I really don't care about the historical inaccuracies in this film, but if you're going to be inaccurate, at least make the result involving. I cannot recall another movie with this much superb acting talent, and with the actors involved actually given lots of lines to speak, that came out so uninspiring and flatfooted. Since the actors pretty much do their jobs well, then it has to be laid down to the screenplay and the direction that this intended intelligent man's spectacle comes off so badly. I have never considered Richard Burton a great actor - not ever - but he had an absolutely wonderful voice that he used in place of great acting most of the time, and when he did truly get into a character, it was almost always one in which he could not use that voice all that much to make overwhelmingly resonant pronouncements to the world. In other words, he was at his best as downtrodden characters like the ones he played in THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD and WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFF? When given 'big' dialog, he tended to coast on his voice - even in something as intimate as HAMLET. So, we get a certain level of professionalism out of him in much of the rest, and it is so here - maybe a little less so at that. I don't find him, as some others have, looking too old for the role. To me, he looks like someone in his 20s who has a voice in its 40s, but otherwise he's not terrible. What he is not, and rarely was, is truly charismatic. Fredric March as his father here pretty much offers what Burton lacks, but for two big problems - 1) he dies off in the middle of the film, and 2) as the King of Macedonia with a totally American accent, he sounds completely out of place given that every other speaking role in the film is done by British actors with good old-fashioned British Shakespearean deliveries; where did this guy come from? Ah, but the screenplay is written for such actors and they do well by it (especially Peter Cushing, Barry Jones, Michael Hordern and Niall MacGinnis). The problem is that it is not a very cinematic screenplay they are acting, but one that leaves them talking at each other incessantly in what really seems like a Shakespeare stage play transferred to the movies; indeed, if you take the large scale battle scenes out, what you have is a perfect vehicle for a Shakespeare play, and it really is amazing that the Bard never thought to write one on Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, the dialog, while often highly literate, is NOT by Shakespeare, but by Rossen. Despite what appears to be Rossen's serious intention to give us an Ancient Family Drama Writ Large, it doesn't work out that way, and I found it impossible to care very much for anybody in the film. As for the remainder of the movie (like when they all shut up and just fight), the battle scenes are incredibly klutzy and unreal - guys more or less standing around kind of hitting at each other while two guys in front of the camera try harder - that kind of thing. This has nothing to do with special effects, as we got great battle scenes all the way back to the silent film era without the benefit of computer-generated trickery. If any single word describes this film, it is "leaden". But, hey, you can't find a conglomeration of actors like these in any film anymore, so on that basis alone, I'll give it a 6 (if they replaced them with dubbed-in Spaghetti Western types, it would rate a 2!).
Review of Alexander the Great
