Annibale

I don't know who the hell shot this, but I suppose I could glance at the credits and lay blame on the culprits, but since I'm lazy and irritated right now I'll just skip the formality and say that Victor Mature probably fired his agent several times over after being booked for this gig.

He is quite literally the only competent person thesping his role, all the while other actors are stiff, comical, and otherwise just plain unconvincing. But like I implied in my first paragraph, it's not even the acting (however bad by the supporting cast) that's the issue: It's the cinematography: It's the direction and shot set ups: It's poor scheduling of the extras so the most can be gotten out of them shot wise. It's everything from the awful costumes to the lack of historical accuracy, to the extreme lack of consistent production values.

The battle scenes are so poorly staged that you wonder who the hell was in charge of this thing. The acting, as mentioned, by all other than the lead (Mature) is some of the worst I've seen for a feature film. It's that bad.

Avoid this thing.

The print that I viewed was the one available from "Belle and Blade Video". The print quality is not great but watchable. This one really needs to be seen in the widescreen format as this Pan and Scan version has many scenes where actors are speaking and are not even in frame. I can only guess how this would effect some of the many battle scenes. The problem with this movie is not so much in the screenplay, with all the elements we have come to expect in the Italian Sword and Sandal movies. The obligatory "love story" and the not too historical depiction of Ancient Combat. Trying to tell the complete story of the Great Carthaginian leader who kept Rome in Terror for nearly a decade is not an easy one. The direction and editing is what I think is the real problem here. Some scenes are just too long while others cry out for more attention. There is a disturbing quality to some of the battle scenes, which switch from outdoor photography to sound stage. Since it is the only movie out there on Hannibal, it wins by default. I am amazed that this story has not been redone. Overall, if you are into Ancients and the Sword and Sandal Genre you probably will like this film. Oh, by the way the obligatory "Elephants" are there, and handled as well as one might expect from this type of film.

I've red a lot about this figure and I got to admire it; I think he was in the level of Julius Caesar and Alexander when it comes to ancient history's generals. The involving tactic he used at Cannae is still studied in Military Academies around the world. He was an extremely clever man most educated for his time and he loved his country. The Crossing of the Alps back in 200 B.C. with an army and 30 war elephants can only be qualified as epic and a true highlight in Military history.

The guy sure deserved a better try in films. Italians were never good at making epic spectacular films, but Americans did some very good products and its a pity they were never interested in Hannibal.

Edgar Ulmer's film is slow, boring and irrelevant. It starts with the crossing of the Alps and ends after Cannae; that period was precisely Hannibal's most glorious when he moved through Italy (Rome's dominions back then) at will defeating the legions four times and retiring without ever being defeated. The movie doesn't transmit at all the real significance of such a quest against the most powerful nation of the ancient world in its own soil.

Victor Mature (Hannibal) was the master of overacting and he proofs it in this picture once more moving around with his usual 60's greasy hairdo. The rest of the cast is average or below average. The battles are not very realistic and the elephants that were used as today's tanks don't even look dangerous (even if you pass over that they were Indian elephants instead of African).

Don't waste your time on this one. The great general deserves a lot more and he sure gave a lot of material for a good script.

This material is difficult to see, the photography and color are not the best, and from time to time you see cut scenes. Poor Annibale that Hollywood never wanted to make a film about a real revolutionary and hero. This Italian film tries to give an idea of what Annibale did, but it might have a lot of invention. For example, I am not sure about his love for a woman called Sylvia, who was the nephew of Fabius. Annibale (Victor Mature) was famous because of using elephants in his battles. The animals are seen at the beginning of the film when Annibale and the troops were coming to Italy through very snowy roads in France, but at the time of the battles the elephants were not seen anymore. The force of antique Rome is once again shown here, the Romans were defeated at the beginning by the Annibale's troops, but once they got united in the Senate and all power was given to Fabius, Annibale started to loose.

This film is perhaps one of the first one of the then young Terence Hill. In addition, Victor Mature showed once again that he was probably the best actor in epic films. In my personal opinion, he was much better than Charlton Heston. The film can be seen, but one may need to read the history to know what was real or not.

I like Victor MATURE and would even go as far as to call myself a "fan" of this Arnold Schwarzenegger-predecessor/archetype (with Austrian roots actually), but even I have to admit, that this flick ain't any of his better ones, unfortunately (sigh).

It's awkward from beginning to end: The first scene takes place in the Roman Senate, then you have a long one with the elephants crossing the Alps (that's probably the best of the whole picture, actually you can now turn off your TV-set) and now we're already well over 5 minutes into the picture, still no Hannibal/Annibale. Suddenly one sees some elephants getting loose and a guy which we can identify on second look as Victor Mature does some awkward gestures to get the elephants away. Pretty strange entry for "the hero". Only in scene number 4 and well 10 minutes into the movie someone takes the chance to identify our hero and calls him with his name. OK, the introduction of "the hero" has been managed, somehow.

The ending is equally abrupt, we see Hannibal's army moving along and get a voice over. Obvioulsly the directors (Edgar G. Ulmer usually does it better, but I assume he didn't have much to say in this one) had decided that enough celluloid had been "wasted" and called it a day.

The dialog is so unsophisticated, it hurts, but still not unintentionally funny, only hammy and boring, witless.

Everything in this picture is unfortunately mediocre to sub-par: ahead and foremost the script, but also acting (Victor is certainly also already too old for the role, sorry), photography, whatever. Only the music by Carlo RUSTICHELLI is slightly better, of course he's no Miklos ROSZA either, but at least the music is fitting and powerful. But that does not justify sitting through the whole picture (enjoy the main theme and quit).

For Terence HILL Fans it is worth mentioning that Mario GIROTTI, later known as TH, has a medium large part here and you can watch him "acting" (woodenly, but so what) a Roman.

So my rating is: If you are a Victor Mature fan: 4 out of 10, if you are a Terence Hill fan: 3 out of 10, if you're neither nor: 2 out of 10, so better stay away.

I wish I could have written a better review. :-(