O Trono de Chamas

There is something quite attractive about those Italian rip-offs. Everything seems to be more dramatic but will less talent. Throne of fire sure is one of those. You get everything you paid for, cheesy lines, inept acting, boring sequences after boring sequences and probably the worst villain ever.

If you're into those kind of films, you'll get what you're looking for and much more. The "pit of madness" scene, whatever is it called was hilarious, a classic Z-grade moment. Personally, I got a kick of watching this, just a glimpse of the cover art and I knew I was in for something "memorable".For the rest, quite a crap fest with some weird entertaining scenes but nothing good really.

Watching this I got reminded of my childhood and how I loved watching these types of movies. Swords and sandals I think they are called, with a touch of fantasy. And then I thought my childhood was all a lie. How could I have watched this and think this is any good? But reviews in general here have proved that this obviously is one of the weaker efforts. Apart from one praising this as being better than LotR - pure magic, especially because in no way is this explained. Not that you could explain it and sometimes you go with your gut feeling. But if you want to compare this with a "big budget" movie take Army of Darkness, not LotR which even if you don't like it plays in a different ballpark altogether.

Another reviewer of course, how many times can the hero of the movie be captured? The answer lies within this film. If that resembles to anything that makes sense for you: good for you. Just don't expect the majority to get it. Even when the movie tries to defend it at every way possible. "Stunts" are as if they were from a different era. When you could spot the stunt man doing the back-flips. It has its charm I guess. But there are a lot of other problems too. The inability to act, the script that if it even existed, is as terrible at dialog as it gets. You could go further and accuse this of sexism (more on the women side, but men get a bad rep from this too) and many other things. Prop swords that bend on papier-mache walls and so forth ... I'm beginning to wonder why I gave it a 2 right now ... but I guess I'm still a sucker for this

If you are like me...you don't mind spending a Saturday watching a poorly made movie with swords, magic, and beautiful leading ladies. The Throne of Fire is just such a movie.

The plot is basically good vs. evil. Satan's messenger and a witch have a son and he is raised believing no one can oppose him. He sets out to rule the kingdom. In order to sit upon the Throne of Fire (made by the Norse god Odin) he must be a rightful heir to the throne and sit upon it first on a solar eclipse. To obtain the right to the throne he kidnaps the princess of the kingdom and forces her to marry him. However, the good-guy barbarian Conan wannabe is there to try to save the day.

Plenty of sword fighting ensues and some pretty bad special effects. In my humble opinion this movie was too long and not worth much to anyone unless you enjoy the genre. The leading lady (Sabrina Siani) is indeed beautiful and I will try to find other movies of hers. Look for errors in this movie such as the Christian wedding ceremony in a Norse Barbaric period.

The beautiful princess Valkari (Sabrina Siani) must marry the evil Morak (Harrison Muller, whom I remember from "She"), otherwise he cannot sit on the Throne of Fire and become rightful ruler. The hero Siegfried (Pietro Torrisi) goes on a mission to rescue the princess and prevent Morak's rulership.

If the storyline seems familiar to you: yes, we've seen it all before, and much better. This poorly staged movie ticks the usual boxes of the genre, and even other low-budget sword and sorcery flicks of that era shine compared to this ineptitude. It was the last movie Franco Prosperi ever directed and the last top-of-the-bill part in a cinema production for teenage queen Sabrina Siani who is familiar to fans of the genre from "Conquest" and the first "Ator" movie. You can easily give this a miss.

This cheapjack Conan rip-off is so mightily inept that the villain actually comes off appearing more sympathetic, interesting and intelligent, not to mention handsomer, than the hero. Surely this was an unintended consequence of the poor script and bad acting, the seemingly lumbering stupidity of the wooden muscle-bound hero and the obligatory trotting around cardboard sets in g-strings by these supposedly heroic do-gooders. This makes the Conan and Beastmaster films look like Ben-Hur and El Cid in comparison. The only (accidental)redeeming feature is the striking presence of Harrison Muller, Jr. as Morak a surprisingly appealing "bad guy." Both his person and his character stand out, perhaps largely due to the colossally boring nature of those around him. It's hardly his fault that he was warped by destiny as the plot would have it...the viewer can't help but root for him to succeed since he's the only one of any interest or appeal on scene.