles cast. Although not as ridiculous looking as Dragon Seed or even The Good Earth to today's audiences by 1965 when this film was made casting Occidental players in Oriental roles was not looked on favorably no matter how could they are. One who could get away with it was Yul Brynner who must have been contacted for the lead and he was from that part of the world.Nevertheless Omar Sharif is a credible Genghis Khan and Stephen Boyd unearths his Messala character playing Jamuga the life long sworn enemy of the boy Temujin who grows up to be Genghis Khan. Sharif realizes his dream of uniting all the Mongol tribes into one nation and then starting to conquer. By the time he was done his Mongols were advancing into Eastern Europe. I wonder why Boyd who was the villain was first billed before Sharif in the title role. I'm sure there's a story there. One who did look bad was James Mason playing a mandarin adviser to Chinese emperor Robert Morley. He really looked and sounded like a road company Fu Manchu.Genghis Khan is better than John Wayne's infamous and legendary The Conqueror, but that's not saying much.

Armand part of a trend, it seems be not good or bad. only epic from a long series who marks the Hollywood glorious age. battles and fights, charming Omar Shariff, historical accuracy as insignificant detail, a large show with good actors not always in the correct roles. that fact does to be unfair to blame it. because , far to be a masterpiece, it is useful testimony about a period sensitivity. that fact defines it and create a nostalgic feeling. for discover a part of Genghis Khan legend is not a bad idea to see Mongol. it this fact the purpose is different. because, like many epics of period, it is only a fairy tale for adults. mixture of pink novel and legend, result of old recipes, it is just a nice film if yours expectation remains reasonable.

Poseidon-3 One of the world's most legendary conquerors gets a heroic sheen in this colorful and often inaccurate latter day epic. Sharif plays the title role, a young Mongol who watches his father die at the hands of his rival Boyd and is then burdened with a large yoke around his neck, thus rendering him incapable of much, if any, physical threat. One day, Boyd makes the mistake of taking the yoke off and from then on the two are locked in combat to the death. In this rendition of the story, Sharif is bent on a united tribe of Mongols, something Boyd is against, preferring his independence. Boyd would rather team with other leaders, such as Wallach, to stamp out Sharif. Meanwhile, Sharif aligns with and learns from the Chinese, though they do not wish to see him leave once he has aided them in their own struggles. Sharif is noble and driven and even, at times, tender, not qualities that are always associated with the name Genghis Khan, but which are intended here. Boyd is one-dimensionally nasty throughout. The character he is playing was, in real life, a one-time ally, but that is not explored. Rather the script plays up a longstanding enmity that can only be stopped by the death of one or both of them. Dorleac, with 1960s bangs, plays Sharif's devoted wife and support system. It's a mostly decorative role aside from a few feisty moments, but she fills it well enough. Savalas is billed high, but is given next to nothing to do in the somewhat crowded landscape. Wallach appears briefly, but is at least permitted to make some sort of impression. Hordern rather hams it up as Sharif's partially blind mentor while Strode, as his muscular aide, provides silent strength. Two notable actors appear in faux-Asian makeup, as was the custom of the day. Morley, as the Chinese Emperor, fares best despite his inappropriateness to the role. His ever-individual style adds texture and humor to the part. Mason, face fixed in a permanent grin and speaking in the most stereotypical manner imaginable, is less impressive. It's a performance that will likely offend those who lean towards the sensitive in cases like this. Almost worthless as a history lesson, the film does succeed in delivering a fairly grand adventure with terrific music, decent battle sequences and positively jaw-dropping scenery. Though a pat approach to the script and an overriding simplicity threaten to mar the movie irrevocably, for those who aren't too demanding, the finished product is entertaining. Look out for the amusing glimpse of a Chinese princess in which she is nude except for some artfully arranged bits of scenic bric-a-brac surrounding the screened window some men are looking through. The mainstream cinema was still just toying with various amounts of exposed flesh in this time period. Sadly, Dorleac would die within two years in a fiery car accident. Mason, Sharif and Boyd had previously appeared together in the superior, but not very successful, epic The Fall of the Roman Empire."

Samy Selim I actually registered for this service and am writing this review in Defence of Omar Shariff. I saw that the only review on IMDb was rather harsh and unbalanced. Shariff's portrayal of the CHARACTER of the Mongolian Chieftain was a truthful yet poetic performance that John Wayne definitely lacked the depth of character to deliver. There was a comment in that one review about Shariff's "Arabic" accent. In order to enlighten readers, Shariff's Arabic is not that good as education in Egypt in the old days was strictly British and Arabic was strictly forbidden. There is also no such thing as an Arabic accent. Arabs have 22 different dialects in 22 different countries with hundreds of accents per country. Moreover, there is no generic Arabic accent as there is no true generic American or British accent. Yes, James Mason was enchanting in his role as Chinese Ambassador/courtier, but cancelling out Shariff for his accent and his physical appearance would be a critical blunder worthy of a Junior high student with learning disability. I actually see a certain wisdom in casting the modestly framed Shariff as a warlord. This choice would emphasise the idea that the Mongol nation was built by this man using will power and cunning, not mere brute force. THAT is historically accurate. The movie does have many shortcomings, such as simplistic photography that is nowhere near as engaging as it could have been. The score was far too cartoonish for my taste. The Script was choppy when it needed to be flowing and vice versa. The final battle/duel sequence was a serious let down and far too short for such a titanic struggle. As for historical accuracy, I really don't care about that kind of this when I'm watching a movie. History doesn't exist anymore, there's only mythology.