warrenchang

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.

I rented this video due to the actors Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan and the promise of a good western due to the good ratings and 2 thumbs up review, however I personally was disappointed. As mentioned in a previous review, this is not a traditional western and overall I found the movie to have the feel of a "made for TV" movie. To be fair, the action in the movie in the beginning was riveting and the overall look of the costumes and sets were convincing but it was the pacing and story which for me was not convincing and inconsistent. Liam Neeson's character bent on revenge for the loss of his family shows little compassion for anyone, shooting even his own men, yet repeatedly hesitates when it comes to the man he's been pursuing for so many years. Pierce Brosnan is referred to in almost legendary descriptions by the bandits he encounters yet the movie really does not capitalize on these attributes by creating any drama such as in Eastwoods Unforgiven. The encountering near the end with the lady peddler is suddenly a surreal experience, seemingly out of place, particularly since nothing like this has happened previously. Finally, the flash backs which reveal the tragedy that these two share, for me simply did not have the effect the movie intended. I simply did not feel the tragedy to be convincing. Whether it was how it was staged or the predictability of the story, I'm not sure. And I do feel the tragedy in other movies (recently Pans Labyrinth for example)so its not that I'm insensitive to what occurs.

I've wanted to watch this movie for a long time based on the performance of Jack Palance in a previous role as Atilla in "Sign of the Pagan". I wasn't disappointed in Palance's performance as Ogatai but as a whole this film was very inconsistent and horribly incorrect historically. To say the writers of this movie took liberties with history is an understatement. The great battle between the Mongols and the combined armies of Europe did take place, but not with the results described in the movie. In fact, the Mongols did have the opportunity to move much further westward into Europe, except by chance were diverted back home due to the death of the emperor and than later resumed their campaign toward the south/west and the Middle East, considered more attractive at this time in history. The movie does have some lavish costumes and epic battles, but it also often repeats the same footage over and over again. This movie actually had some potential with the amount of money it seemed to have in its production, but somebody dropped the ball in terms of editing, music and story. Blond haired Anita Ekberg as Ogatai's lover at first glance seems absurd, but plausible when you consider that the Mongols conquered all of Asia and most of Eastern Europe. Her acting is actually fairly good. The movie is worth seeing if your a fan of Jack Palance, his character of Ogatai is a unique one.