Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn the vein of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and Lucio Fulci's CONQUEST comes a tale of mythology and magic, of how THOR, a legendary god, triumphs over overwhelming odds to great victory and the dest... Tout lireIn the vein of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and Lucio Fulci's CONQUEST comes a tale of mythology and magic, of how THOR, a legendary god, triumphs over overwhelming odds to great victory and the destruction of his foes. After both his parents are brutally murdered by his father's rival Gn... Tout lireIn the vein of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and Lucio Fulci's CONQUEST comes a tale of mythology and magic, of how THOR, a legendary god, triumphs over overwhelming odds to great victory and the destruction of his foes. After both his parents are brutally murdered by his father's rival Gnut and his men the new born Thor is placed in hiding by the physical embodiment of the god... Tout lire
- Thor
- (as Conrad Nichols)
- Ino, Third Virgin Warrior
- (as Malisa Lang)
- Gnut
- (as Raf Falcone)
- Etna, the Owl
- (as Christopher Holm)
- Barbarian Chief
- (non crédité)
- Cannibal Chief
- (non crédité)
- Barbarian
- (non crédité)
- Gnut's Tribesman
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Seriously, I pride myself on having seen almost every sword and sorcery movie made in the 80's. Even knowing in advance how bad this movie was supposed to be, it went down pretty hard. Fortunately, I had good company - we've climbed a lot of z-movie Everests before. Even Deathstalker IV was better. To go outside of sword and sorcery, even Star Knight or Nukie compare favorably to Thor.
The only 80's sword and sorcery movies that may be worse are: Princess Warrior, Time Barbarians, and Wizards Of The Demon Sword (1991). I haven't seen these to confirm for myself, but as one of them is supposedly shot on video (and is REALLY bad to begin with), another is a Fred Olen Ray film, and two of them are of the "Barbarian in L.A." type, I'm betting any time spent as an audience with these would be pretty gruesome.
The other IMDb reviewers have this film exactly right. It's miserable. Absolutely unmotivated, and engaging only where it offends or is too seizure-inducingly stupid. (incidentally, the first line I wrote accurately summarizes EVERYTHING in Thor).
There ARE some funny moments. My favorite is when Thor's mystic/mentor produces an - uh, is it all right if I call it an equine? - and explains to him that "this is a creature that will not be called a horse for several centuries," or something to that effect. This, of course, means that if you WANTED to call it a horse in the meantime during the intervening centuries, you'd be stuck.
It doesn't stop being moronic there, though; Thor proceeds to use the horse to, uh........impress his enemies? All he does is ride it up and down a field while his enemies watch; doesn't so much as brandish his sword. Eventually, they flee. I'm sure in the script it said "Thor's enemies, having never seen a horse before, flee in terror." Yeah. That's not really conveyed. But then, not much is in "Thor." My friend and I marveled at its shortcomings.
Recommended for barbarian completists and bad movie fetishists only.
Firstly the lead, Thor, is shot as a baby, yet survives. Okay he must be well hard, but why is this never referred to? Secondly he is accompanied by a camp "Birdman" who says he cannot follow Thor, yet is always there, especially when our "Hero" is about to have sex.
Oh yes, our "hero" he kills women, rapes them, steals, kills. And we are suppose to feel sorry for him when he is blinded?
Oh year and I thought maybe if the sword turned into the snake, the snake might transform into the sword, no that would be daft.
Another bad point is this film refused to end when we shouted "END!" at the TV.
THis film is tosh, but I will leave you with the line "In centuries to come it will be called horse", I mean... what is it called now?
2 out of Ten
Jake "The Jiggybeast" Roberts
This is REALLY low budget movie making in effect.
The story details the protagonist's adventures in a land filled with various perils such as demons and evil tribes etc. There is also an underlying story of revenge as Thor's fate leads him to battle and eventually slay the barbarian who murdered his father when he was a baby.
Whilst the plot itself is incredibly basic, (if it even merits as a plot at all) the way it unfolds on screen is bizarrely compelling.
I really can't put my finger on exactly why I rather enjoyed such a universally reviled movie. As said above perhaps the sheer baseness of the picture was the attraction to me. Certainly the closest movie I could liken it to was Lucio Fulci's similarly themed 'Conquest', again a film which is generally loathed by most people (even fans of the Sword & Sorcery genre to which it belongs) but again, a film which I found to be strangely intriguing.
Overall then, if your a fan of Sword & Sorcery flicks then you might want to give Thor The Conqueror a try - just don't expect anything along the quality lines of Conan The Barbarian.
attempts at humour seems to be directed at the viewer, just to say
"The joke's on you, sucker !", but I have to point out one scene
where we see the hero and one cronie walking to Well, walking.
Obviously you can see a whole modern village (Italian, I gather) in
the background with no attempt to hide it ! I wonder if it was
intentional or just sloppyness. Of course, you'd say, nowadays they do the same thing in the US,
with a 30 mil budget and a few MTV groovy young stars and none
of the wackiness typical to Italian B-movies, but Check a Sergio
Martino movie instead of this one. And I saw it in a theatre. After all, maybe I SHOULD get a life
Le saviez-vous
- ConnexionsReferenced in Best of the Worst: Our DVD and Blu-ray Collection (2019)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Thor the Conqueror?Alimenté par Alexa