Simply A Masterpiece

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

In the decade following the release of BECKET, audiences were treated to a parade of big- budget, star-laden historical epics based on British history. ALFRED THE GREAT obviously aspired to join the ranks of BECKET, LION IN WINTER, and MAN FOR ALL SEASONS; instead, it barely reaches the second rank of lesser films such as CROMWELL and MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.Despite a host of prominent actors, some beautiful scenery, and big battle scenes, this film never seems to coalesce into an inspiring work of art. I think the fault lies with the meandering script and uninspired direction. My first hint that the director wasn't capable of pulling off a big epic was in the first battle scene where the Saxons pursue the Danes. When Alfred's men stop after the battle, they look like someone just shouted, "OK everyone, pant like you've been running." I have seldom seen such wooden, phony extras. The battle scenes look like each set-up was posed just before the camera started rolling. Alfred at one point receives a slash on the arm that results in a huge jet of blood, but when the battle is over, he washes it off as though it were a mosquito bite. Alfred himself is not a very compelling character. He does come off better here than in Bernard Cornwell's series of novels about him, but he's not as inspiring as Henry II, V or VIII. David Hemmings is a fine actor, and he has a perfect face for a Medieval king, but he doesn't seem to have what it takes to lead the Saxons against their invaders.Because this was the late 60s, we are treated to more realistic blood-letting than the epics of the 40s, and there are obligatory sex scenes (nothing graphic, but so very 60s). The one fun moment in the battle scenes is when the Saxons, forming a 'Spartan phalanx', execute some moves worthy of an American college marching band.The fine score by noted conductor Raymond Leppard is marred by tinny recording and bad mixing. Kudos to the creator of the closing credits, nicely done in Medieval illumination style. And Peter Blythe, best known to me as Soapy Sam on the RUMPOLE TV series, breaks that wishy-washy mold completely in his role as a wild-haired, screaming barbarian.Perhaps my ho-hum response is partially due to the fuzzy print which appeared on American cable this past week. But even with crisper visual outlines, the story and execution of ALFRED THE GREAT would still be too fuzzy for a good rating.

I've been looking forward to seeing this movie for over a decade. Was it worth the wait?.....No.It's possible to make a great historical drama that combines plausible human interaction, Christian vs. Pagan triumphalism and rousing battle scenes. Franklin Schaffner's "The War Lord" with Charlton Heston works on all the prescribed levels, and has an unexpected emotional delicacy as well. It takes place only two hundred years after "Alfred the Great" does, so if you want a good costume picture that you will remember without regret, track down "The War Lord" immediately and dismiss this glum opus from your mind.James Webb wrote some crackerjack movies, among them "Trapeze," "The Big Country" and "Cape Fear." This is not one of his better ones. Clive Donner directed some good movies, including "The Caretaker," "Nothing But The Best," and "What's New, Pussycat." This is not one of his better ones."Alfred the Great" offers tiresome characters who interact in implausible ways, unpleasant and unsatisfying religious harangues, unattractive physical surroundings (the only picture I can think of offhand that makes the Irish countryside look repellent) and battle scenes that are long but only occasionally interesting. The script is clumsy and inaccurate, the direction is hit-or-miss. The whole proceedings are faintly depressing at best, and if you are feeling uncharitable, a lot worse.Among the actors, only Michael York appears to be having fun, playing a hairy villain for once instead of a saccharine juvenile. However, there is the grim pleasure of watching Ian McKellen in his film debut looking ugly and awkward, with no way of knowing that he would ultimately become a bigger movie star than the entire rest of the cast put together.

It is difficult to describe the disappointment I felt when viewing this movie. Alfred is portrayed as a would-be monk who grudgingly takes on the mantle of king under persuasion from a Welsh bishop called Asser, here played by Colin Blakely. In reality, Asser did not come into Alfred's life until eight years after the Battle of Ethandun in 878, the climax of this movie. The real Alfred was a tough, pragmatic German from a hierarchical society and would have known all along that his likely destiny was to be king and the wrangle over his accepting the kingship is weak and manufactured. Similarly, by this time he was already married to Ealhswith and had at least two children and, in fact, wed her not in Wessex but in Mercia, a neighbouring kingdom. Moreover, she was never handed over to the Danes as a hostage. I hate to be a history bore here, but when a film opens with and runs on so many inaccuracies, it is difficult to take it seriously. The real story of Alfred is compelling and dramatic enough without mangling the history and embellishing it with impossibilities; and, by the by, the tale is ripe for telling by Hollywood or any British company with the gumption to tell it. Alfred was a far "greater" and more important historical figure than William Wallace ever was and is responsible for saving the Anglo-Saxons and English and ultimately the British state and culture from Danish rule. Without Alfred and his victory at Ethandun, there would have been no English state, no English language and no Norman Conquest; the world would have been a totally - totally - different place. Ethandun was a pivotal moment in world history.There are other problems with this production, including the portrayal of the Danes as a uniformed army, which always rankled with me: they were no army, but violent adventurers on the rampage for money, treasures, women and slaves (for use or sale). They were simultaneously disorganised, ruthless and practical, and were not a state-made, organised army in uniform. Moreover, as in Braveheart, there is too much talk here of "freedom" and the rule of law. The law and freedom were never available to the likes of the peasantry portrayed here by, amongst others, Ian McKellen in his film debut. Alfred's laws, for instance, did not apply to the slaves kept by the Saxons, and justice in any real sense was only available to those with the money to buy it. So do not look to this film for a history lesson. The conflict is manufactured, the dialogue and themes weak and the history dispensed with. It is such a shame that such an excellent film could have been made from the material - ie from the life of King Alfred.Despite the foregoing, I have rated the film as a five because it does give a fairly realistic sense of ninth century existence: the towns "walled" with wooden posts, the clothing, the hunting culture and the bleakness of an "England" with only a few hundred thousand inhabitants. The names, too, of the characters are drawn directly from that time: Cerdic (cherditch), Ethelraed, Burghred and the rest. Similarly the acting itself from first-rate actors is everything it should be - it's just that their dialogue and the story they are telling leave everything to be desired.In a nutshell, look to this movie for its production values and material realism, not for its history or its script and plotting. For the latter, read a book.

This is such a stupid historical movie. The main character is this arrogant Hamlet-type king running around like Caligula doing all sorts of moronic stuff. No explanation why we should care about any of this.Everything in the direction and acting of this movie is so inept. It is not even funny.