Alfred the Great (1969)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I loved this film when it came out. The portrayals of Ivar the Boneless - actually Ragnar Lothbrok's son, elsewhere - the berserker and the others were fascinating.I liked the game of Fox and Geese between the kings.The battle scenes were authentic and gripping. Alfred's personal struggle was meaningful.As an epic film, it ranks right up there with Jerry Bruckheimer's historically questioned but no less great film Arthur.The other reviewer's mention of Leonard Maltin savagely panning the film reminded me of an unpleasant memory I have about it.I wanted to see it again, and I took along a pretty Swedish-American girl with me over to the Coronet Theater in Davenport IA for a Saturday matinée, for her to see and appreciate my Anglo-Saxon heritage.By chance, the local synagogue youth groups came in. They were lively kids and full of fun, but once the movie started they began making really deprecating remarks about the film and what it showed.Having watched films like Ben Hur and Ten Commandments with respect and appreciation and been deeply moved by them, I did wonder how they would feel if someone had behaved like that during those - their - films. I had thought respect for ethnic heritage would and should be mutual. They were just kids, but I have never forgotten that.In any case, it is a great film which should be out on DVD.

I liked this. Set in England in the 870s it tells the story of one of the great Kings in history. Hemmings does a great job as the complicated cynical Alfred who wants to be a priest but is forced into becoming King because his leadership qualities are badly needed against the marauding Danes. Hemmings Alfred is a formidable character but he's refreshingly no Hollywood hero. The battle scenes are excellent when you consider this was made on a low budget way back in 1969. There's a great aerial shot of a battle focusing on Alfred who's just come from the monastery to answer his country's call, giving off the impression that while he might prefer to be a holy man of letters, he can still effortlessly slide into the battlefield in an I can take or leave this manner. Hence his greatness.

I originally saw this film at its first sneak preview when it was originally made and I still vividly recall some of it's beautiful work. I think it was much under-appreciated in it's time and was a terrific work of historical drama. I think it succeeded in conveying the period mood and atmosphere to a modern audience and I especially enjoyed the characters (even down to the names) and the attention to detail in the sets and battle scenes. It was a wonderful experience that has stuck with me.

When this picture first appeared en 1968, several critics complained that it had not make up its mind whether to be a swashbuckler or a lesson of history. After all this years, it is easy to see that it succeeded in both accounts, and also as a depiction of the psychological development of its chief character. Perhaps in 1968 swashbucklers were supposed to be only action, movement and blood, and the serious treatment given to this movie was ahead of its time. even in its careful explanation of the strategy Alfred employed to defeat the Danes in one of the better staged battles the cinema has seen since Griffith gave us Gettysburg in 1915.David Hemmings' work as Alfred is brilliant, and Michael York gave here what was perhaps his finest performance in films. A misunderstood movie, that deserves to be recovered after 30 years.Of course, director Clive Donner should be given almost all of the credit.