La ira de Aquiles

for many reasons, Gordon Mitchell was not the most inspired option for the role of Achilles. but this choice becomes a small detail across the film. because , "Fury of Achilles" has a first virtue - it is different by the Italian movies , inspired by the mythology/history of Old Greek / Rome. motifs - Iliad is not a pretext for fight scenes and love stories but source for an adaptation who use accuracy as one of its virtues. the second motif, the acting who could not be reduced at good intentions. and the beautiful cinematography. so, "The Fury of Achilles".

I've watched a number of Trojan War movies recently, and this may be the very best.

Like Homer's Iliad, it begins toward the end of the war and ends before the episode of the Trojan Horse; the focus is strictly on one man, Achilles, and his fate. A knowledge of the dramatis personae and the basic circumstances is presumed of the viewer, just as Homer expected his listeners to know who Paris was, or how Iphigenia died.

Unlike any other Trojan War film I've seen, this one, like Homer, includes the gods and their divine intervention in human affairs. Achilles' near-invincibility is a supernatural fact, as demonstrated in a scene when he's stabbed and the blade is destroyed as if blasted by lightning. Yet the film doesn't feel like a fantasy, as do similar films about Jason, Hercules, or Ulysses; it's a psychological drama in which the psyche of the main character is driven by his understanding of his divine destiny. An oracle has revealed that Troy cannot fall until its champion, Hector, dies; Hector cannot die until Achilles slays him; and once that happens, Achilles must die. This is the burden of greatness — and doom — that lies upon Achilles.

Even dubbed, Gordon Mitchell gives a powerful and convincing portrayal of the warrior who is both hero and monster. His physical presence is perfect: his physique is statuesque but his features are so rugged as to be ugly (think of Charles Bronson or Jack Palance); he is sexually alluring, physically intimidating, and frightening to look at.

The script is surprisingly, sometimes amazingly, literate, verging on the poetic. Especially memorable are Achilles' explanation of his invulnerability to the captured Briseis, which ironically reveals his vulnerability and wins her pity and affection; Patroclus' plea to Hector to kill him after he's been wounded; and Hector's farewell speech to his wife and the people of Troy before he goes out to battle Achilles. The climactic duel between the two warriors is very well-staged and utterly riveting.

I wonder if the makers of TROY saw this movie? If so, they learned nothing from it. If they had simply done a remake of this film, reproducing its insights into the tragedy of Achilles and Hector, Brad Pitt would be the possessor of an Oscar today!

Here's the rub: this movie is very hard to locate on DVD, at least in the US. The only copy I've found, on a compilation DVD called RETURN TO TROY, is from a very degraded full-screen print, hardly watchable by most viewer's standards. If this movie could be seen in a well-preserved widescreen print, it would be truly spectacular.

I remember watching this as a child on TV and so when I finally had the opportunity to watch this recently on DVD, I wondered if it would still impress me and I wasn't disappointed. I've always been obsessed with Homer's Iliad and am still waiting for someone to put a more "definitive" version of this literary classic on screen. This movie is typical of the "sword and sandal" films of the period but better than most. The story pretty much follows the story of the Iliad fairly accurately. The Iliad is the story of Achilles and thats the theme of the movie. It also ends where Homer's Iliad ends with the ransom of Hectors body. The Gods, while not extremely obvious are also part of the story and tangible as in the original Iliad, in contrast to the absence of the Gods in the larger budget versions such as "Helen of Troy" (1956) and "Troy" (2004). I definitely recommend this movie for anyone who enjoys the sword and sandal films of this period. Its not a great movie but I was happy the film was faithful to the original story.

It's kind of silly to realize that Achillies -- played here by Gordon Mitchell, one of the demigods of cult cinema -- was also personified at one point by twig-boy turned actor Brad Pitt (in Wolfgang "One-Shot" Peterson's TROY, which basically tells the same story), who's career zenith still remains the stoner roommate from TRUE ROMANCE. The two performers and the two performances are incomparable, as are the two films, made four decades and a couple of continents apart. One is a silly computer enhanced vanity piece for a number of special interest causes, the other a low budget yet undeniably powerful genre film that was far better than it ever had to be. I will let you figure out which was which.

One should never confuse movies or their content with the "real world" (hello, Michael Moore!) since movies are ultimately meant to entertain those who watch them rather than serve as literal interpretations of history, facts, even legend or myth. A good working example is the ongoing debate amongst fans of the Western as to who was a better shot -- John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Lee Van Cleef. The answer is of course neither (Anthony Steffen gets my vote) since they were all actors and the gunplay was special effects work. BUT, if there was one film from the Peplum era of Italian sword & sandal films that I would recommend to a history professor who wants to help make Greek mythological history come to life, I'd pick FURY OF ACHILLIES. This is such a well-written and well acted film -- even when dubbed into English -- that the history it tells really does come to life. Much of that credit should go to Marino Girolami (father of Enzo G. Castellari, god bless him) and his choice of muscle-man turned genre star Gordon Mitchell as Achillies. Standing 6'3" and about 225lbs of sheer attitude, Mitchell is quite believable as the invulnerable, ultimate warrior of Greek mythology, and I will hazard to opine that Mr. Pitt was too busy having his nails buffed to bother watching this film to realize that the trick is not just in Mitchell's bulk but the way that he carries himself that makes his character SO much larger than life. Mitchell really carries this movie, which might be his finest hour behind the shield.

And as any performer will attest, if it isn't on the page it isn't on the stage: writer Gino De Santis' surprisingly poetic and verse oriented script is wonderfully faithful to the literary traditions that gave birth to such names as Achillies, Hector, Troy, and Odysseus. Special mention should be made of familiar genre face Mario Petri's portrayal of the agonized King Agamemnon, driven mad for power by the sacrifice of his young daughter to the gods. It is Agamemnon's agonized vanity that results in the film's dramatic meat & potatoes, highlighted by a number of genuinely moving funerary scenes, dramatic speeches, fights to the death, vows of allegiance or damnation. Here actually is the stuff of legends, realized on film with a sort of restrained grandeur by director Girolami who worked within the modest budget allotted to create a masterful telling of myth that is still quite human.

Most of these Peplum thrillers are silly spectacle films centered around a muscle-man hero, special effects set-pieces, sexy Veil Dances and maybe a duplicitous scheming Caesar or sorcerer pulling the strings of our hero. This time our hero is on his own, sort of thrust into his role of savior of his army & people's with little or no regards to how he may feel about it. That is what is often referred to as "fate", and if Mr. Peterson's film had managed to capture such universal indifference to our own petty concerns as mere mortals it might be remembered as something more than the film where Gladiators finally came out of their collective closet. Another point missed by TROY, HANNIBAL, the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and some of the other epic sweeping historical budget/event films of the mid 2000's is that these Italian Peplum potboilers were made with such low budgets that their directors, writers, set designers and performers had to rely on their wits, imagination, resourcefulness and iron necks to make what could have and often did result in films that were absurd. Here is one that didn't, and might be the best example of the Peplum thriller as a take on history that I at least have ever encountered. And is a wonderful example of humanity's penchant for story telling without the need for computer animated effects, which for my money always take the fun out of stuff like this by allowing you to bypass your own sense of imagination. This one engages it and is almost as good as the myths upon which it was based.

9/10, and very worthy of a proper restoration.

"Fury of Achilles" is one of the few worthwhile films on the subject of "The Iliad." Achilles ( a fierce Mitchell) and Hector (a rugged Bergerac) both carry the film..and are well portrayed and the plentiful action is believable and well-staged. Like other fans of this film, I marvel at the superior product of a modest budget which far outshines the overblown "Troy." The only faults were the misrepresentation of the relationship with Patroclus and the fact that Queen Helen is neither seen nor barely even alluded to. And oddly, the audience doesn't get the fulfillment of the prophecy, the death of Achilles (by being shot in his heel) For these reasons, I would rank Robert Wise's "Helen of Troy" as number one and "Fury of Achilles" as a very close second. All other versions are not even contenders. Mitchell's portrayal of the conflicted Greek hero is a much more interesting and faceted one than has ever been rendered before...and the doomed Hector as played by Bergerac has a worthy rival indeed. It is to be hoped that this film will be restored to its original glory; the prints available on video and DVD currently are too poor a quality to do it justice.