Yeah, it's that bad. Oh, Duke, what were you thinking? Look, I'm a big John Wayne fan. He was one of the all-time greats and made many wonderful classic films. But this is a complete misfire from start to finish. The script is terrible with lots of corny lines delivered in a stilted manner by actors who I know are capable of better. John Wayne gets a lot of flak from certain circles about his acting ability, but anyone who's seen him in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or The Searchers knows how good he could be. Here he's just awful. This is easily the worst performance I've ever seen from him. Granted the script is bad but his delivery is so wooden and lacking in range I doubt even better dialogue would have sounded good coming from him here. He's not the only one stinking up the joint, either. Agnes Moorehead, Susan Hayward, and Pedro Armendariz have all shown in other movies that they are capable of good performances. Here they couldn't be any worse if they were intentionally trying to be. Of course, the yellowface makeup everyone is sporting doesn't help matters.Directed by Dick Powell (yes, that Dick Powell) and produced by Howard Hughes, the movie is more remembered today for its controversial backstory than simply being the forgettable historical "epic" that it is. As likely everyone reading this knows, the movie is notorious for possibly contributing to the cancer-related deaths of many of the cast and crew. It was filmed downwind of a nuclear testing site, as well as filming scenes in Hollywood on the irradiated soil that Hughes had shipped back for the sake of making studio re-shoots match the original film site's terrain. If not for this tragic bit of history, this movie would probably be far less known today. Yes, it's a dud starring one of the biggest movie stars ever, but every star has at least one movie that's embarrassing to look back on. It is probably the worst movie of John Wayne's career. I can't really think of another one that's worse but I haven't seen many of his early cheapies yet. Something every Wayne completist needs to see but be prepared -- it really deserves its bad reputation.

"The Conqueror" is often considered as the worst film ever made. That means that we can put it together with "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Jack and Jill", for example, can't we? And if we do, we will find plenty defects in it.On the other hand, we can compare the worst film ever made with the best one (indeed, why not?). For instance, with "The Searchers". These movies have many common details: they were produced in the same year, in the same Utah desert. They have very similar plot (that's why I can define "The Conqueror" as the sub-genre of western - it is eastern) and the leading hero in both movies ... one and the same John Wayne. Just ask yourself, can't Temujin be called the Searcher and can't Ethan Edwards be called the Conqueror? I guess, they sure can. But it does not matter, "The Searchers" is considered as the best movie ever made, "The Conqueror" - as the worst one...If it is not appropriate to compare "The Conqueror" with western, let's compare it with epic film/peplum. And once again ask yourself, are "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur (1959)", "Spartacus" better than "The Conqueror"? They also have common details: the historical plots with inevitable historical mistakes, the American actors portraying Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Mongolians, including beautiful leading actresses who do not have any Oriental features and famous actors with funny Western accents... But it doesn't matter again: "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus" are the best movies ever made and "The Conqueror" - ...One can argue about this movie, one can find positive and negative details in it. But let's be objective: if "The Conqueror" is not the best movie, it is definitely, definitely not the worst one ever made.

Back in 2001 I reviewed this kitsch masterpiece here and focused on its sheer badness. I recently acquired a new remastered DVD which allowed me to throw away my junky, ancient, badly cut VHS version. And I also watched it on a 54" TV screen.Well...it IS spectacular. The locations are gorgeous, if hardly Mongolian, although the yurts look pretty authentic. Except for the ridiculous dancing girls, the costumes are terrific, if sometimes obviously Greco-Roman rather than Asian. Susan Hayward is very beautiful in her trademark petulant way. And John Wayne actually does have some good moments in an impossible role. The battle scenes are clumsily handled, though, and watching all those tripped-up horses is pretty painful.My previous review also slightly misquoted the wonderfully awful dialogue, which will never pale for me as the most unforgettable element of this movie. But I kept to its true spirit. However, I left out one shimmering verbal gem, the closing words of the film: "The riches of Cathay he laid at the feet of his Tartar woman. For a hundred years the children of their loins ruled half the world." Just simply, The Conqueror is immortal.

John Wayne is improbably cast (to say the least!) as Mongol chief Temujin, later Genghis Khan, leading his Mongolian army in a battle against the Tartars, falling for the enemy leader's fiery, beautiful daughter. With three cinematographers credited, the picture certainly looks good, but director Dick Powell can't seem to pick up the pace, and it quickly becomes a leaden affair punctuated by inane dialogue. Princess Susan Hayward and the supporting players are all ridiculously miscast, but none more so than the Duke, whose performance might have passed muster had he been encouraged to play it strictly for laughs. Produced for RKO by Howard Hughes, who reportedly was obsessed with this movie and later bought sole rights to it, effectively keeping it out of circulations for years. Filmed partly on-location in Utah near an atomic weapons test site, with many in the cast and crew later succumbing to cancer-related deaths. *1/2 from ****