The Worst Film Ever

I wanted to but couldn't!

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

What did Tyrone Power do to deserve appearing in a movie like this? Orson Welles might have angered some god of cinema or other, but I really can't understand why poor Power was condemned to this kind of slop. The movie is practically unwatchable. It's amazing that a lot of the same talent was at work on this film as on the excellent "Prince of Foxes" starring the same two talents. Even the inexplicable presence of Cecile Aubry as the leading lady is not enough to explain the complete idiocy and boredom of this picture, which was enough to put me to sleep the first time I tried to watch it.But Aubry is a wonder to behold. Her obnoxious voice paired with a ridiculous backstory about her being part English and part Arab is an insult to the audience's intelligence. I knew nothing about Cecile Aubry before seeing the movie, but it's completely obvious that she's a 20th century French girl. There's also nothing sexy or intriguing about her whatsoever. There's not even a tiny spark of chemistry between Power and Aubry.Orson Welles in the movie... oh boy. He looks like some kind of weird caricature, some doll for tourists of what an "oriental" person looks like. As it is, his performance brings some of the only human warmth to the film. Jack Hawkins also displays some humanity, although it would be a crime if he didn't given the amount of screen time.The conclusion of the film is like the final insult to the audience. In a war film that showed us long lines of medieval garbed troops, we've seen not a single battle scene. The strangest thing about the essential dynamic of the film is the way that Power's character is played against the racist pride of the Hawkins and Aubry characters. He wants nothing but to free himself of England's grasp because he feels betrayed by the Normans, but he's drawn back by personal honor to the desire of Hawkins' "bowman" to spread the science and knowledge of the Chinese to the British instead of to Welles' Mongolian type. Welles' character rewards him -- because he respects his conviction (bourne of loyalty to a deluded racist friend?) -- and returns his lady love to him. Queue closing music and credits roll.

I know this was shown on Italian TV during my childhood but I'm not sure whether I had watched the film in its entirety - after this viewing, I certainly didn't recollect much of anything and, therefore, consider it as a first!Anyway, I decided to catch up with it now as an accompaniment to star Tyrone Power's most popular vehicle - THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940). Unlike that one (shot in black-and-white on studio sets), however, this was splashed with color and had the benefit of location photography: still, it's a much inferior spectacle, and the main reason for this is that the plot itself singularly lacks excitement - despite being basically an amalgam of Ivanhoe (starting off in medieval England with our Saxon hero opposing the Norman rulers) and Marco Polo (he eventually travels to the Orient and brings back samples of their exotic heritage). Also, despite the imposing presence of Orson Welles as a fearsome but noble Mongol warrior, there's precious little action in this two-hour film (though it's never actually boring)!Despite the Fox banner, this was a British-based production and, consequently, the supporting cast and technical credits are nothing to sneeze at - the former including such stalwarts as Jack Hawkins (an unlikely but amiable bowman and Power's sidekick), Michael Rennie, Finlay Currie (as Power's proud and cantankerous grandfather), Herbert Lom, James Robertson Justice and Laurence Harvey (impossibly young as a Norman prince), as well as Alfonso Bedoya (whose voice was allegedly dubbed by Peter Sellers!) and child actor Robert Blake; behind the camera were such talents as legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, composer Richard Addinsell and production designer Paul Sheriff. The weakest link in the film is clearly leading lady Cecile Aubry, who struggles too hard to be winsome but results only in being irritating most of the time (not surprisingly, her career wasn't a long-lasting one).While certainly watchable and generally entertaining in itself, Power was better served by some of his other historical epics (among them the film that directly preceded it, PRINCE OF FOXES [1949], another - though more modest - collaboration with Orson Welles).

This movie should be listed as an all time classic. For all its pageantry and adventure this film puts today's productions to shame. I first viewed this movie when I was a young lad and it sparked a sense of adventure as I was truly taken back in time. As I lived the excitement, danger and thrills in a time when men truly had the freedom of choices to stand tall for their beliefs it made me understand how great it is to be an American.Watching it again now that I'm almost 60, I can relate then to now and see how our American principals can be lost if good Americans stand by and let bad Americans take control.We all have much to learn about our freedom and how precious it is. The lesson here is that all free men must take a stand in order to keep our freedom regardless of the cost.A must see especially for our children.

While I love the books of Thomas Costain (who wrote the original story), I was surprised how lukewarm I felt about this movie. Plus, combining that with such actors as Tyrone Power, Orson Welles and Jack Hawkins, I really expected to love this film. And, this could be some of the reason I scored this movie so low. Perhaps someone who never read the novel or wasn't a Tyrone Power fan would forgive its slow pace, occasionally sappy dialog and less-than-inspiring plot. All I know is that I really needed to push myself to stay focused on the movie. In fact, I tried watching this film a couple times before I finally sat through it.