Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Young Winston (1972)
7/10
Real life adventure
1 September 2003
This is a movie worth seeing not because it is a well made one but because Churchill's early life was full of adventures no less than Indiana Jones; and all real! Richard Attenborough has tried to cover them all. Starting from clash with Pathans followed by charge against Sudaneese fakirs and fight against Boers. However, flash back technique has been used. So the viewers are transported from adulthood to childhood and back. This rather diminishes the impact of various events on Churchill's life and gets confusing for the viewers unfamiliar with his life history beforehand. Attenborough's depiction of this remarkable life is often quite dull and any strength in this film is due to Churchill's own writings on which the script is based rather than any effort on the part of director and adaptor writer. The director has failed to elicit thrill and suspense from various scenarios when there were numerous opportunities. Story seems to end abruptly. It should have continued to a certain phase in his career e.g. till when he assumes his duties in admirality in twenties or perhaps when he assumes prime ministership. A touch of romance and some view of his married life would have given some diversification to this movie.

Music, cinematography, costumes and makeup are fine, as is the acting and these with Churchill's own writings save this movie from declining into a very monotonous presentation.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Conqueror (1956)
6/10
Not that bad folks
13 August 2003
I'd differ strongly from the adverse comments against this film. Coming from a country in neighbourhood of China, I have some knowledge of Oriental customs, so when I compare this movie to the Genghis Khan (Omar Sharif's) I am forced to call this movie outstanding. The script is restricted to the early life of Chengez till his rise to power begins. This is good as by focussing on a limited time span, there is only little mutilation of history. Decent coverage of his full life would have required three hours. Therefore, sensibly the most adventurous part has been covered, thereby avoiding boredom for the audience. Story line is fine and not loose. The movie remains thrilling throughout. Stunts are quite good and battle scenes credible. Although, unfortunately there is no notable oriental actor, yet make up is quite satisfactory as are the costumes. I wish some work had been done on the accent of the actors. John Wayne fits well in his role. He has a good military physique and a commanding presence. Susan Hayward, however, is too tall for an oriental women and lacked suitable makeup and costumes. Dialogues are short and focussed. The music is satisfactory. Shooting location is satisfactory, though some scenes should have been shot in snowy locations to remind people of bitter Mongolian winter. Perhaps some more focuss on Mongolian customs should also have attracted the attention of the public. Overall this is not at all a time waster but still shows that thorough research is needed for producing good historical movies especially when it comes to cultures unfamiliar to the West.
58 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Genghis Khan (1965)
3/10
pathetic historical
11 August 2003
Want to see an example of how to make a useless historical movie, then watch this. Bad casting, poor direction, weak acting and ignorance of history all combined here. Omar Sharif plays the great mongol with "arabic accent".Physically he is a weakling, totally unsuitable to represent a man whose life was full of severe hardships. He never manages to give an impression of greatness. Director seems to have forgotten that the film was about Mongolians. None of the characters except extras are of oriental origin, and except for Robert Morley (Chinese emperor)and James Mason (emperor's courtier and envoy), no other character has a makeup good enough to resemble that race. Incidentally only these two acters manage to impress with their acting. The story of the movie is typically that of a cowboy movie just in a different setting. It is not focussed and has got just a bit of this, that and every thing. Stunts and war scenes are ordinary. The writer neither studied the history nor had a decent knowledge of customs of asian races. The "Conqueror" starring John Wayne is a much better movie on Chengez Khan.
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed