..The movie itself didn't answer completely that question, as it was a try to read the *great* side in the title's character, however in such a very fabricated, executive at best, way.
Actually the whole thing looked initially like the era's cinematic epics, which were grounded on historical events, big production, huge sets, many stars, grandiose cinemascope, fascinating colors, bombastic music.. etc. however, it seemed eventually like a second-rate imitation of all of that; as another adventure movie from the 1960s with few nice elements, or more like a parody sometimes; especially with attitudes such as casting (Mason) and (Merley) as Chinese people; which, to tell you the truth, was pathetically comic!
Still, what provoked me more was that strange ending which tried hard to remake (Genghis Khan) as (Alexander The Great). It even dared to steal the last scene of Robert Rossen's Alexander the Great (1956)! But anyway, English playwright and a two-time Oscar-winning screenwriter (Robert Bolt) said once: "If you want history, go read a history book, and don't watch a movie" as movies mostly present art more than history. The problem here though is that it's the weak, nearly idiot, kind of art!
Genghis Khan (1965) aspired after making a romantic hero out of a savage butcher, and ended up as not accurate or impressive. If only they made it about imaginary story, with high artistic values, maybe it would have been A-movie with true entertainment instead of B-movie with fake history!
Actually the whole thing looked initially like the era's cinematic epics, which were grounded on historical events, big production, huge sets, many stars, grandiose cinemascope, fascinating colors, bombastic music.. etc. however, it seemed eventually like a second-rate imitation of all of that; as another adventure movie from the 1960s with few nice elements, or more like a parody sometimes; especially with attitudes such as casting (Mason) and (Merley) as Chinese people; which, to tell you the truth, was pathetically comic!
Still, what provoked me more was that strange ending which tried hard to remake (Genghis Khan) as (Alexander The Great). It even dared to steal the last scene of Robert Rossen's Alexander the Great (1956)! But anyway, English playwright and a two-time Oscar-winning screenwriter (Robert Bolt) said once: "If you want history, go read a history book, and don't watch a movie" as movies mostly present art more than history. The problem here though is that it's the weak, nearly idiot, kind of art!
Genghis Khan (1965) aspired after making a romantic hero out of a savage butcher, and ended up as not accurate or impressive. If only they made it about imaginary story, with high artistic values, maybe it would have been A-movie with true entertainment instead of B-movie with fake history!