The most interesting character here is Jack Hawkins as the bowman in his unpredictable shifts of moods and expressive diction - it's a pleasure just hearing him talk in every scene he is in. Orson Welles dominates, of course, as he always does, this time as a conquering khan with the ambition to subjugate all China and after that Rome and England, in which scheme he tries to interest and engage Tyrone Power, who almost falls for it.The story is great although somewhat muddled as Tyrone Power never knows what he really wants, which vacillation reaches a climax when he gets a girl on his hands in his sleeping tent.Another interesting character is Michael Rennie as the King, stately and sympathetic as ever, and also Finlay Curries as the grandfather, greatly enhancing the interest of every scene in which he is present.The most fascinating part of the film though is the visualization of the Silk Road, as the caravan travels from somewhere in the Orient, could be Cairo or Baghdad, all the way across the deserts and mountains to China, and the caravan scenes are spectacular to say the least. Also the scenes from China are interesting with their snapshots of court life and the Chinese character trembling at the mercy of the awful conqueror and resorting mainly to superstition for its only defense.It's a kind of English Marco Polo spectacle, with books, paper, compass and gunpowder and all that, and it is very well made. Henry Hathaway was qualified enough to turn out this masterpiece of a romantic oriental epic to be remembered.

What did Tyrone Power do to deserve appearing in a movie like this? Orson Welles might have angered some god of cinema or other, but I really can't understand why poor Power was condemned to this kind of slop. The movie is practically unwatchable. It's amazing that a lot of the same talent was at work on this film as on the excellent "Prince of Foxes" starring the same two talents. Even the inexplicable presence of Cecile Aubry as the leading lady is not enough to explain the complete idiocy and boredom of this picture, which was enough to put me to sleep the first time I tried to watch it.But Aubry is a wonder to behold. Her obnoxious voice paired with a ridiculous backstory about her being part English and part Arab is an insult to the audience's intelligence. I knew nothing about Cecile Aubry before seeing the movie, but it's completely obvious that she's a 20th century French girl. There's also nothing sexy or intriguing about her whatsoever. There's not even a tiny spark of chemistry between Power and Aubry.Orson Welles in the movie... oh boy. He looks like some kind of weird caricature, some doll for tourists of what an "oriental" person looks like. As it is, his performance brings some of the only human warmth to the film. Jack Hawkins also displays some humanity, although it would be a crime if he didn't given the amount of screen time.The conclusion of the film is like the final insult to the audience. In a war film that showed us long lines of medieval garbed troops, we've seen not a single battle scene. The strangest thing about the essential dynamic of the film is the way that Power's character is played against the racist pride of the Hawkins and Aubry characters. He wants nothing but to free himself of England's grasp because he feels betrayed by the Normans, but he's drawn back by personal honor to the desire of Hawkins' "bowman" to spread the science and knowledge of the Chinese to the British instead of to Welles' Mongolian type. Welles' character rewards him -- because he respects his conviction (bourne of loyalty to a deluded racist friend?) -- and returns his lady love to him. Queue closing music and credits roll.

I know this was shown on Italian TV during my childhood but I'm not sure whether I had watched the film in its entirety - after this viewing, I certainly didn't recollect much of anything and, therefore, consider it as a first!Anyway, I decided to catch up with it now as an accompaniment to star Tyrone Power's most popular vehicle - THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940). Unlike that one (shot in black-and-white on studio sets), however, this was splashed with color and had the benefit of location photography: still, it's a much inferior spectacle, and the main reason for this is that the plot itself singularly lacks excitement - despite being basically an amalgam of Ivanhoe (starting off in medieval England with our Saxon hero opposing the Norman rulers) and Marco Polo (he eventually travels to the Orient and brings back samples of their exotic heritage). Also, despite the imposing presence of Orson Welles as a fearsome but noble Mongol warrior, there's precious little action in this two-hour film (though it's never actually boring)!Despite the Fox banner, this was a British-based production and, consequently, the supporting cast and technical credits are nothing to sneeze at - the former including such stalwarts as Jack Hawkins (an unlikely but amiable bowman and Power's sidekick), Michael Rennie, Finlay Currie (as Power's proud and cantankerous grandfather), Herbert Lom, James Robertson Justice and Laurence Harvey (impossibly young as a Norman prince), as well as Alfonso Bedoya (whose voice was allegedly dubbed by Peter Sellers!) and child actor Robert Blake; behind the camera were such talents as legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, composer Richard Addinsell and production designer Paul Sheriff. The weakest link in the film is clearly leading lady Cecile Aubry, who struggles too hard to be winsome but results only in being irritating most of the time (not surprisingly, her career wasn't a long-lasting one).While certainly watchable and generally entertaining in itself, Power was better served by some of his other historical epics (among them the film that directly preceded it, PRINCE OF FOXES [1949], another - though more modest - collaboration with Orson Welles).

A real Robin Hood style of movie but relax, not a green stocking Errol Flynn one! Jack Hawkins (Little John?) emerges with Tyrone Power (Robin Hood?) from a conquered and not so merry England to travel east towards well east I guess!Together they interact well against a tapestry of "olde" England, Norman conquest and the discovery of the Mongol and Chinese on the way as the two displaced adventurers travel ever onward! Pity their poor horses I say. So much to see so little time, the plot appears rushed and awkward.I love the interplay of Jack Hawkins with his bow, not! Well it isn't exactly Excalliber now is it?The superior acting of Orson Welles however makes this a memorable movie, a fine contribution from a great actor which gives an unusual and lucky gravitas to the plot.The film's vivid colours and scripts genuine attempt to capture some moment in history (when emerging powers of their time (Mongolia and France) contrast against the demands of a conquered citizen of Saxon England is sympathetic but not of course historic accuracy.Frankly it's very naive.Cecile Aubrey( Robin Hoods' Marylyn perhaps? ) is dreadful and spoils a good film, so bad in fact that I feel her role should have been edited out (or banished not from a kingdom but to an Alladin panto!). The film still has just enough plus points that one can forgive this crass attempt at creating a silly love interest for an ageing Tyrone Power. The film end appears hurried it's untidy. There may be a better end and a longer film left somewhere on the editors cutting room floor perhaps?This then is more than just a fragile British attempt to copy lavish Hollywood costume drama. I did almost enjoy it! (Even smiling at the awkward Miss Aubrey).I wouldn't however stop in for this but wait for a DVD copy to emerge and watch it without distraction on your lap top. On the lap top? Well I can't believe that any of your family under 35 would want to watch it with you on the plasma! It would embarrass you to admit to wanting to watch this one!