JohnHowardReid Copyright 10 June 1966 by Julian Blaustein Productions. New York opening at the Warner Cinerama: 13 July 1966. U.S. release: 10 June 1966. U.K. general release: 13 August 1968. Australian release: 10 March 1967. Sydney opening at the Plaza in 70mm Cinerama. Also available in 70mm Ultra-Panavision and 35mm Panavision. Running times: 136 minutes (Australia), 130 minutes (U.K.), 128 minutes (U.S.A.).SYNOPSIS: After a British Colonel and his 10,000 untrained Egyptian troops are massacred by a fanatical Arab religious leader, the Mahdi, in the Sudan in 1883, General Charles Gordon, a national hero who has already spent six years in the country, is sent by Gladstone to evacuate the 13,000 troops in Khartoum and the civilians. But he is warned that his mission is unofficial so the government will not promise to back him up. Gordon is in fact in a hopeless situation.NOTES: Robert Ardrey was nominated for a 1966 Academy Award for Best Story and Screenplay (written directly for the screen), losing to "A Man and a Woman".Number 3 at U.K. road show box-offices for 1966.COMMENT: Great spectacle, great cast, fine historical research, meticulously directed and often (especially in its action scenes) excitingly presented. Technical credits are all A-1. Australians were fortunate that the Prologue sequence, directed by Eliot Elisofon, featuring the treasures of the Nile Valley, was retained for local release, whereas this fascinating sequence was cut from many British and American prints.Only one drawback in fact. But an important one: Olivier, who seems not only out of place, but way out of step with the rest of the cast.

edwagreen Female presence is sadly lacking in this 1966 drama.Unlike in "The Ten Commandments," Charlton Heston can't perform any miracles in this film, a poor-take off "Lawrence of Arabia."Laurence Olivier is completely unrecognizable in his strong portrayal of the radical Mahdi, who sees visions from the prophet Mohammad to conquer Egypt and subdue the people along with those of the Sudan.The battles are nicely shown. The meeting between Gordon and the Mahdi never historically took place. How Gordon (Heston) could say at such a meeting that the two men are alike was simply ridiculous. Politics does play a central role in the film with Prime Minister Gladstone unwilling to commit British forces into the battle, and ready to place the blame on the stubborn Gordon should his attempts fail.

funkyfry This is the epitome of the boring war action movie, with Charlton Heston starring as a resolute general who won't give up Khartoum to the evil Islamic hordes lead by Laurence Olivier in blackface. I'll cut to the meat: there's no suspense in this movie, since all the so-called "suspense" is built up around the question of whether or not Heston's character will remain in Khartoum until the bitter end. Since the character and the movie star would appear weak, we know that he will never leave. So there's absolutely no suspense, just endless battle scenes with the natives thrusting themselves upon the colonial spears almost with the poise and gusto of Busby Berkeley showgirls.Ralph Richardson is good as a heartless bureaucrat, the sort of role he eventually specialized in. Heston's British accent is impressive and his mannerisms are not too anachronistic. The early battle scene in the canyon was well staged.That's about all the good I have to say. This film was really nothing but a poor attempt to ride on the coat-tails of "Lawrence of Arabia." Heston's character has none of the compelling dimensions of O'Toole's Lawrence. The formula is the same.... they introduce him as some sort of loose cannon, but then when he shows up he's just.... Charlton Heston. Olivier should have said no. He's terrible in the film, and his character has even less going on than Heston's. The scene where he shows Heston the pickled body parts of his comrades is typical of the film's tastelessness and absurdity.

grantss Underwhelming. I am a big fan of military dramas, especially those based on historic events, so this movie should have been a lock in terms of liking it. However, it fails to deliver.The biggest setback is Charlton Heston's accent. He's an American putting on a posh English accent, and he sounds it. Just feels so...superficial. Whatever possessed the producers to go with an American in as a 19th century English general is beyond me. At the time, Heston was the go-to actor for heroic roles, so that might explain it.Laurence Oliver is slightly better, as the Mahdi. Hardly recognisable, his accent is someones quite hilarious, and sometimes quite offensive (I would think). Were there no middle-eastern actors available at the time?Plot also seems quite padded. Yes, the political intrigues had to be there to show why General Gordon was in the situation he was in, and did what he did. However, there seems to be a lot of pointless scenes in the movie, particularly in the first half.This said, there are some good battle scenes. Plus, the movie seems fairly true to history (which you can't say about all historical dramas), so is useful as a history lesson.