Coriolano eroe senza patria

The Shakespeare drama is one of the last and greatest in that production, it's a towering masterpiece of human architecture with the leading character embodying the very essence of tragedy by his pride and uncompromising integrity, based on Plutarch's biography of authentic destinies of great men. The Italian film on the subject is something entirely different, although the story is basically the same. The main force of the film is concentrated on the battle of Corioli, which established Coriolanus as the hero of Rome and becoming consul, and you recognize the battle field from the Hannibal film and his battle at Cannae. This is no Shakespeare drama, the text is grossly mutilated and cut down to prosaic basics, and they have even changed the story. This is no longer a tragedy, and all the tragic elements have been abolished. For all this truncated nakedness, it' not a bad film, although given a rather superficial and formal character, and at least it remains an epic. It's worth seen at least once, but be prepared for a surprise, if you know the story.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria more indeed. Though I'm no Shakespeare accolyte, I gather that this 'Peplum' probably sources its inspiration from one of his lesser-known plays, that featured mostly domestic and court intrigue with a bit of battle stuff thrown in. After all, his business was intimate human tragedy contrasted against backdrops of epochal social/historical significance, and the disparate and often irreconcilable relationship between the two.

In terms of historical verisimilitude, the best you can hope for is Tarzan blending in with the wooden scenery very capably throughout a couple of budget-swallowing battle scenes and more than a fair helping of romantic longueurs. It must be said though that the odds have always been stacked against these sorts of affairs outside of their native Italy at the very first exportation hurdle - the English dubbing suite. This and others of its ilk would probably fare much more equitably when shown in widescreen format in their original tongue. Sadly, without vested American capital interest behind such prospective re-accreditation, that prospect fades farther into the cinematic never-never with each successive year.

One of many , from "60's, sword and sandals films. Nice choice for nostalgics, for fans of idealistic Roman history perspective, for searchers of silly fight scenes. The only problem- the option for the lead character. The story of Coriolanus is not easy , as fundamental legend of Rome Republic or as adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The filmmaker ignores the nuances and use the too familiar recipe, mixing bad dialogues with "ad usum Delphini" plot.. Each not working in this case. The result - not meritorious, against the tries of actors to save the film. But, sure, the genre has its iron rules.

After the recent misfire that was HERCULES AGAINST MOLOCH (1963) - with which it shares director Ferroni and co-stars Gordon Scott and Rosalba Neri - I was actually surprised by this one: Scott, wooden though he is, probably has his best such role here - and, at least, much like the Steve Reeves of THE Trojan HORSE (1961; incidentally, also a Ferroni film), he isn't required to be a he-man! The film also boasts an above-average, albeit one-note, villain in Alberto Lupo. Unfortunately, however, Neri was a lot better used as a villainess in HERCULES than as Scott's dutiful wife here!

While the action and the spectacle is par for the course, to me, the most satisfying aspect of the film is its complex and thoroughly engaging plot - with Lupo conniving with the enemies of Rome behind its back and then conspiring to banish Scott...who eventually leads the enemy to march on Rome and rid it of Lupo's corrupt influence. Finally, it was refreshing to watch a film about the Roman Empire from a simpler era - serving as an antidote to the general unpleasantness and the unwarranted vulgarity of the ROME (2005) TV series...

Even the mighty Shakespeare couldn't make good drama out of the story of the Roman warrior Coriolanus. (Never mind that T.S. Eliot thought the Bard's "Coriolanus" was superior to "Hamlet." Quick, how many lines can you quote from "Coriolanus"?)

The historical background, in a nutshell: the newborn Roman Republic is imperiled by conflict within and without — engaged in a desperate war with the neighboring Volsci, and riven by internal strife between the upper and lower classes (patricians and plebeians). Roman super-elitist Gaius Marcius becomes a war hero (hailed as Coriolanus for his heroism in taking the Volscian stronghold of Corioli), but when he enters politics, scheming plebeians bring him down. Forced into exile, the super-patriot becomes a super-traitor, joining the Volsci to march on Rome. Can an appeal from his mother and wife stop the warrior from destroying his home town?

It's great material, but the actual history is problematic, thanks to the thorny complexities of the patrician/plebeian conflict and to contradictions in Coriolanus's character (it's even uncertain whether he was patrician or plebeian, though his sympathies were decidedly with the former). Shakespeare couldn't make good drama out of the politics, and he couldn't make a compelling hero out of Coriolanus; neither can this movie, though it tries (mainly taking its cues from the Bard by villainizing the plebs.) At least Shakespeare realized that the story had to be a tragedy; this movie insists on a triumphant ending, which insults the history and the man.

It also doesn't help that the big action scenes are stolen straight from other sword and sandal movies; the contest of strength in the Volscian camp is footage from THE Trojan HORSE and the big battle scene was previously used in HANNIBAL starring Victor Mature.

On the plus side, Gordon Scott makes a terrific Coriolanus; he projects both the requisite vanity and charisma. The scene in which he goes electioneering, insulting the plebs even as he asks for their votes, is priceless. You never saw a stiffer candidate! Despite its flaws, the film is still worth watching for Scott fans and Roman history mavens, and perhaps for the Shakespeare completist as well.