User Reviews

'Khartoum' is a grossly under-rated film that deserves much more.It is an outstanding recreation of the late 19th century war in Sudan where British forces led by the enigmatic General Gordon fought against fanatical tribesmen under the leadership (spell?) of the self proclaimed 'Mahdi'(expected one).Charlton Heston plays Gordon with his usual efficiency but the scene stealer is undoubtedly Sir Laurence Olivier as the 'Mahdi'.His make-up,accent,wardrobe and sheer charisma truly make for heady viewing.The cinematography is excellent and the flavor of the times is captured beautifully.The action scenes are terrific and the score compliments the goings-on perfectly. I would personally rate it on par with the much respected and much loved 'Lawrence of Arabia',which was in much the same mould as this,though made 4 years earlier in 1962.

This large scale epic film is rightly based on historic deeds . Set in the Sudan , in 1884-85 , and deals with the Major General Gordon (Charlton Heston , but Burt Lancaster turned down the role) who participated in Crimea war (1854-56) and vanquished the Taeping's riots in China is assigned by Gladstone (Prime Minister and leader of Liberal party who along with Disraeli -Tory leader- forged the colonial empire) stifle Sudan's rebellious tribes ruled by the Mahdi (Laurence Olivier), nicknamed the ¨expected one¨ . The devout Christian Gordon had been governor of Khartoum for five years and he will have to dominate them but is besieged by the Arabs tribes in 1884 . The Anglo-Egyptian forces led by Major Gordon made a heroic defense during ten months against the invading Muslim army . The expedition of help commanded by Lord Wolsey and the famous Kitchener (who soon after he'd finish Anglo-Boer war and created the first concentration camp) would arrive late .

The picture has extraordinary interpretations from main actors . Charlton Heston as the thoughtful and impulsive General Charles George Gordon is top-notch and Laurence Olivier as the fanatic Muslim is awesome . Heston actually did bear a remarkable resemblance to Major General Gordon , but he was considerably taller than the real Gordon . While Laurence Olivier has an extreme make-up to incarnate the religious fanatic , Ahmed El Mahdi , ¨the Expected One¨ . The support cast is equally outstanding , thus : Ralph Richardson (as Gladstone), Nigel Green (Wolsey) , Peter Arne (Kitchener) , among others . The film was based on facts , though was really criticized for neglecting to mention the many very good reasons why Prime Minister Gladstone was reluctant to send an army into the Sudan . The colorful and shimmer cinematography by Edward Scaife is magnificent , being well reflected in desert landscapes ; it was shot in Ultra Panavision , though was later reduced for exhibition in 70mm and 35mm release prints . Production design is overwhelming , it is the best part of the film , including a giant screen originally exhibited in Cinerama venues . Battles staged by Yakima Canutt are spellbound and spectacular . Frank Cordell's musical score is rousing and impressively adjusted to historical film . The motion picture was perfectly directed by Basil Dearden , though Lewis Gilbert was attached as director at one point . The yarn will appeal to historic epic buffs and Charlton Heston fans . Rating : Very Good . Above average, well worth watching .

I just now saw this movie on television for the first time. Somehow I missed it in 1966. I have always been interested in "Chinese Gorden" and they seemed to do his character quite well, though somehow I thought he was a "Teatotaler"! What surprised me about the movie was the flat out way it was admitted that his government abandoned him, expected him to do the job with no support, only caring that "people in the street" didn't know what they had done. In 1966, we didn't yet know that governments did such naughty things. In those days we still believed that the government was still the "good guy". That people liked the movie in spite of that amazes me----5 or 10 years later it would have been a "given".

Charles George Gordon was one of those eccentric individualists like Lawrence of Arabia who spring up in British history. He was a deeply religious man who spent most of his hard-earned salary (he often accepted *less* pay than he was offered) on charitable work. He helped the poor, educating destitute boys and providing pensions for the elderly. The grafitto 'God Bless the Kernel (Colonel)' was often seen scrawled on walls near his home.

He was also distrusted by the Establishment. A brilliant tactician and commander of troops he was constantly passed over for postings abroad because he was unpredictable. When he was asked to report on the grievances of the Basuto people by the British administration in South Africa, he sided with the Basuto and was shipped home very quickly. As Captain Willard says in 'Apocalypse Now': "They didn't dig what he had to tell them." You have to remember, too, that Gordon was a national hero. This was like firing Norman Schwarzkopf after the Gulf War.

The film fails to touch the depths of Gordon's character and in some cases is well off the mark (Charlton Heston seems far too interested in that Egyptian dancer!). We are shown that Gordon could be ruthless in the pursuit of justice (he executes a servant for theft, regardless of any personal feelings).

The fact remains that Gordon was a man of enormous moral and physical courage. He would not desert Khartoum and leave the people to be slaughtered. It now seems likely (and more in character) that he died fighting to the end.

The film is a tribute to that courage and some of the best moments occur when we are allowed to see the twinges of self-doubt and anxiety that Gordon suffered and overcame. The well-staged action scenes are like decoration on the moral diemmas at the heart of the film. Charlton Heston is physically wrong for the part but gives one of his best performances. He isn't outclassed by Olivier in any way, an achievement in itself.

Khartoum tells the story of British general Sir Charles Gordon (Charlton Heston) who accepted the assignment of liberating English citizens and Egyptians from the Sudan city of Khartoum, which was being invaded by The Mahdi (Laurence Olivier) and his Arab forces.

Directed by Basil Dearden and written by Robert Ardrey, Khartoum is an effective historical story piece that has wisely spent its budget to make it looks fabulous. Shot in Ultra Panavision and Technicolor on location in Egypt, it goes without saying that the film needs to be witnessed on the biggest screen available to you. As is normally the way in this type of film, historical accuracies come under scrutiny, to which Khartoum, except for a couple of major character meetings that never happened, is happy to hopefully entertain while it educates. But it's talky, very talky. Which while that works for those who like a touch of political intrigue in their historical epic diet, those more inclined to gorge on action over substance movies are sure to still be hungry come the end. What action there is is excellently choreographed by stunt coordinator Yakima Canutt, and as productions go, Khartoum is lavish and acted with no little skill by a fine cast (Ralph Richardson, Michael Horden & Nigel Green complementing Messrs Heston & Olivier).

But Khartoum is something of an enigma in that it has a lot going for it yet it remains a genre piece that's hard to recommend with confidence. In fact it's very much like another of Heston's historical epic pictures, 55 Days at Peking, in that it has many fans yet is rarely spoke about in genre circles. Of course there's now issues in this day and age as regards races and how they are portrayed, so for the politically correct amongst us, it's probably best to avoid this "touchily topical" period in Heston's career. And while Ardrey's screenplay was nominated for an Academy Award, one can't help yearning for some more depth given to the lead players, Gordon & The Mahdi, as opposed to expansive conversations involving political machinations back in Blighty. However, its literary value is still very high, which when coupled with the magnificent visual touches (Edward Scaife on cinematography duties) make it a genre piece of note; to the discerning observer that is.

A mixed bag for sure, but it doesn't waste the money afforded it, while it's certainly far better than some of the silly and shallow epics that came our way post 1970. So a cautionary 7/10.

Heston essays one of his best roles as Charles "Chinese" Gordon, the patriot who thrives on challenge... Gordon becomes a national hero for his exploits in China and his ill-fated defense of Khartoum...

Gordon is a Christian with the Bible constantly under his arm... A national hero who abolished slavery in China... An honest man revered by the British, as well as by the foreigners... A martyr-warrior who ever truly loves the Sudan and cannot, under 'his' God, leave it to the misery and the sickness of which he once cured it...

Gladstone ((Ralph Richardson) decides not to send troops to the trouble area... Instead he will send General Gordon... Gladstone realizes if Gordon is sent to Khartoum and fails to prevent a massacre, it is he who will be blamed; not the Briish government... For heroes are supposed to perform miracles...

En route to Khartoum, Gordon discovers that most of Britain's allies and friends of his former exploits now support the mystic Mahdi... But when Gordon with Col. Stewart (Richard Johnson) finally reach Khartoum, the people give him a warm welcome... They feel their problems must soon be over now that Gordon Pasha has arrived...

Things, however, do not go as planned... Khartoum runs out of food... The Mahdi's men infiltrate the city... And Gordon seek a plan...

Lawrence Olivier is superb as the fanatical Arab leader, Muhammed Ahmed Al Mahdi, the Expected-One... His softly glowing black eyes never blink... His measured voice spreads holy terrors: "I have been instructed by the Lord Mohammed, Peace be upon Him, to worship in the Khartoum mosque. Therefore I must take Khartoum by the sword."

With outstanding color photography, exquisite sets and costumes, "Khartoum" has great moments:

• The bloody and brutal massacre of an entire army in a burning desert...

• The Gordon/Mahdi meeting... The only non-historic element of the film which, in fact, never took place - contributes enormously to the dramatic effect of the motion picture.

• The raid on the Mahdi's own supplies...

• The exodus of all foreigners and Europeans out of the city...

With an Oscar-Nominated script mounted on a grand scale, "Khartoum" is an epic entertainment, a fine and powerful motion picture...

The exploits, the single-handed capacity Gordon Pasha displayed again and again to control large groups of people quite unarmed and alone, is almost magical; quite scary, in fact...

American screen icon Charlton Heston heads an otherwise all British cast in this recreation of the battle of Khartoum in early 1885.

Heston plays General Charles Gordon known to the British public as Chinese Gordon for his years of service in the Orient before arriving in the Middle East. Gordon never married, devoted his entire life to two things, Christianity and the military. He was an idealist and he saw the expansion of British power in Africa as a leavening civilizing influence among the heathen.

Unfortunately Heston was faced with an opponent who was as fanatically religious in his own way as Heston was. Laurence Olivier used the same makeup and accent from Othello to play Muhammed Ahmed, the self styled Mahdi who gathered an army and was busy conquering the Sudan and laying waste to those who didn't think of him as an Islamic Messiah.

The Prime minister of the UK at the time was William Gladstone who did not want any British commitment any more than was necessary to defend the new Suez Canal which his predecessor Benjamin Disraeli had acquired after the French company that built it went belly up. Gordon was ordered to go to Khartoum and get the Egyptians and Europeans out of there.

But Gordon had other ideas, seeing himself as the either the victor in an apocalyptic clash with Islam or a martyr to his faith. Either way that man had a spectacular finish for his career planned. He stays and organizes a defense of Khartoum and wages a media campaign to get the British public on his side.

I hope all this sounds familiar because it should. Some valuable lessons could be learned by today's political strategists of several nations.

Charlton Heston does a very good job in portraying Gordon on all levels of his personality. His Gordon is idealistic and shrewd and also sometimes a bit of a fathead as well. There's a scene where Gordon goes with Sir Evelyn Baring the British viceroy in Egypt played by Alexander Knox to visit a former big shot in the Sudan played by Pakistani actor Zia Moyheddin. Mind you Gordon a few years back had executed Moyheddin's son for slave trading. Now he thinks he can cut a deal with him. This was his first option in bringing order back to the Sudan. Moyheddin tells him to take his offer and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

In watching that I was thinking of George Bush summoning Saddam Hussein to the White House saying all was forgiven, could he please go back and help get a handle on Iraq.

Ralph Richardson is Gladstone and he's pretty much as I have conceived Gladstone. Michael Hordern as Foreign Secretary Lord Granville and Nigel Green as General Garnet Wolesley are also true to historical type.

Richard Johnson played Gordon's aide Colonel John Stewart and Charlton Heston says that this was the start of a long friendship with Johnson. He and Heston did many joint projects on film and on stage after Khartoum.

The movie is magnificently filmed, should be seen in theaters really or in letterbox for television. The Mahdi and Gordon never met, just like Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor never met, but it had to be for dramatic effect.

No one knows exactly what happened in Khartoum, but it could have happened as the film portrays it. See it for yourself and judge if you think it could be accurate.

The siege of Khartoum and its loss under General Charles "Chinese" Gordon is one of those epic tales the Victorians loved. Gordon was such a flamboyant character that even Hollywood could not match him. "Khartoum" gives us the Victorian Epic while at the same time the seedier backroom Victorian politics that essentially sent Gordon to his death along with the citizens of Khartoum. Charleton Heston is quite good as Gordon ably giving us the many enigmatic facets of the real man's character. But even that falls short as I think Gordon is too complex a character for any actor. Olivier in black face as the Mahdi may offend the political correctness crowd but his performance is excellent, fair and avoids lapsing into carricature. The physical production is quite impressive with 2nd unit director Yakima Canut staging some very impressive battle scenes. If you want a sequel to this film than I would recommend the original 1930's version of "The Four Feathers" (which stared a very young John Gielgud) which takes place some 10 years after the events of "Khartoum" and centers on the retaking of the Sudan. Interesting to have a "sequel" come 30 years before. There is a TV remake of "The Four Feathers". Avoid it like the plague!

SPOILERS.

I first saw this some years ago and found it impressive but maybe I've seen Lawrence of Arabia too often in the interim. It owes a lot of Lawrence, appearing as it did four years after. As in Lawrence,a lone British officer is sent to the desert to set things straight. He's mysterious, a paradox. He rides camels and gets into battles with the enemy. He fails in his mission.

Well, Charlton Heston as "Chinese" Gordon doesn't really seem too mysterious when you come down to it, even though he himself tells us, "My life is not an open book. Not to you, not to any man. Not even to myself." Yet he's a pretty normal guy. People keep calling him "vain" behind his back but it doesn't seem like vanity to me when you're trapped behind the lines and expect the British, who sent you there in the first place, to come and get you out.

Actually Heston is pretty good. His mass is imposing. His uniforms are splendiferous. His acting doesn't shoot out the lights but he's convincing because Gordon is well within his range. Olivier, as the Mahdi, "the expected one," the kind of rabid charismatic warrior that religions seem to generate on a regular basis, gives a little better performance because, let's face it, he's a more efficient ham. You killed to prevent killing, he tells Gorden. "I kill to prevent more killing. Tell me, Gordon Pasha, where is the difference?" And he holds both his hands up and gives them a little twist, while looking slyly out of the corner of his eyes at Heston. For Heston such techniques would be infra dig. Olivier plays this in blackface, by the way. All of the Egyptians, as well as the Sudanese, are in blackface. Man, these Egyptians are dark. Not just swarthy. Not even dark like sub-Saharan Africa is dark, but a shiny bluish-black like a freshly polished boot.

It's not a bad film and it does describe Gordon and his predicament in intelligible terms. We're never at a loss for what's going on. But Lawrence of Arabia, inevitably, keeps springing to mind. And Khartoum seems plodding by comparison, especially in the direction. You may remember, to take a single example, the scene in which Lawrence and his irregulars blow up a train and then puncture the cars with machine gun bullets. Lawrence shouts for them to cease fire because the passenger cars are being turned into lacework. Nobody hears him, so he fires a flare. No one pays attention, so Lawrence must run out in front of his own guns screaming at his men to stop shooting. Finally the firing sputters raggedly to a stop.

There's nothing like that here. In this movie, Gordon generals a battle on horseback with the Madhi's supporters and everybody -- every one of the extras -- runs to his mark and does what he's supposed to. The battles are full of the same extras in long shot, slashing away at each other with scimitars or whatever they are. Nobody seems to get dirty. The dialogue is strictly functional. And one has to think of Lean's USE of the desert setting. That fulsomely ominous vermilion sun peeking up over the flat spirit level of a horizon at dawn. We have the desert here too, but it might almost have been a painted backdrop. It isn't a presence. Dearden uses a lot of swooping helicopter shots as if to say, "Wow -- what a vast emptiness." But we don't get to KNOW it. We don't get to see its rocks or its animals or is leisurely dust devils. It might as well be a studio jungle as a desert.

The score is good, though. It borrows from Eric Wolfgang Korngold but it's effective -- sweeping, majestic, and rife with breast-bursting button-popping imperial sentiment.

In the end it's a watchable epic movie. If you haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, rent the two of them and show them in succession -- if you can stay awake that long. It's the difference between a good-enough movie and a great movie.

It has been argued that films dealing with historical subject matter always make for bad history. The pedants complain that the historical element has been simplified, or worse changed and therefore because it is bad history it is a bad film. But is it? By that standard Shakespeare's historical plays are bad plays. No one has ever argued that these kind of films can ever take the place of a well-researched book. That is not the point. Both mediums are subject to their form. Books can provide a wealth of information and detail that can and should demonstrate the complexity of history. Film on the other hand is essentially a visual medium, and subject to the demands of dramatic form and structure. The question should rather be, is it a good film even with the simplification of history? The Chorus from Shakespeare's "Henry V" actually provided the best justification for these historical epics; "Can this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France? Or may we cram into this wooden O the very casques that did affright the air at Agincourt? O, pardon! Since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million; and let us ciphers to this great accompt, on your imaginary forces work, turning the accomplishment of many years into an hour glass..." The best historical films, of which "Khartoum" is one, do just that, they fire the imagination, however condensed and simplified the history, and hopefully inspire the viewer to delve deeper into the subject by purchasing a good book on the matter.

Robert Ardrey's screenplay is wonderfully literate and "Khartoum" is a pleasure to listen to as well as watch. The disaster that befell Col. William Hicks in 1884 and would set in motion the chain of events that would culminate in the confrontation between Mohammad Ahmed, called The Mahdi, (Laurence Olivier) and British General Charles George Gordon, called "Chinese Gordon", (Charlton Heston) are quickly detailed in a brief prologue featuring an uncredited voice-over by Leo Genn, and the first of several stunning battles staged by the great Yakima Canutt. Ardrey maintains the essential aura of mystery that surrounded these two fascinating enigmatic individuals. Gordon was nothing if not a very complex man. A solitary non-conformist who craved and despised public adulation, a devout Christian that never allied himself to any church, a reluctant empire builder more often sympathetic to those he had to oppose. Suggesting complexity of character, however was not one of Charlton Heston's strong points and he cannot begin to suggest Gordon's contradictory traits. He is too solid, too commanding, too physically heroic. But he does bring those qualities to the character, and he is an impressive physical presence, unlikely to get lost in the epic production of the film. One only needs to see Colin Ferrell flounder as Alexander the Great in Oliver Stone's "Alexander" to appreciate how important a charismatic presence in an epic film can be.

On the other hand, Laurence Olivier as The Mahdi is marvelously equipped as an actor to suggest the subtleties and nuance of his character. With far less screen time he makes every gesture, every vocal intonation, every flicker of the eye suggest layers of depth. He is holy man and realist, opportunist and idealist. His scenes with Heston are among the best in the film. Heston, a more natural film actor, wisely leaves the pyrotechnics to Olivier, and skillfully underplays, so when his big emotional moment finally arrives, it is all the more effective. The pedants will argue The Mahdi and Gordon never met face to face. That is true, but as one of Mohammad Ahmed's relatives told Producer Julian Baustein, "Ah, but they should have!" The two however did correspond at length. The same can be said of Heston's big scene with Ralph Richardson as Prime Minister William Gladstone, they never met face to face either. Both are examples of history being altered to suit the needs of drama and rightfully so for both provide for some high powered acting and make for a better film. Richardson brings to his part all the shrewd, ruthless, deviousness of a savvy political animal determined to survive. Richard Johnson as Col. J.D.H. Stewart, Gordon's reluctant adjutant and later admirer gives a stiff upper lip performance in the best tradition of John Mills, while Michael Hordern as Lord Granville, Nigel Green as General Wolseley and Alexander Knox as Sir Evelyn Baring all give very effective supporting performances.

Too often compared to its detriment with David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" of a few years earlier, in much the same way "Barry Lyndon" was compared unfavorably with "Tom Jones", Director Basil Dearden, (The League of Gentlemen) wisely resists following Lean's lush romantic style and instead opts for a more subdued realistic approach, clean, simple and direct. This approach is reinforced by Frank Cordell's score which is very reminiscent of the music of Edward Elgar and appropriately so. In fact Elgar himself at one point planned to write a symphony on Gordon. In the light of recent world events, this classic confrontation between Western Imperialism and Eastern Islamic fundamentalism makes "Khartoum" more topical than ever.

If you watch this film with modest expectations, you will probably like it fairly well. It's not "Lawrence of Arabia," not even in the same ballpark; I mention this because I think "Khartoum" got made because of the success of "Lawrence" a couple of years earlier. (Both films depict obsessed and quite weird Brits in the desert.)

"Khartoum" is much too flat and talky, but it definitely has its moments. Olivier's performance as the Mahdi is stunning, unforgettable, filmdom's greatest depiction ever of a radical Islamic fundamentalist who's convinced he can rule the world. The performance is actually far more relevant today than in 1966, when it probably struck many viewers as quaint, an artifact of a bygone era. I don't know if Larry got an Oscar nomination for his work here; if not, shame on the Academy.

The battle sequence at the end is good but it's over far too quickly - the whole darn movie points toward it, and then boom, it's done in maybe 10 minutes - it could have been stretched out to twice as long. (I suppose the filmmakers were more interested in historical accuracy than in dramatic zest; this is often a mistake in films.) The spoken words at the very end are spine-chillingly inspiring if you've got a romantic bent; if you're a hard-headed political realist, they probably will strike you as cheesy. I consider myself a romantic realist so I sort of liked them.

If you get interested in Gordon (the Charlton Heston character), Lytton Strachey wrote a classic profile of him in "Eminent Victorians" that you might enjoy reading.

One more word about Olivier's performance. It strikes some people as hammy and over-the- top. In fact, the Mahdi himself was hammy and over-the-top in the manner of people who (a) believe they are anointed by God and (b) wish to lead superstitious and susceptible warriors into battle and need to generate a certain awe. The Mahdi was an actor as much as anything. Olivier perfectly captures this quality.

"Khartoum" is a very obvious case in bizarre casting. Sir Laurence Olivier plays the Mahdi (a Sudanese man) and Charlton Heston plays a Brit! Seeing Olivier in his heavy makeup made his face look like rubber and Heston's British accent sounded a bit odd to me. I assume real Brits would find his accent silly. And, why cast a 6'3" American to portray a 5'5" British man in the first place?!

The story is about an uprising in Sudan in the 1880s. It seemed that a man called 'The Madhi' was seen as a holy man--a man who would help his people conquer and instill a government based on Sharia law. When an army of Egyptians went up against him, it was wiped out completely. So, General Gordon agrees to go to Sudan to lead a Sudanese army without much chance of success. As for the British government under Gladstone, it was hesitant to act--after all, he felt this was an internal affair and should be handled by the Africans. To see what happens in this historical film based on real characters, you can either watch this decent film or read up on it in Wikipedia! Overall, a beautifully made film with great music and locales--but the story itself is curiously unmoving and the two leads are not even close to being at their best. Perhaps this might not be true for folks in the UK--as soon after Gordon, the British government finally decided to intervene in the affair.

In late 19th century, 10,000 Egyptian troops led by British general Hicks is massacred by the Madhi (Laurence Olivier) of Sudan who lured them into a desert ambush. London is unwilling to send British troops. They decide to send Chinese Gordon (Charlton Heston) who is reported to have won many victories leading the Chinese army over the Taiping rebels with nothing but a cane. Gordon meets the Madhi and discovers a religious zealot looking for a massacre in Khartoum as a launching point for his campaign to take over the Muslim world.

This is definitely a movie of its age. Although the Madhi is reminiscent of many modern religious extremists, the historical figure may not be as extreme. Olivier cannot escape the brown face complaint but that's the way of the day. At least, his classical training gives the character the needed power of personality. On the other hand, Heston is Heston and his righteousness is suffocating. His acting is so broad that it lacks the humanity to make the story compelling. This should be a battle of will between the two men but it is no more than a white savior movie. Colonialism is given a clean wash. Gordon is the man who is supposed to be beloved by the locals for destroying slavery in the region. All of the questionable history can be ignored for the era of the movie but it can't escape the lack of tension as the story is told in a flat unsophisticated way. The movie does not skim on manpower or locations. There is plenty of action but not the modern thrills. The finale is a bit anti-climatic. This has not aged well and it's not that good even without considering its historical issues.

Not the biggest or best of the 60's epics, and largely forgotten today despite the presence of two powerhouse actors as its hero and antagonist, this morally complex movie futzes with history a little in order to paint the Mahdist rebellion as a genocidal bloodlust intending to conquer as far as Europe. While it's impossible to read the Mahdi's mind almost a century and a half after his death, I feel that Olivier's performance of him veers somewhat into the cartoonish. However it is fun to watch. Heston fares less well as Chinese Gordon, who would have been better performed by co-star Nigel Green or another British actor of similar caliber. Even someone like Nigel Davenport would have done well with it too, though he certainly lacked the star power at the tome to carry an epic film. Same goes for the other Nigel. What's with all these Nigels?

At least Heston attempts the accent for about 60% of the film, though it can be somewhat explained away that he spent a lot of time outside of England. The rest of the cast is all-round excellent, with Richard Johnson in his dashing youth bringing charm as his conflicted lieutenant sent on a few too many away missions.

This film gets note of all the big historical epics as having one of the biggest downer endings. Anyone who knows their history won't be surprised, though you never know if a film like this will find a way to spin it into something positive. The narrator makes a few bold political statements and the film takes a clear side in the necessity of British expeditionary militaristic intervention which may make modern audiences on both sides of the aisle squirm. On one hand, the British are Christian "white saviors" who show up and impose their values, but those values here include saving the lives of several Egyptian Muslims, many of whom (as well as the Sudanese) appear to welcome their presence. On the other hand, they aren't committed enough or fast enough, leading to several potential massacres and misery the country. Makes you think, don't it? Perhaps history isn't something easy to paint with a giant broad brush?

As for the film, technically it delivers a few great action sequences such as the riverboat breakthrough and the climactic siege. There's also some excellent dramatic moments like Heston's staring down at his attacker and (surprisingly enough) the more talky diplomatic scenes. Unfortunately this film is just a tad too talky and slow where it could have used a little more emotional punch. An easy opportunity would have been to expand the character of the little girl Heston has a couple run-ins with and show her or her family get savagely butchered by the enemy in order to communicate why he needs to stay and protect the people despite the great risks. As is, his character comes off as foolish and aloof, which I doubt the real Gordon would appreciate.

Fits in well with the slightly later, slightly better film YOUNG WINSTON as well as the several versions of THE FOUR FEATHERS which cover similar historical territory.

I first saw this movie on a flight to Hawaii in 1966 and have watched it many times since, showing it to friends and family who were unaware of it - all of whom enjoyed it immensely. Although slightly dated by today's (2009) standards, don't let that dissuade you from seeing this film, it holds up to the test of time like very few movies do and surpasses most, at that.

So, what's it all about? Khartoum depicts the last chapter in the remarkable life of Gen. Charles "Chinese" Gordon; another one of those larger-than-life-personages seemingly produced uniquely by Victorian England; such as Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) or T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). To that last personage is the best probable comparison, as they were both considered the best commanders of "irregular" forces of their respective times and like Lawrence of Arabia, this movie barely scrapes the surface of the man's life (but it would take a 6 hour movie in either case to do them justice).

Set in 1884, in what was the Sudanese portion of then Egypt, this is an epic historical movie that succeeds on every level. The conflict centers around an uprising to Egyptian rule, led by the Mahdi and the subsequent attempt to evacuate foreigners from the besieged Sudan's main city, Khartoum, by Gordon. It is epic in scope and production, detailed, believable and almost completely accurate. Political intrigue, minor and major battles, beautiful scenery, top notch acting, this movie has it all. I would place it smack dab between Lawrence of Arabia and Zulu (and much closer to Lawrence because of it's epic nature).

This is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time (and I was at the opening of Ben Hur at the Coronet Theater in San Francisco, which was a lot of movies ago ;-) and watching this film has led me to read several books on this event, including Gordon's own diary written at the time.

Unfortunately, they don't make too many like this anymore.

Watchable historical drama featuring a top-name cast, good production values, and impressive scenery. But I think Khartoum misses the mark a few too many times to really shine.

Most of the problems are relatively small, but they add up. Charlton Heston seems a bit overmatched by his role, and his on-again/off-again British accent is never convincing. Laurence Olivier, top-billed despite having much less screen time, turns in a mesmerizing performance as the Mahdi, but you have to overlook his heavy "blackface" makeup, which drew criticism even in 1966. The battle scenes are unimaginatively staged; despite hordes of extras and sweeping desert vistas, the action generates little excitement. The desert settngs are not particularly well used, and the location filming is compromised by intercutting with obvious studio sets and traveling matte shots (to superimpose the lead actors onto the background).

The movie wants to be an epic and even offers an overture, an intermission, and exit music. All this seems excessive for a film with a running time just a hair over two hours. Clearly they wanted it to be another Lawrence of Arabia, but General Gordon is not the conflicted, complex figure that Lawrence is, and Heston is not Peter O'Toole, and Khartoum's director, whose name I forget, is not David Lean.

Not a bad movie, even good in spots - the (entirely unhistorical) meetings between Gordon and the Mahdi are highlights - but ultimately nothing special, and much less than it could have been.

As a writer and actor, I found "Khartoum" to be a fascinating project. And even if the producers never solved all of the fictionalized biography's inherent questions and problems entirely, the resulting cinematic feature came out I suggest as intelligent, literate, thoughtful, a film very much worth seeing more than once. The chief question about George Gordon, a pseudo-religious colonial general, administrator and enigmatic character is whether he really championed the subjects of Britain's evil Empire or whether he just wanted them quietly subjected; there is much evidence on both sides of the question. In the film, for filmic purposes, we assume he is genuine; that he is in fact jeopardizing his own life at low odds doing something most political experts consider impossible because he cares about the Sudanese and their (we assume) more-hopeful future under British rule than under that of a pseudo-religious murderous and highly-intelligent zealot. Nothing, I suggest, could be more timely for men to consider not long after the 9/11 attacks staged by the Mahdi's equally-repulsive spiritual brethren than the real attitude of the imperialist power of the last century targeted by a rival imperialist have-not Musilim fanatic. If we assume, as the screenplay's author Robert Ardrey would have us believe, that the core truth about Gordon was that he cared about responsibility more than about playing Establishment politics, playing leader or staying alive, then the man is definitely worth making a film about, and worthy his place in history. After an interesting but leisurely exposition of the region and the background to the Nile, the Sudan and its peoples, replete with lovely scenes, and a narration read by the great actor Leo Genn, we witness the destruction of an ill-officered British army by the forces of The Expected One, a dangerous new religious rebel. Back in England, Horace Gladstone, Prime Minister and Machiavellian politician, is appalled. There seems to be no solution to his problem of what to do next, until someone suggests getting General "Chinese" Gordon to risk his life opposing the new fanatic. They believe he would have to be crazy to do so; they tell him so. He agrees to go. So with no plan and what he discovers is a pat hand dealt by Fate against him, he heads to Egypt. He tries to get the slaver whose son he killed and whose power he reduced to be governor of the Sudan; the man refuses, angrily. He finds the Mahdi making headway, but he is received by the British in Khartoum and the populace as a savior. "It's good to be home," he tells them. But in truth, he is in a hornet's nest. Eventually, he has to pack all the foreigners out, and then he must fortify the city on the Nile; wait out the flood season while its heights keeps the invaders away, and eventually also he must conduct a great raid 1. to deprive the Mahdi of supplies; and 2. to provision the city. Then there is a wait--as a relief army by a reluctant Gladstone is trained, and straggles up the Nile to relieve him--three days too late. The film is beautifully-made. My only complaint is that we hardly see Khartoum at all after the initial welcoming scene. Every other scene in the film is to me like seeing history brought to life. The two great invented scenes--a meeting between Gordon and Gladstone and a meeting between the Mahdi and Gordon are the best dramatic scenes in the film in my judgment; if they did not happen, they certainly should have. Basil Dearden's direction to me is admirable in every respect; atmosphere goes past style in difficult and reward-level; this film is frequently atmospheric. The art direction by John Howell and the cinematography by veteran Edward Scaife are both outstanding. Yakima Canutt of Ben-Hur chariot -race fame directed the elaborate battle scenes. Pamela Cornell was the chief set dresser. In the cast are Charlton Heston trying very hard and frequently succeeding as Gordon, even though he cannot quite do a British accent. As the Mahdi, Olivier is award level, making spare but telling use of his wide arsenal as an actor; he used his Moorish success as "Othello" to flesh out a most memorable monster. In the cast, Richard Johnson is very good, Ralph Richardson, Nigel Green, Michael Hordern and Alexander Knox are outstanding. My favorite scene is the great meeting between Gordon and the Mahdi; but there are others--the great roundup, the arrival, Gordon and his servant (Johnny Sekka) in several maddening attempts to gain information, the great reception and the Prime Minister's meeting, the annihilation of William Hicks's army, etc. I find this is a very underrated film, made by adults perhaps too late to find an audience capable of appreciating its full values.

What makes KHARTOUM so relevant to today's world, is the characterization of The Mahdi (LAURENCE OLIVIER) as a religious zealot, a Muslim fanatic who wants to wage a Holy War against the infidels and keeps proclaiming himself with the words: "I am the Expected One." Although this depiction of a true story is based on events that happened in the 1880s in the Sudan, it's timelier than ever when one connects the dots to Osama Bin Laden. And who doesn't? It's another story in the grand tradition of all those Hollywood epics that dealt with the British Empire and its expansion of colonies with British soldiers engaged in desert warfare against fanatic enemies. CHARLTON HESTON sometimes lets his British accent slip, but gives a persuasive performance in the kind of role he was born to play, even if his motivations are never completely clear. As to why he even assumes such an impossible mission, one can only wonder when the odds were so stacked against him in what seemed like a hopeless assignment. However, he's always in full command of his role.

So is LAURENCE OLIVIER in dark-skinned make-up and using a convincing accent that makes his character seem true to life, seeing himself as the chosen one to lead his tribe against British rule. The confrontations between him and Heston are well staged and both actors appear at their best in these highly literate scenes that reveal the depth of their beliefs.

Frank Cordell's score is fascinating and Yakima Canutt's staging of the battle scenes adds a great deal to the authenticity of the desert battles. RALPH RICHARDSON is fine as Prime Minister William Gladstone, anxious to save the reputation of his country after a humiliating defeat, and RICHARD JOHNSON is excellent as Col. Stewart, the man assigned to accompany Heston to the Sudan.

The screenplay is an intelligent examination of the events and deservedly won an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay written directly for the screen. Tighter editing might have improved the lengthy film that runs two hours and fourteen minutes.

Khartoum is an account of the 1885 massacre of British General Charles (Chinese) Gordon (played by Charlton Heston) and British Egyptian troops in Khartoum in the Sudan by the hard-line Muslim forces of The Mahdi (The Chosen One), played by Sir Laurence Olivier--good make-up job.

This is an even-handed job (meaning, of course, all the favorable sides of things might have been assumed to be with Gordon, but they are not)--the views of both sides of the struggle are sympathetically represented, and Gordon's vanity is not spared. Nevertheless, he clearly has heroic stature, embellished by dramatic flourishes and some historical bending. Indeed, there is substantial historical detail in the tradition of epic films, much of it basically true, but certain parts are pure fantasy. In a film like this, neither is a problem for me--after all, isn't the point of this event its sheer drama, a white man mystic hero being massacred in a lonely outpost and achieving martyrdom? And I am one who is all for the historical stuff, and a checker of detail. The cadences of the screenplay and the swirling climax are entirely appropriate and make for great entertainment. Although Gordon's conduct in handling the situation was less unobjectionable than presented here (and not to say that there were no criticisms brought to the forefront in the film), it is likely his passion for the Sudan and the Sudanese and his desire for martyrdom are not much exaggerated. One of my favorites.

This is unlikely to be on anyone's list of films that must be seen before one dies and there are certainly directors who would have made a better job of it than Basil Dearden but it remains nonetheless a commendable attempt to depict what must surely be considered a blot(one of many!) on British colonial history.

There are historical inaccuracies too numerous to mention, as critics have been quick to point out, but what do they expect? It is after all, a movie!

It does however boast a literate script by anthropologist Robert Ardrey and a score by Frank Cordell with a suitably Elgarian main theme whilst the action scenes are extremely well-handled .

The two major protagonists General Charles Gordon and Muhammed el Mahdi are played by Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. Their casting raised a few eyebrows and a blacked-up Olivier as the Mahdi is even more controversial now in this era of political correctness and 'inclusiveness'.

None of us has the least idea of what the Mahdi was like so he is open to interpretation. Olivier's portrayal is not simply that of a religious fanatic but one of slyness, cunning and pragmatism. This clever actor also utilises the bass notes he had acquired for the role of Othello.

Heston is a marvellous presence and conveys well Gordon's 'mysticism', his English accent is pretty good and he more than holds his own in his scenes with Olivier and the splendid Ralph Richardson as Gladstone. Richard Johnson is suitably stiff-backed as Colonel Stewart and there is an immensely strong supporting cast. King of the 'dubbers', Robert Rietty, makes his customary contribution. I confess to being intrigued as to why Peter Arne plays both the Khedive and Kitchener. Couldn't they afford another actor or couldn't they be bothered? Perhaps they assumed that nobody would notice.

Martin Scorcese freely admits that despite its weaknesses, this film remains one of his 'guilty pleasures'. He is not alone in that I'm sure.

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.