Crappy film

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

GENGHIS KHAN is a second Hollywood attempt to tell the story of the notorious Mongolian warlord after the notorious John Wayne-starring vehicle of the 1950s. I haven't seen the Wayne movie so I can't comment on it, but this film is likable enough in the 1960s epic mould. The main complaint is that it isn't and doesn't attempt to be historically accurate at all but then you don't really expect that anyway from a Hollywood movie.The narrative is similar to that of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and shows Khan as a young man, captured by a rival leader played by stock bad guy Stephen Boyd. After years of slavery he grows into the youthful and handsome Omar Sharif and escapes before building his own army. Scenes of actors like Robert Morley and James Mason in yellowface are quite laughable but the film is well-mounted and the action scenes don't disappoint, featuring dozens of horse riders battling over the plains. The supporting cast is inspired, to say the least, featuring the likes of Kenneth Cope and Michael Hordern as key Mongolian allies and none other than Eli Wallach playing an Arab. Woody Strode's tough presence is a plus. GENGHIS KHAN is a watchable piece of hokum, nothing more, but certainly not a particularly bad film except in relation to the historical accuracy.

This film about the great Tatar * conqueror Genghis Khan who stated as the ordinary boy called Temujin is the best film about Genghis Khan so far before the the debut of the Kazakh film Mongol in 2007. The reason for this is because its production and directing as a costume drama is good that makes it enjoyable though as a notable drama it fails to be an epic as the story line is wooden that spoils the overall film. The famous John Wayne disaster "The Conqueror" can compensate for this as the story line and its representation of the characters is much closer and darker to the rise of the real Genghis Khan although the advantage this film has over the central theme of The Conqueror is that it highlights Genghis Khans conquests of China and Central Asia. Despite the anecdotal and soap based story line the music, costumes, cultural representations and its filming locations in the beautiful former Yugoslavia which was a good choice makes this film a good costume drama on an interesting man. The only way this film could of been made as an historical epic in the era of the zenith of their productions is that the theme central to it should of been about the Khans rise as represented in the Conqueror - which should of disappeared in to the abyss before moving to his conquests and narration of his legacy which gave the film depth. * Many reviewers have said of the cast who play in this film as not being Asian enough. This is true for the Chinese who are clichéd and are not correctly represented. However the characters playing "Mongols" such as Omar Sharif and Francois Dorleac were for the time well cast and well played and they can be accepted in their roles by being presented as Turkic (Tartar) as the Mongols were known at their height.

As a kid I remember watching this movie when it first came out and I can still recall how impressed I was with it. For a long time it ranked as one of my most favorite movies ever. However, having recently viewed it again I must admit that my opinion has changed quite a bit since then. Now, don't get me wrong, it's still fairly entertaining even today. But, quite frankly, the obvious flaws and inaccuracies within the story simply cannot be dismissed or ignored. For starters, the history is all wrong. Although "Subodei" (played by Kenneth Cope) was indeed a fine general and a major figure in the Mongol conquests, he was not in any way, shape or form related to "Bortei" (Francoise Dorleac). Likewise, although "Jamuga" (Stephen Boyd) was definitely a rival of Genghis Khan (Omar Sharif) there was no "Mongol duel" between them which supposedly settled everything once and for all. But history aside I suppose it passes for good theater and I guess it's better to just leave it at that. Having said that, however, I must admit that although Francoise Dorleac was quite beautiful, her blond hair and blue eyes didn't quite fit in with the features normally associated with those of a Mongolian woman. Neither, for that matter, did James Mason (as "Kam Ling") as a Chinese wise man. In any case, although it may not be as great as I remember it it's still not too bad even by today's standards and as a result I have rated it accordingly. Average.

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.