As a genre, this one is now well-worn, to the point of cliché. However when this film was made, this was somewhat less the case. Remember that this film was made two years before Kubrick's 'Spartacus'; it is hard to believe that the look of this film had no influence on that production.
Here, the narrative is a little jumbled, the characters are not that well-developed and some of the plot elements are a bit nonsensical (e.g. when one of the main protagonists decides to prevent the coronation of the would-be queen alone, instead of rounding up a few supporting cohorts first...) but it isn't the worst film ever.
There are some well-made sequences in this film, and as others have said, production values are not at all bad. For example (although the stuffed tiger later on did made me chuckle) they used a real lion (albeit one with a fur coat on perhaps) for some of the combat sequences. The film is well-lit too.
Directorial styles vary of course but to modern eyes, there are very few cutaways to head shots. I can't help but think how much better many of the long shots in the battle sequences would have been had they been shot from a cherry-picker instead of from ground level, too.
I have seen this film on the UK TV channel 'Movies4Men', English-dubbed, with picture in a (slightly mangled) letterbox format. I'd have to say that the print that was used for the transfer was a bit knackered in places; maybe we're spoiled these days with well-restored film prints, but I found the damage (at the start of each reel particularly) a bit distracting.
I have an idea that there is a fundamental problem with the English dubbed version; I don't think the voice actors carried the personalities of the characters very well, there is little in the way of incidental music, and although there is much talking, it seems relatively little is said. Possibly the speed and cadence of the original dialogue didn't match what was possible in English very well, making some of the dialogue seem hurried and without the necessary emphasis.
It has been said that great directors let the images tell the story first, with the dialogue there just to fill in the gaps and aid character development. Here, you might begin to suspect that everyone was paid by the word instead, and didn't care enough about what was said, or how it was said exactly.
So, overall, 'dull' I think is an overly harsh judgement; however unless you have a particular affection for those who made it, this mightn't be a great film, but then it isn't a terrible one either. I've spent an hour and a half in worse ways than watching this sort of thing, even if I do look at it thinking it was something of a missed opportunity.
Here, the narrative is a little jumbled, the characters are not that well-developed and some of the plot elements are a bit nonsensical (e.g. when one of the main protagonists decides to prevent the coronation of the would-be queen alone, instead of rounding up a few supporting cohorts first...) but it isn't the worst film ever.
There are some well-made sequences in this film, and as others have said, production values are not at all bad. For example (although the stuffed tiger later on did made me chuckle) they used a real lion (albeit one with a fur coat on perhaps) for some of the combat sequences. The film is well-lit too.
Directorial styles vary of course but to modern eyes, there are very few cutaways to head shots. I can't help but think how much better many of the long shots in the battle sequences would have been had they been shot from a cherry-picker instead of from ground level, too.
I have seen this film on the UK TV channel 'Movies4Men', English-dubbed, with picture in a (slightly mangled) letterbox format. I'd have to say that the print that was used for the transfer was a bit knackered in places; maybe we're spoiled these days with well-restored film prints, but I found the damage (at the start of each reel particularly) a bit distracting.
I have an idea that there is a fundamental problem with the English dubbed version; I don't think the voice actors carried the personalities of the characters very well, there is little in the way of incidental music, and although there is much talking, it seems relatively little is said. Possibly the speed and cadence of the original dialogue didn't match what was possible in English very well, making some of the dialogue seem hurried and without the necessary emphasis.
It has been said that great directors let the images tell the story first, with the dialogue there just to fill in the gaps and aid character development. Here, you might begin to suspect that everyone was paid by the word instead, and didn't care enough about what was said, or how it was said exactly.
So, overall, 'dull' I think is an overly harsh judgement; however unless you have a particular affection for those who made it, this mightn't be a great film, but then it isn't a terrible one either. I've spent an hour and a half in worse ways than watching this sort of thing, even if I do look at it thinking it was something of a missed opportunity.