Hero of Rome

Among Italian peplums of the period around 1960, there were some concerned with Roman legend, including "Coriolano, eroe senza patria", which was also helmed by Giorgio Ferroni. "Il colosso di Roma" is another example.

After having overthrown their king, Tarquinius Superbus (Massimo Serato), Rome is a young republic. Tarquinius tries to regain his throne with the military assistance of the Etruscan king, Porsenna (Roldano Lupi). Film sets in with Romans suffering from hunger, and top-notch soldier Mucius first securing the arrival of a corn transport, then deciding to kill Porsenna. In the king's camp he kills the wrong man, is captured, but proves his boldness by voluntarily burning his right hand in an open flame. The tiny, but crucial story about Roman bravery, which originally has a noble youngster as the failing killer, is generously embellished and furnished with a muscular experienced military leader as Mucius instead, played by ex-Tarzan Gordon Scott.

As the story progresses, it is interwoven with another heroic character from Latin legend, Cloelia, who is presented as Mucius' fiancée. She is among the hostages produced to secure the peace with Porsenna, but organizes the escape across the River Tiber when they find themselves betrayed. Her rôle is performed by one of the countless second-rate beauties of Italian screens, Gabriella Pallotta.

Although it may be deemed interesting to illustrate a national saga of yore, the film's pathetic hero-worship seems out of date for the mid-sixties. Still, monumental adventures were fashionable, and Italy's writers happy with any adaptable material. It is almost surprising how much of the legend's original idea can be recognized.

Expectations of a grand epic, as nurtured by the heavily orchestrated opening credits of nearly three minutes, are not at all lived up to by the following 82 (in the version I saw) minutes. Achievements are hardly average in all categories, although cinematography (Augusto Tiezzi) and score (Angelo Francesco Lavagnino) come from peplum's most experienced artists. Not even its best-hated villain, Massimo Serato, is really credible as Tarquinius. Fighting scenes are well staged, although some of the material seems to be taken from other films, too.

In this movie Gaius Mucius Scaevola, the heroic general goes down in history by being remembered by his act of bravery. When captured bythe Etruscans in 508 BC he puts his right hand, his sword hand, into the flames rather than become a traitor. That meant he had to use his left hand from then on and "Scaevola" today means " left handed" in Italian. Mucius saves his beloved Clelia from the tyrant Tarquinius, the last king of Rome who he kills in a duel and saves the newly Roman republic from their Etruscan overlords. This by far a better " Sword & Sandal movie with a love story, plenty of action, battles with spectacular scenery surrounding a historical backstage. Our hero Mucius, (Gordon Scott) played Tarzan in five films of the Tarzan series between 1955 and 1960. bcarruthers-76500

These Peplum Studios movies based on ancient historical characters always seem to be better produced than their regular run of the mill sword and sandal 60s sentimentality. The version of this movie I saw was on DVD in widescreen 16:9 format and the print and sound quality seemed to be in quite good condition considering its age. It comes across as a min-epic based on the legendary hero of Rome, Gaius Mucius Scaevola, which lives up to a lot of expectations. Some gorgeous women are in it including the beautiful Gabriella Pallota as Cloelia. Mucius or Lucius, as he sounded like in the dialogue is a warrior played by Gordon Scott, our friend who played Tarzan from 1955 to 1960. He shows off his muscle man duties like picking up "heavy" plastic logs and throwing at the enemy soldiers. The rest of the movie is filled with a whole lot of battle scenes. Some of which I'm sure I've seen before. All in all it's a decent movie. The story was solid, well paced and the acting decent. What more can a man and his kids ask for? And Yes. There were no dragons or monsters in this one Brian Carruthers.

In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).

It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.

However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.

I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.

One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.

This film was pretty good, for it's time it has a lot of sword fighting and action. I'm not sure what other reviewers are complaining about. Of course it won't have too much violence as it was made in the 60's and it isn't a horror film. Of course it won't have too much CGI because they didn't have the technology back then. Yes of course they won't have boobs because this isn't a porn film. The story is better than a lot of other Hollywood films made today, and more easy to follow, and makes sense. The costumes are awesome and much went into the armour, The 60's Italian film wasn't big enough to have too much lavish sets and it's fine as it is. A product of it's era. People complaining about the women's costumes are being silly now, because Roman women did used to dress this way and their hairstyles were the most gorgeous.