NOTE IMDb
4,7/10
142
MA NOTE
Le tribun Sicinius veut s'emparer du pouvoir et s'allie au principal ennemi de son pays le roi des Volsques. Coriolanus, le plus brave guerrier de Rome, apprend la trahison de Sicinius, mais... Tout lireLe tribun Sicinius veut s'emparer du pouvoir et s'allie au principal ennemi de son pays le roi des Volsques. Coriolanus, le plus brave guerrier de Rome, apprend la trahison de Sicinius, mais il est victime d'un complot et condamné à l'exilLe tribun Sicinius veut s'emparer du pouvoir et s'allie au principal ennemi de son pays le roi des Volsques. Coriolanus, le plus brave guerrier de Rome, apprend la trahison de Sicinius, mais il est victime d'un complot et condamné à l'exil
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Fortunato Arena
- Un domestico
- (non crédité)
Sal Borgese
- Addetto Tullio
- (non crédité)
Omero Capanna
- Un cittadino
- (non crédité)
Nello Pazzafini
- Un prigioniero
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Dulce et decorum est pro patria more indeed. Though I'm no Shakespeare accolyte, I gather that this 'Peplum' probably sources its inspiration from one of his lesser-known plays, that featured mostly domestic and court intrigue with a bit of battle stuff thrown in. After all, his business was intimate human tragedy contrasted against backdrops of epochal social/historical significance, and the disparate and often irreconcilable relationship between the two.
In terms of historical verisimilitude, the best you can hope for is Tarzan blending in with the wooden scenery very capably throughout a couple of budget-swallowing battle scenes and more than a fair helping of romantic longueurs. It must be said though that the odds have always been stacked against these sorts of affairs outside of their native Italy at the very first exportation hurdle - the English dubbing suite. This and others of its ilk would probably fare much more equitably when shown in widescreen format in their original tongue. Sadly, without vested American capital interest behind such prospective re-accreditation, that prospect fades farther into the cinematic never-never with each successive year.
In terms of historical verisimilitude, the best you can hope for is Tarzan blending in with the wooden scenery very capably throughout a couple of budget-swallowing battle scenes and more than a fair helping of romantic longueurs. It must be said though that the odds have always been stacked against these sorts of affairs outside of their native Italy at the very first exportation hurdle - the English dubbing suite. This and others of its ilk would probably fare much more equitably when shown in widescreen format in their original tongue. Sadly, without vested American capital interest behind such prospective re-accreditation, that prospect fades farther into the cinematic never-never with each successive year.
One of many , from "60's, sword and sandals films. Nice choice for nostalgics, for fans of idealistic Roman history perspective, for searchers of silly fight scenes. The only problem- the option for the lead character. The story of Coriolanus is not easy , as fundamental legend of Rome Republic or as adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The filmmaker ignores the nuances and use the too familiar recipe, mixing bad dialogues with "ad usum Delphini" plot.. Each not working in this case. The result - not meritorious, against the tries of actors to save the film. But, sure, the genre has its iron rules.
After the recent misfire that was HERCULES AGAINST MOLOCH (1963) - with which it shares director Ferroni and co-stars Gordon Scott and Rosalba Neri - I was actually surprised by this one: Scott, wooden though he is, probably has his best such role here - and, at least, much like the Steve Reeves of THE Trojan HORSE (1961; incidentally, also a Ferroni film), he isn't required to be a he-man! The film also boasts an above-average, albeit one-note, villain in Alberto Lupo. Unfortunately, however, Neri was a lot better used as a villainess in HERCULES than as Scott's dutiful wife here!
While the action and the spectacle is par for the course, to me, the most satisfying aspect of the film is its complex and thoroughly engaging plot - with Lupo conniving with the enemies of Rome behind its back and then conspiring to banish Scott...who eventually leads the enemy to march on Rome and rid it of Lupo's corrupt influence. Finally, it was refreshing to watch a film about the Roman Empire from a simpler era - serving as an antidote to the general unpleasantness and the unwarranted vulgarity of the ROME (2005) TV series...
While the action and the spectacle is par for the course, to me, the most satisfying aspect of the film is its complex and thoroughly engaging plot - with Lupo conniving with the enemies of Rome behind its back and then conspiring to banish Scott...who eventually leads the enemy to march on Rome and rid it of Lupo's corrupt influence. Finally, it was refreshing to watch a film about the Roman Empire from a simpler era - serving as an antidote to the general unpleasantness and the unwarranted vulgarity of the ROME (2005) TV series...
Class war in Ancient Rome.
The plot of Marcus, renamed Coriolanus after a victory, switching sides to expose the evils of Rome's leaders, is a snooze fest. The first third is dull court intrigue. The middle third is great action, that will get your hopes up. Unfortunately the final third is worse than the first and will bore you to tears. As good as the middle is the ends kill it. This is a movie to make you pull your hair out because whats good is so good that you end up with no patience for the bad parts.
Making everything worse is the fact that the dubbing into English is terrible making the already iffy performances seem worse.
A void unless you need sleep, or can manage only to see the middle third.
The plot of Marcus, renamed Coriolanus after a victory, switching sides to expose the evils of Rome's leaders, is a snooze fest. The first third is dull court intrigue. The middle third is great action, that will get your hopes up. Unfortunately the final third is worse than the first and will bore you to tears. As good as the middle is the ends kill it. This is a movie to make you pull your hair out because whats good is so good that you end up with no patience for the bad parts.
Making everything worse is the fact that the dubbing into English is terrible making the already iffy performances seem worse.
A void unless you need sleep, or can manage only to see the middle third.
The Shakespeare drama is one of the last and greatest in that production, it's a towering masterpiece of human architecture with the leading character embodying the very essence of tragedy by his pride and uncompromising integrity, based on Plutarch's biography of authentic destinies of great men. The Italian film on the subject is something entirely different, although the story is basically the same. The main force of the film is concentrated on the battle of Corioli, which established Coriolanus as the hero of Rome and becoming consul, and you recognize the battle field from the Hannibal film and his battle at Cannae. This is no Shakespeare drama, the text is grossly mutilated and cut down to prosaic basics, and they have even changed the story. This is no longer a tragedy, and all the tragic elements have been abolished. For all this truncated nakedness, it' not a bad film, although given a rather superficial and formal character, and at least it remains an epic. It's worth seen at least once, but be prepared for a surprise, if you know the story.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesItalian censorship visa # 42395 delivered on 3-3-1964.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 36min(96 min)
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant