Leofwine_draca KHARTOUM is a lavish and endearingly old-fashioned retelling of the last days of the famous General Gordon as he held Khartoum against the overwhelming hordes of the Mahdi, a religious fanatic who led an uprising in 19th century Sudan. The film has much of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA about it, with sweeping desert vistas and sand-swept derring-do. It's no classic - there's not quite enough depth to it for that - but fans of historical adventure yarns will find themselves delighted by the film's refreshing unswavering attitude and Charlton Heston's well-judged turn as Gordon, playing him as a man of principle. The film is full of British actors in brown face make up, with Laurence Olivier the sinister Mahdi and a supporting cast replete with familiar faces (including the inevitable foreign-looking likes of George Pastell, Roger Delgado, and Marne Maitland). Richard Johnson and Ralph Richardson supply the requisite stiff upper lips, and if it all feels a little slow and sedate at times, it soon builds to a rousing climax which could well be considered the British Alamo.

bilgerat99 I first saw this movie on a flight to Hawaii in 1966 and have watched it many times since, showing it to friends and family who were unaware of it - all of whom enjoyed it immensely. Although slightly dated by today's (2009) standards, don't let that dissuade you from seeing this film, it holds up to the test of time like very few movies do and surpasses most, at that.So, what's it all about? Khartoum depicts the last chapter in the remarkable life of Gen. Charles "Chinese" Gordon; another one of those larger-than-life-personages seemingly produced uniquely by Victorian England; such as Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) or T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). To that last personage is the best probable comparison, as they were both considered the best commanders of "irregular" forces of their respective times and like Lawrence of Arabia, this movie barely scrapes the surface of the man's life (but it would take a 6 hour movie in either case to do them justice).Set in 1884, in what was the Sudanese portion of then Egypt, this is an epic historical movie that succeeds on every level. The conflict centers around an uprising to Egyptian rule, led by the Mahdi and the subsequent attempt to evacuate foreigners from the besieged Sudan's main city, Khartoum, by Gordon. It is epic in scope and production, detailed, believable and almost completely accurate. Political intrigue, minor and major battles, beautiful scenery, top notch acting, this movie has it all. I would place it smack dab between Lawrence of Arabia and Zulu (and much closer to Lawrence because of it's epic nature).This is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time (and I was at the opening of Ben Hur at the Coronet Theater in San Francisco, which was a lot of movies ago ;-) and watching this film has led me to read several books on this event, including Gordon's own diary written at the time.Unfortunately, they don't make too many like this anymore.

lastliberal If this was supposed to be an epic war movie, it failed miserably. I was really hoping to see the defeat of the rebels in Sudan, much as one would hope for the defeat of the Janjaweed and the rescue of Darfur. I was sorely disappointed.The photography was magnificent, the music excellent, and the battles that were fought were impressive, but you are talking about 10% of the time spent on this film. The rest of the time was Charleton Heston just talking. he had nothing to back up his talk and was relying on rescue from the British Army. What a few hundred soldiers were going to defeat a rebel army of 20,000? Laurence Oliver was unrecognizable in makeup and a beard, but you could see the power of his acting in every word and gesture. he was magnificent.Not worth the time invested.

tejonm I just now saw this movie on television for the first time. Somehow I missed it in 1966. I have always been interested in "Chinese Gorden" and they seemed to do his character quite well, though somehow I thought he was a "Teatotaler"! What surprised me about the movie was the flat out way it was admitted that his government abandoned him, expected him to do the job with no support, only caring that "people in the street" didn't know what they had done. In 1966, we didn't yet know that governments did such naughty things. In those days we still believed that the government was still the "good guy". That people liked the movie in spite of that amazes me----5 or 10 years later it would have been a "given".