Thron des Feuers

My review was written in June 1986 after watching the film on MGM/UA video cassette.

"The Throne of Fire' is a very ordinary Italian fantasy adventure cranked out in 1982 with the same cast and virtually the same plotline as a dozen other pictures at that time. Cannon pickup bypassed U. S. theatrical release to debut on video cassette instead.

Peter McCoy (real name: Pietro Torriso) toplines as Siegfried, a muscleman destined to save the world from evil, latter personified by Moark (Harrison Muller), the on of the devil's messenger Belial (also played by Muller) and the witch Azira.

For evil to continue to exist in the world, Morak must take the title throne "on the day of the night in the day" (another cornball eclipse coming up). To qualify, he must marry beautiful blonde princess Valkari (Sabrina Siani), daughter of King Egon who recently died. To sit on the throne without qualifying means instant death as it magically generates flames.

Imbued by his sorcerer father with invulnerability (except for a susceptibility to fire), Siegfried also get the temporary use of invisibility, just like his legendary namesake of "The Nibelungen" saga. Sluggishly paced low-budgeter has okay sword fight action but little else. The uncrowned queen of the genre, Siani (who made at least seven such films in 1982) is an athletic, intense beauty who deserved to graduate to better roles. She co-starred with the wooden McCoy in "The Sword of the Barbarians", which Cannon released theatrically in 1983 and the much sexier "The Invincible Barbarian" (released here on video cassette only). Co-star Muller (of "2020 Texas Gladiators") is funny with his rapidfire (self-dubbed) dialog delivery.

A woman gives birth to the devils messenger's child abomination, Morak, who is destined to sit on the Thorne of Fire at any cost and marry Princess Valkari, only Siegfried, a mighty barbarian warrior stands in his way.

The late director Francesco Prosperi returns with another a swords and sorcery film. Prosperi and writers Giuseppe Buricchi and Nino Marino move away from the Conan copies of the time, opting for a more generic fantasy. It plods along like some films made 20 years prior. Disappointingly, there's a few jarring exposition voice overs and unnecessary slow motion scenes synonyms with Prosperi's work.

Lead Pietro Torrisi, in perfect He-Man-esque shape, handles the sword fights and action well, as he hacks his way through the flick, he has plenty of presence despite a lack of lines. Harrison Muller's heartless cocky Morak isn't the usual ugly old evil villian which makes a refreshing change. Although lacking screen time Sabrina Siani as Valkari is on form here and gets some sword play action. To Siani's credit she injects some much needed energy into the film, stealing every scene she's in.

The locations, castles, courtyards and sets; corridors, well/cave offer weight. The stuntmen set on fire and the effects are adequate enough (if dated even for 1983), the devils child puppet, burning throne, Moraks true zombie-like face, opticals visuals in 'the well of madness' to name a few.

Prosperi delivers a film that is reminiscent of swords and sandals old films of the 50s and 60s on a smaller B-movie scale. Due to the direction, pacing and cinematography it uncannily feels of that period, Carlo Rustichelli and Paolo Rustichelli biblical epic score (for the most part), the look of the cast only compounds the feeling.

On the whole, it's a vast improvement on Gunan il guerriero (1982). Intentionally or not, it's callback or homage to mythical tales of films gone by. Torrisi, Siani and Muller work wonders with what they are given. Despite its flaws, more importantly Francesco Prosperi goes out on a final movie high.

I'm a big fan sword and sorcery, and Throne of Fire in spite of being an extreme ultra low budget, i give him a reasonable 5 stars. "Throne of Fire", "Il Trono di fuoco" or even "O Trono de Fogo", its a European (special Italian) "Z" sword and sorcery\barbarian flick, like many others ("Sangraal, la spada di fouco", "Gunan il Guerriero", "Sorceress", "Ator 1 and 2", "Deathstalker", "Ironmaster" etc, etc...), full of bad actors, bad script, special effects and soundtrack, but this one, i don't know why, its enjoyable to me see it. I recommend this one for big, big fans of sword and sorcery flicks only..

But one thing i must say, this one is much better then the films i refer before, with the exception of "Sangraal la spada di fuoco". In "Throne of Fire", we have the amazing Siegfreid ( Pietro Torrisi aka Peter McCoy)the hero and the gorgeous Princess Valkiri (Sabrina Siani) the heroine, then we have the fabulous bad guys, the personification of Satan and terrible warlord, Morack, and his general, Tares!!

Well, if you like this movie, i recommend: "Sangraal, la spada di fuoco", "Deathstalker" and "Gunan il Guerriero"(one of the worst)

There is something quite attractive about those Italian rip-offs. Everything seems to be more dramatic but will less talent. Throne of fire sure is one of those. You get everything you paid for, cheesy lines, inept acting, boring sequences after boring sequences and probably the worst villain ever.

If you're into those kind of films, you'll get what you're looking for and much more. The "pit of madness" scene, whatever is it called was hilarious, a classic Z-grade moment. Personally, I got a kick of watching this, just a glimpse of the cover art and I knew I was in for something "memorable".For the rest, quite a crap fest with some weird entertaining scenes but nothing good really.

Watching this I got reminded of my childhood and how I loved watching these types of movies. Swords and sandals I think they are called, with a touch of fantasy. And then I thought my childhood was all a lie. How could I have watched this and think this is any good? But reviews in general here have proved that this obviously is one of the weaker efforts. Apart from one praising this as being better than LotR - pure magic, especially because in no way is this explained. Not that you could explain it and sometimes you go with your gut feeling. But if you want to compare this with a "big budget" movie take Army of Darkness, not LotR which even if you don't like it plays in a different ballpark altogether.

Another reviewer of course, how many times can the hero of the movie be captured? The answer lies within this film. If that resembles to anything that makes sense for you: good for you. Just don't expect the majority to get it. Even when the movie tries to defend it at every way possible. "Stunts" are as if they were from a different era. When you could spot the stunt man doing the back-flips. It has its charm I guess. But there are a lot of other problems too. The inability to act, the script that if it even existed, is as terrible at dialog as it gets. You could go further and accuse this of sexism (more on the women side, but men get a bad rep from this too) and many other things. Prop swords that bend on papier-mache walls and so forth ... I'm beginning to wonder why I gave it a 2 right now ... but I guess I'm still a sucker for this