I simply enjoyed the tale of Genghis Khan for its absorbing entertainment. I say "entertainment" because that's what movies are for. If I want a history lesson I'll turn to the encyclopedia for that.

Omar Sharif in the lead role is excellent, and with some tender romance and family life added in for interest it gives value to what he stands for.

Stephen Boyd here is at times the scruffy villain, but to me he can do no wrong and is just adding variety to his roles as an actor.

James Mason, one of my fascinating favourites, with a multitude of roles in his career, is rather amusing in his portrayal of Kam Ling, attempting to be ever so diplomatic at all times, almost like a chess player surmising his opponent's next move. Intrigue at its best.

Robert Morley as the Emperor is a fine example of dissolute excess, and shows us what imperialism can become - tedious and boring in the midst of riches so that his life is almost trivial in purpose. Morley always is a good supporting actor, in my opinion.

Of course there are many battles to be fought and won in the course of this film, all history in the making, however accurate or inaccurate it may be. By the way, for those critics who disparage the lack of true facts regarding the order of events, I'm reminded of Jan Sibelius' comment on "critics" in general. He said more or less in these words, that "no one ever built a monument to a critic" so let's not take them too seriously.

Enjoy the movie and pass the popcorn!

If Genghis Khan were made today a whole lot of Asian players would be in the various roles cast. Although not as ridiculous looking as Dragon Seed or even The Good Earth to today's audiences by 1965 when this film was made casting Occidental players in Oriental roles was not looked on favorably no matter how could they are. One who could get away with it was Yul Brynner who must have been contacted for the lead and he was from that part of the world.

Nevertheless Omar Sharif is a credible Genghis Khan and Stephen Boyd unearths his Messala character playing Jamuga the life long sworn enemy of the boy Temujin who grows up to be Genghis Khan. Sharif realizes his dream of uniting all the Mongol tribes into one nation and then starting to conquer. By the time he was done his Mongols were advancing into Eastern Europe. I wonder why Boyd who was the villain was first billed before Sharif in the title role. I'm sure there's a story there.

One who did look bad was James Mason playing a mandarin adviser to Chinese emperor Robert Morley. He really looked and sounded like a road company Fu Manchu.

Genghis Khan is better than John Wayne's infamous and legendary The Conqueror, but that's not saying much.

GENGHIS KHAN is a second Hollywood attempt to tell the story of the notorious Mongolian warlord after the notorious John Wayne-starring vehicle of the 1950s. I haven't seen the Wayne movie so I can't comment on it, but this film is likable enough in the 1960s epic mould. The main complaint is that it isn't and doesn't attempt to be historically accurate at all but then you don't really expect that anyway from a Hollywood movie.

The narrative is similar to that of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and shows Khan as a young man, captured by a rival leader played by stock bad guy Stephen Boyd. After years of slavery he grows into the youthful and handsome Omar Sharif and escapes before building his own army. Scenes of actors like Robert Morley and James Mason in yellowface are quite laughable but the film is well-mounted and the action scenes don't disappoint, featuring dozens of horse riders battling over the plains. The supporting cast is inspired, to say the least, featuring the likes of Kenneth Cope and Michael Hordern as key Mongolian allies and none other than Eli Wallach playing an Arab. Woody Strode's tough presence is a plus. GENGHIS KHAN is a watchable piece of hokum, nothing more, but certainly not a particularly bad film except in relation to the historical accuracy.