Thor the Conqueror

well everybody already said how blatantly bad this movie is (the

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

As far as Sword+Sandal flicks go, "Thor the Conqueror" is one of the more 'realistic' movies of the genre. Instead of being pretty, and polished, with elaborate sets and over-styled hair, we get a surprisingly gritty and rough movie, shot totally in some forest, with a very minimalist style. And this is what gives "Thor the Conqueror" a believable edge. Actor Bruno Minniti likewise, is not some huge, steroid ripped pretty guy with perfect hair, but rather a more authentic looking hero. With his slimmer, but ripped build, Thor comes across as a lean and mean fighter, a lot more agile than some huge guy. And rather than make Thor a stereotypical "hero" beyond reproach, he is shown to be rather rough with females, raping, and sometimes killing them with little thought, and no regret. I thought this was a brilliant touch, as who ever imagines a figure like 'Thor' to be a well-behaved gentleman has absolutely no understanding of the Norse Legends. Barbarians, Vikings, were pillagers, rapists, and murderers. They were warriors, and rarely noble. Other people criticized his portrayal, saying that they couldn't sympathize with him. I find that statement very silly.

There was a brilliant Scandinavian director named Hrafn Gunnlaugsson, who created some very realistic Viking films in the 80's. i'm not saying "Thor the Conqueror" is quite in that league, but this strange film reminds me of those movies in the way it is shot in such minimalist style, with crude sets and costumes, and muted colors. On a side note, I was not expecting any romantic content in this movie, but i found the relationship between Thor and Ina to be really nice. As brutal as Thor is with her in the beginning, she finds that she cannot abandon him when his life is threatened by a group of cannibals. she risks her life to rescue him, and from that moment on, the hero of the story develops a new kind of respect and understanding for the opposite sex. I'm surprised at how much I enjoyed this obscure, low budget movie..I recommend it to fantasy film lovers who don't need big budget sets and special FX to enjoy a good fantasy tale..

Now I know that general opinion holds this film in utter disdain and yes, I will concede that it is certainly no cinematic masterpiece, but.......there is a certain strange fascination that it exudes in it's primitiveness.

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.

After both his parents are brutally murdered by his fathers rival Gnut and his men, the new born Thor is placed in hiding by the the god Teisha. When Thor comes to maturity he goes on a quest to avenge the death of his parents and return peace to his lands.

Thor the Conqueror AKA Thor il conquistatore is directed by Tonino Ricci and is agonisingly one of the bottom of the barrel of the countless Conan the Barbarian cash-ins. Sadly it doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Lucio Fulci's Conquest, Ator or Thorne of Fire. It has nothing to with Thor opening with a low budget zero budget version of Conan's opening. If anything the savage-look seems more One Million Years B. C. (1966), Planet of the Apes TV series (minus the apes) or Tarzan classics. Made in 1983, it feels more 1963.

Unfortunately Ricci is unable to create any sort of atmosphere or visual interest on the backdrop of the beautiful scenery, it suffers from the usual quality issues, poor sound design, editing and clunky staging. Possibly due to the budget, Ricci appears to set this so far in the past that this flat bland approach allows there to be little if any sets.

Luigi Mezzanotte plays Etna, the Owl (as Christopher Holm) who pops up like Richard O'Brien, oddly narrating now and again as Thor and Sheeba aimlessly fight cannibals, also warrior soldiers, slashing, axing, decapitating heads as they walk the lands. It sounds better than it is. Even familiar Italian actors including Raf Baldassarre as Gnut who gives a larger than life performance or underused Malisa Longo can't lift Tito Carpi's bare bones story and screenplay. Blinded at one point, still nothing can stop long hair model-like Bruno Minnit's Thor, not even snakes or horses from getting his magic sword. The stunning Maria Romano Sheeba, the slave is notable but sadly gets little to do. Actually Romano is one of the few redeeming features of Ricci's offering.

All things considered, it's barebones at best. Yet again, the poster art is far superior than the film.

Okay I often watch barbarian films and try and empathise with the lead character. Primal, base and violent. However after watching this movie I found I couldn't even relate to the lead character.

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