Is Genghis Khan Worth Watching?
Answer: Maybe not, Genghis Khan is likely a skip if you enjoy History movies.
It features a runtime of 127 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.

Verdict:Genghis Khan is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 5.8/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the History, Drama, Adventure genre.
Answer: Maybe not, Genghis Khan is likely a skip if you enjoy History movies.
It features a runtime of 127 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1965, Genghis Khan emerges as a significant entry in the History, Drama, Adventure domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of This is the story of the shy Mongol boy Temujin who,during the 13th century, becomes the fearless Mongol leader Genghis Khan that unites all Mongol tribes and conquers India,China,Persia,Korea and parts of Rusia,Europe and Middle-East. Unlike standard genre fare, Genghis Khan attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any History is often anchored by its ensemble, and Genghis Khan features a noteworthy lineup led by Omar Sharif . Supported by the likes of Stephen Boyd and James Mason , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Genghis Khan (1965) is mixed. With an audience rating of 5.8/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Genghis Khan is a History, Drama, Adventure film that presents a compelling narrative that engages viewers from start to finish. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Genghis Khan attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to history resolution.
The emotional climax centers on character transformation, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Genghis Khan reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Genghis Khan draws heavily from documented historical records. As a history, drama, adventure film, it navigates the space between factual accuracy and narrative engagement.
The film takes creative liberties to enhance dramatic impact. Core events maintain connection to source material while adapting for theatrical presentation.
Creative interpretation shapes the final narrative, with attention to period detail and historical context.
Accuracy Assessment: Genghis Khan adapts its source material for dramatic purposes. The film prioritizes thematic resonance over documentary precision.
Consider Watching If:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $3.5M |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |
The estimated production budget for Genghis Khan is $3.5M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 5.8/10, and global collection metrics, Genghis Khan stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1965 cinematic year.
Genghis Khan has received mixed reviews with a 5.8/10 rating, making it a moderate success with the audience.
Genghis Khan is a mixed bag. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of History, Drama, Adventure movies, but read reviews first.
Genghis Khan may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
Whoever put this cast together was clearly looking at box office revenues and not at suitability and/or compatibility. Omar Sharif as the eponymous title character has just about enough on-screen charisma to get away with this, but James Mason and Robert Morley (the Emperor) are almost comical in their portrayals. Stephen Boyd as "Jamuga" and Eli Wallach "The Shah" don't fare much better with this most stilted of scripts and Françoise Dorléac as "Bortei" has a sort of faux personality that just adds to the emptiness of this entire thing. Looks great, though - costumes and grand cinematography (particularly the battle scenes) do help this adventure to remain just about watchable - and, let's face it - it is miles better than "The Conqueror" (1956).
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.