I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

You won't be disappointed!

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

While his former partner in Britain's Warwick Films, Al Broccoli, went off to make the incredibly successful James Bond series, producer Irving Allen was left to try and kick-start his solo career with a pair of last-gasp mini-spectacles in partnership with Tito's Avala Film Studios. Allen initially saw himself following in the footsteps of the Bronston-Franco relationship in Spain (just as it was beginning to collapse) but both his films, "The Long Ships" and "Genghis Khan", proved to be box-office flops. They did however introduce Yugoslavian locations to American producers and Avala had some success attracting film production dollars for another couple of decades."Genghis Khan" is a comic book version of the conqueror's life and if you approach it at that level, it is quite watchable. It is far, far, better than RKO's, "The Conqueror", with John Wayne as the Khan. While the star-cast of ten established actors is a waste of talent (all of whom look out of place in their roles and make-up), this is within the reduced dramatic ambition of what's being attempted here. The worst of the casting isn't with Mason or Morley, as a Chinese Mandarin and his emperor. That rests with Francoise Dorleac and her brothers, as the Khan's love and his three generals. They would have looked more at home at a Soho costume party. Dusan Radic's score is bombastic but quite effective. As with "The Long Ships", he has given the picture a signature theme which is memorable. Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography is always attractive and the settings are colorful, though not sufficiently lavish. The budget- production shows in a Chinese city that looks more like a theme-park and should have been written into the script as a palace grounds. It's a dozen structures, running divider walls, a canal, large moon-windowed palace facade, and a two-hundred-and-fifty foot section of fortified wall and gate, sprawled across 10 manicured acres, but a Chinese city it's not. 2nd unit director, Cliff Lyons' battle scenes are very fast and effective and feature lots of running horse-falls that had been outlawed on U.S. locations, 25 years earlier. He and director, Henry Levin, were restricted to maximum day-calls of 325 extras, of which no more than 250 could be mounted. So, again and again, film editor Geoffrey Foote is forced to cut from wide-shots as the crowds thin out. This is a hard way to conquer half the known world. Whether they belong in the film or not, most of the cast appears sincere in trying to deliver their paper-thin character sketches without pretension, and the behind-the-scenes crew creates a handsome product, which ends up being a travelogue of Yugoslavian production locations. In the end, only Tito really conquered here.

As an user has pointed out ,this is the last of the spectaculars of the late fifties/early sixties which began with De Mille's "Ten Commandments" and included such works as "Ben Hur" ,"Spartacus " (which was more Kirk Douglas' work than Kubrik's ),the highly underrated "Cleopatra"(when will we see the uncut version?),Mann 's "El Cid" and "Fall of the Roman Empire" .This is the last hurrah,but it's a bad film.James Mason and Robert Morley do not seem to take their roles seriously (as Chinese characters!!)and their playing is deliciously tongue-in-cheek.But all the others seem to believe in this far-fetched tale ,very dubious historically ,with Egyptian Omar Sharif as the lead who abducts pretty princess (French Françoise Dorléac) who is raped by Irish Villain (evennastier than Ben Hur's Messala) Boyd.There's also American Wallach who offers him his two daughters.Both Sharif and Boyd seem to enjoy bondage (collar ,cage,etc).When he speaks to common women ,Genghis is feminist (it's up to them to choose) ,but when he is with his wife ,he's a more credible macho.Incidentally,Sharif,Mason and Dorléac's sister (Catherine Deneuve) would team up three years later in Terence Young's "Mayerling".This time,Mason was Sharif's father .If you want to see a good Sharif movie,do choose "Dr Zhivago" instead.

I don't understand you folks who are comparing this movie to John Waynes conqueror. You must be kidding, right? That movie was possibly the worst movie ever. It makes Plan 9 look like Oscar type fo stuff. I mean come on people. Can't you just see Wayne saying, "Well we better go and take care of those pilgrims over there in persia, wa, haw, haw, haw! Puhleeeze1 Ghengis Khan was much better than that for petes sake. Was it great, no! But it was hardly that bad! To be honest I enjoyed it. but for the entertainment value. It was a fun movie. That is all. But John Wayne as Ghengis Khan? You have got to be kidding me. That is laughable in the extreme. "Those little mongol pilgrims better get it done, wa, haw, haw, haw!LOL

I haven't seen this in years, but I remember it has some exciting battles, some good acting by Omar Sharif, Michael Hordern and Stephen Boyd, some great acting by James Mason and Robert Morley. I guessing that none of the actors were Mongolian or Chinese. Historically inaccurate, but kind of fun, sort of like some of Erroll Flynn's movies, like "The Charge of the Light Brigade". In recorded history, Genghis Khan was a murderous, merciless tyrant, not the idealist he's seen as in this picture, just wanting to unite all the tribes and live their lives out riding around on their horses not being bothered by the meddling Chinese. Even with all that said, it has some spectacular action and some interesting scenes that do have some historical veracity.