Alfred the Great
Tags: action

Plot synopsis:
When the Vikings invade England, Alfred (David Hemmings) is about to take his priesthood vows. However, his brother, King Æthelred of Wessex (Alan Dobie), summons him to his aid and Alfred leaves for battle, where he appears to be a great tactician. Æthelred dies shortly after Alfred marries the Mercian princess Aelhswith (Prunella Ransome). Torn between following intellect or passion, Alfred at first refuses to succeed Æthelred and consummate his marriage, but is forced to accept kingship after the Danes attack again.
Realising the weak position of Wessex, Alfred goes into negotiations with Guthrum (Michael York), leader of the Vikings. Aelhswith on the other hand agrees to become Guthrum's hostage and they start to develop feelings for each other.
Alfred has difficulty acting like a king, calling for obedience and egalitarianism in the Medieval society of three estates, which the fighting nobility does not appreciate. The cleric Asser (Colin Blakely) warns him that he is too proud and later, the Danes defeat Alfred. The latter is forced to retreat to the fens of Somerset. Roger's bandits, who take Alfred in, are more loyal to Alfred than his noblemen.
The nobles however, drop their regicide plans and support Alfred in the climactic Battle of Athelney. Roger (Ian McKellen) sees that Alfred will need help and in the midst of battle, he arrives with monks, old men and peasant women, armed with clubs and pitchforks. Alfred defeats Guthrum, knocking him out, but decides to spare his life and forgives Aelhswith.

Review: Confession; I have not seen the movie, but I do have some interesting facts to share about the making of the movie: Many of the battle scenes were filmed in Ireland using Irish army regulars as extras.
The men learned the marching chants and what you hear in the movie is at least in part the actual chants of the extras.Some of the men earned extra money by doing some of the riskier shots (guys carrying kicking and screaming women for example; my Father was one such extra and earned his extra money by lying on the battlefield and permitting a horse to walk up to his 'body' and then circle around his head; some extras were unwilling to risk being stepped on, but my father's familiarity with horses convinced him that the horse would avoid stepping on a person).The Viking ships were motorized with oarsmen acting to produce the realistic effects.
It is only by truly balancing these two forces that a man can succeed, and Alfred did so.The conflicting forces in the film also symbolize Alfred's inner struggle -- the church representing his spiritual desires and the Danes standing for the passions and lusts of the physical world.
Certainly the Battle of Athelney Marsh, one of the pivotal events in British history, is stirringly portrayed, particularly when the peasants and commoners rise up to save their king.
Some of the big plot engines, especially the one involving Michael York's and Prunella Ransome's characters, never happened in reality, and I have this stickler historical mentality that feels if you make a historical movie about real people, it should be, you know, accurate.I was a critic at the time, and as I recall, I gave it a fairly scathing review.
Michael York especially is outstanding---when he's onscreen you can't take your eyes off him, though I very much doubt the real-life Guthrum the Dane looked anywhere near so cute---and I so wish that Clive Donner and the writers had given his rather swoonalicious Guthrum---the Beatle Viking!---a whole lot more to do.(It's not in the movie, but in historical fact Alfred and Guthrum made a peace treaty afterwards that split England between them, Alf taking the south and west and Guthrum taking the north and east.
So really Alfred bargained for his peace, and if it's Alfred the Great, it should darn well be Guthrum the Great as well...)David Hemmings's performance is as good as can be expected, given some of the thankless dialogue, and he is both tortured and twinkly; while Prunella Ransome's Queen Aelhswith is not only decorative but intriguingly liberated for a noble ninth-century lady (however historically inaccurate and ultimately unconvincing).And the supporting cast is nothing short of tremendous: Ian McKellen (and you can see Gandalf the Grey in his eyes...), Colin Blakely, Vivian Merchant (who reportedly insisted on playing her character as a mute after a dialogue rewrite was not forthcoming), Julian Glover, Peter Vaughan, Sinead Cusack in her film debut.Pity the script didn't give any of them but McKellen anything to really get into, though Vaughan munches a bit of scenery.
If they'd had something better to work with, "Alfred the Great" might have been the Anglo-Saxon "Lawrence of Arabia"....
During depths of Dark Ages various kingdoms find in England , the greatest results to be Wessex ruled by King Alfred (David Hemmins) .
When in ninth century the Scandinavian Vikings or Danes (led by Michael York) invade England with bloodthirsty raids , the young leader Alfred (849-899) at 22 years old dreams with an united nation .
Alfred the Great managed himself to unify the small Anglo-Xaxons states in order to battle and beat the invaders barbarians Vikings .
Alfred vanquished the invading Danes and freed the London city , besides he promoted the Anglo-Xaxon culture and the civilized values such us learning read Latin.David Hemmins makes an excellent interpretation along with Michael York as the brutal Danish chief and attractive Prunella Ransome as a princess wished on both sides , besides appears Sir Ian McKellen's debut as a brave outlaw .
The great climaxes of the film are , of course , the spectacularly staged battles scenes which convey us a realist scenario .
So you wonder if you care at all.David Hemmings is as wooden as the script itself and poor Michael York suffers so much from being a stereotype that he might as well be a cartoon character.
and while this film is an English and not Sword'n'Sandal Epic I see no reason why it could not at least aspire to set pieces such as feature in The Vikings (1958).The Danes wander around chanting in formation and the chanting is nothing short of infuriating because it goes on and on and on throughout the entire picture.
There are no "real" scenes of Danes at all, and it is films like this that merely fuel ignorance, not dispel it.
Even the photography and the editing are dull.Only Ian McKellen appears to come out of this picture without egg on his face - and that's because he looks wholly uncomfortable in the film, probably wondering what the hell he's doing in this tripe.And the "Gutts-Ache" of my title is a favoured saying of Alfred in the film awe inspiring script - "you make my guts ache"!!!
"Chapters" in the story change with a gimmicky visual effect of Hemmings' face looking at itself in transition (from would-be priest to young king, from ruler to man on the run, etc.), it's sometimes hard to catch the names of the individual characters (and the final credits don't help much), and the battle scenes (though staged well) might be seen as overlong.
But the film tells its story effectively, brings the characters and events to life and gives us a nice look at 9th century England, and how its people rallied around a king who learned from his early mistakes.
I found the actors believable in their roles, the interpretation of events plausible and came away feeling like I knew something about King Alfred and his thoughts.
--Of course, Hemmings' Alfred relies on cleverness, while York's Viking leader Guthrum leans mainly on bravado; familiar parts for both..
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.
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.
But it also fails as entertainment, because the film is too slow-paced and the dialogue boring and the acting generally uninspired.
But by demonizing the danes, the film also reduces the accomplishments of Alfred.
Historically a great man, made small by a film like this.The only ones getting away with their honor intact from this film is the set and costume makers.
Great Fun. Hemmings and Michael York combine to give us a great tale of a time of great chaos in what eventually became England.
Hemmings is superb as the man who would have become a priest and York is likewise great as the scoundrel Danish Thane.
Across the centuries, there are special men who rise above others and for a few brief moments in history have the honor of becoming more than the summit of their work, they become 'Great.' This is the story of one such man.
In this film "Alfred The Great" it is the superb actor David Hemmings who plays Alfred with much conviction against the Danish King Guthrum played by another notable actor Michael York.
A good attempt at capturing the mood of the times and the interaction between the early Saxon king and the mighty Vikings.
"Alfred the great" is an entertaining film with perhaps too much battle scenes.The two leads are convincing but the part of the queen is too underwritten.The first scenes between David Hemmings and Prunella Ransome are good though: an educated prince who knows the Bible by heart and whose only ambition is to become a monk;an ignorant virgin under her father's thumb who uses her for political reasons.Then comes Michael York ,the villain who's got twenty concubines and who falls for his enemy's wife .This is the story of a reluctant king who believed in peace and love and finally discovers that in those troubled times (the 9th century) you had to be cruel to be kind .Like this?try these...Richard Fleischer: the Vikings 1958Jack Cardiff:The long ships 1964.
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.
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.
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..
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.
He leads the armies of Wessex and Mercia against the invading Danes, and in so doing he earns the first and only label ever to be proclaimed upon a king of England as "somebody the Great".Generally, the film is a bore.
Hemmings gives a notable leading performance, York is in uncommonly good form as the main Dane, and there are a couple of bloodily staged battle sequences.
Almost inevitably, perhaps, with films of this historical genre, one's sense of period tends to be more 20th century than 9th.
Alfred ,King of England was a man of vital importance in  the history of his nation -the first to set down a written legal code in the vernacular and a staunch defender of the realm against the incursions of the Danes ,he also can be regarded with some validity as the founder of the English navy ,throughout history the great barrier against foreign invasion .Sadly these are only touched on in this proficient but not terribly gripping late sixties movie .
The battle scenes are well staged conveying the reality of close quarter combat ,and there is an admirable and accurate description of the tactics used against the Danes .Some striking location photography helps a lot too.
There are some fine peformances among the supporting cast -a dignified Ethelred from Alan Dobie and strong turns from stalwart character actors like Peter Vaughan ,Julian Glover and Colin Blakely while a young Ian McKenna impresses as the outlaw leader .
David Hemming takes an intelligent stab at the title role but comes over as lacking in charisma and power and thus the core of the movie is somewhat hollow a fact not aided by a lightweight performance from Michael York as the Danish leader and a lacklustre performance from Prunella Ransome as Alfred's wifeIts a decent introduction to the story of an outstanding man but it could have been so much better with a more incisive script and sharper playing from the leads ..
Surprisingly involving and rousing adventure set in 9th century England, where the young King of Wessex leads a bloody revolt against the marauding Danes.
Sprawling, handsome film given hard-hearted direction by Clive Donner, featuring exciting battlefield sequences and welcomed bits of black humor courtesy screenwriters Ken Taylor and James Webb.
The well-chosen cast (including David Hemmings as Alfred, a heavily-bearded Michael York as Guthrum, and Ian McKellen as Roger) give variable performances, as Donner's film-making technique seems focused on the grand scope on the picture and not the intricate details.
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.
I will not discuss the historical content which seems to have met with rather mixed reviews (failing memories?) but I shall concentrate instead on the off-screen relationship of the principal protagonists played by David Hemmings and Prunella Ransome.
An interesting look at British history, when they were paying the Danegeld, Michael York, as usual, gives a superb performance.
Sad to see that Hemmings appeared in very weak movies, like "Alfred the great" for instance.
We go back to the 9th century at where East Anglia is overwhelmed by the cruel Danes and the help from Alfred (brother of the king who wanted to be a priest).
Alfred the Great had his own methods to free his country and what could have been interesting has been completely destroyed as it's too boring (there is strong link to Hamlet's Shakespeare here, and we just saw it too much) or it is just too much of a silly actionmovie (the battles are so long that you tend to fall asleep).
David Hemmings was excellent, I don't think any other actor could have portrayed Alfred the Great.
If you want to know where the Brits come from watch this film and you'll see.If your studying English history then this is the film you should watch, the interplay between Michael York as Guthrun and David Hemmings should tell you a lot.
And how Alfred said that everybody should have access to the law and nobody should be above it.It's entertaining and educational at the same time..
Alfred the not-so-great.
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.
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.
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).
But even with crisper visual outlines, the story and execution of ALFRED THE GREAT would still be too fuzzy for a good rating..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.