Guerra de piratas

Living on an island situated so close to the Italian peninsula, it is small wonder that celebrities emanating from those parts would be a household word in Malta as well and, during my childhood days, no Italian film stars were as popular as Mario Girotti and Carlo Pedersoli…er…Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. These two actors – who could roughly be described as the "Laurel & Hardy" of Italian genre movies – have made 17 pictures together between 1968 and 1994 and the film under review is one of their earliest and least-known. They had just hit the big time with the Spaghetti Western spoof THEY CALL ME TRINITY (1970) and it was natural that, after three successive Westerns, producers wanted to try out something else so, here, they decided to not only change genre (to the swashbuckler) but also to have them as rivals instead of partners. Ironically, the new recipe failed to nourish the hungry masses and a sequel to TRINITY was hastily cooked up…

Apart from the incongruity of seeing the two stars swapping their by-now familiar cowboy garb for the pirate's feathered-hat and sword, the film itself comes off as a plodding and uninvolving adventure without even the benefit of their usual, protracted cazzotti (fistfights) sequences – save a few tired rehashes of people flying on top of cabinets with a single punch to the jaw! Terence Hill has the title role but is more morose than his usual self here and Bud Spencer is an opposing pirate leader who, true to the seaman's code, goes down with his ship in the end. Also in the cast are a trio of good-looking dames – Silvia Monti (as the vengeful wife of the Viceroy whom Hill abducts and even gets to bed), Monica Randall (as her companion who eventually joins the pirates' cause) and Jess Franco regular Diana Lorys (who is criminally wasted as a sympathetic innkeeper); the film's screenwriter George Martin(!) as Hill's aristocratic partner; Pasquale Basile as the annoying dumb brute typical of such fare; Luciano Pigozzi (hamming it up as another antagonistic pirate leader); and the customary Hollywood has-been generally roped in for such productions for their dubious marquee value: in this case, Edmund Purdom (as the Viceroy). Unfortunately, contrary to all convention, instead of relishing the role of an eye-rolling villain, Purdom underplays the part almost to the point of absentia!

In spite of the film's title, it doesn't seem to have been inspired by the Emilio Salgari (creator of popular heroic figure Sandokan) novel "The Black Pirate" – which, apart from two earlier European film versions, would again be brought to the screen (far more effectively) a mere five years after this one (with TV's Sandokan himself, Kabir Bedi, in the lead).

One hesitates to pass judgment on a movie which, in the English-language videotape, has obviously gone through a lot of clumsy re-editing and re-dubbing. Still, it's all we have to judge it by and so the truth must be told: this movie makes virtually no sense at all. The plot has something to do with a shipment of gold which the Viceroy at Guayaquil wants to send back to Spain. A loose confederation of pirate captains has other ideas, as does the Viceroy's beautiful and ambitious wife. Any attempt to clarify the plot beyond these elements will be met with frustration.

That said, the movie retains an amiable quality, is never out and out dull, and has an attractive cast. It's best viewed as an "In-Flight" feature -- one of those things you don't expect much of and which you halfway watch out of the corner of your eye while you're doing something else.

The highlight, (such as it is), may come when Edmund Purdom walks into a room and finds a shirtless Terence Hill tied to a wall, several bloody whip marks on his back. One can't help recalling at this moment that Purdom himself felt the sting of a whip back in MGM's 1954 spectacle, "The Prodigal"

To me,this is the paragon for the swashbucklers.This is how to do a swashbuckler."Blackie the Pirate" sets a standard for the genre.It gives a concrete idea on how such a movie ought to be.Very picturesque,and visually pleasing,"Blackie ..." has everything that I request from a movie of this kind:humor,fun,a handsome lead (T. Hill),good cast (George Martin,Bud Spencer) ,fluency,attractive music,sexy women (Silvia Monti,Mónica Randall,Diana Lorys),a film made by men who think and have a powerful sense of epic.These Italians used to had an incredible sens of fun. Horrors,westerns,Peplums,crime movies,SF,swashbucklers,WW 2 movies,comedy,sex drama,etc.,they hit the nail on the head.The French failed lamentably to take over all these "commercial" genres,but the Italians hit it.(It is true that I know a few outstanding French genre movies;but,with the Italians,outstanding is the rule.)And they were able to bring in Gemma,Nero,Hill,etc..To me,the Italian cinema is a source of inexhaustible pleasure.The Italians are for the fun what the French are for the novels,or the Germans for the music.They have the skill for doing EVERYTHING right.So,this Italian swashbuckler,"Blackie ...",IS a swashbuckler.

The two Italian actors have a lot of fun in this movie.(But "Blackie ..." is not a buddy film,as Spencer got only a bit part,though an excellent one.)The cast is very good.The girls were some 25-30 years when they appeared in Corsaro Nero.

A movie made out of love for fun.(A bluff like the Granger "Scaramouche" can not bear comparison with "Blackie ...".That "Scaramouche" can not pretend to be "a different kind" of movie;it is only a banal and stupid movie,lacking any charm.)

Gicca Palli did not make many movies.

Now don't get me wrong, I have always been an avid fan of Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, but this is a film that does not fit their talents. What made the two so popular was their chemistry on screen, with either playing the idiot at times but it works. That is not the case here, which is a great pity, this film could have been so much more, so what was wrong? Palli lost his way, he could not make his mind up whether this film was going to be a comedy or a drama, unfortunately because of this the film suffers. I have seen Hill play austere parts before, but always there are moments that have shown his humanity and his humour. This movie lacks this, in fact i felt uncomfortable with the character, who seemed to show no appreciation for his crew or the risks they ran for him and even the 20 second speech at the end of the film did little to change that. Bud Spencer, like Terence Hill is an accomplished comedy actor and I firmly believe that he was not comfortable playing this role. His lines could have just as easily been read from a newspaper and his interaction with Hill during negotiations were lacklustre and dull. The reason I have given this film 5 is that it did have some saving graces, mainly the characters that were the crew. Each had special skills, which did interest me and of course George martin who saved the movie from being a complete dirge. Had Hill's character been more like the swashbuckling Errol Flynn type and had there been more interaction between Hill and Spencer, this could have been a great movie.

Anyone who expects a typically buddy movie with Spencer and hill will be totally disappointed, so am I. Maybe this film is from a neutral point of view an average film. But as it is advertised as a buddy movie I will judge it like that. Spencers part is ridiculous. His dumbness is awesome, Hill, on the other hand is some kind of superman pirate which can do everything and whose silliest plans will succeed. Summarized this film is a typically old-fashioned pirate movie spiced up with some kind of humour and some good action scenes.

Watch this movie if you are a hard core fan of old-fashioned pirate movies, but not as Spencer/Hill movie.