Hercules (1958)

Too many fans seem to be blown away

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Well, here it is: the film that kick-started the sword-and-sandal craze of the late '50s/early '60s and single-handedly turned muscleman Steve Reeves into an immortal cinematic star. Weirdly, I've only now had the opportunity to watch this after being subjected to countless sequels and rip-offs, which is unfortunate because, as a film, HERCULES is hardly the action epic you'd expect. I actually think the genre got better as it went on, to peak in 1961/2 before sliding off into no-budget obscurity by 1965. The problem with HERCULES is the sluggish pacing, which means there's a half-hour lull around the middle part where nothing happens for an extraordinary length of time. Hercules himself doesn't seem to be on screen, and even the countless beautiful women couldn't keep this viewer's attention.I don't want to be too critical of HERCULES, as it's responsible for so, so much. It offers good direction and a budget that's a lot higher than the endless rip-offs that followed, so many of the Greek-set scenes convince. Reeves fits the role like a glove, and is great in the various scenes where he has to battle soldiers, bulls, and lions (watch out for the non-muscular stand-in in the latter bit). He was never a great actor – none of the muscleman actors ever were – but he seems comfortable and at home here, and projects power and immortality as he should. With both Sylva Koscina and Gianna Maria Canale in the cast, the film's easy on the eye in that respect.The cinematography is good and I enjoyed the surprise appearance of a man-in-a-rubber-suit playing the hydra, here transformed into a Tyrannosaurus Rex by the looks of it! Some of the various sub-plots are intriguing – I liked the one involving the corrupt king, for instance – but for the latter half of the flick, the focus is too much on Jason, a rather boring individual, it has to be said. Had half an hour been cut out, HERCULES would have been a very good entry in the peplum genre, but it feels just too short on action and too bloated to be a masterpiece for modern viewers. It's worth a look to see how it all started, but for sheer enjoyment, I'd recommend the low-rent likes of MACISTE IN HELL or MACISTE AGAINST THE VAMPIRE as true classics of the genre.

Basically this a movie about Hercules falling into the one adventure after the other, without some times feeling an obvious connection between those events. It makes this a pretty disjointed movie to watch at times. If this movie was being made this present day in exactly the same way it would be an absolutely terrible movie but the fact that this was made in 1958 makes it a good and defining one for its genre.It's sometimes laughable how fake this movie is looking, for instance when Hercules is fighting a lion and later a buffalo, who are both obvious puppets in the close-up scenes with Steve Reeves. You can call it part of the charm of these old type of adventure movies but it still looks ridicules, regardless.But besides that all it's a rather good looking movie, with its sets costumes and of course settings. It's an Italian movie, so it features lots of beautiful landscapes.The story is simple and perhaps not as action filled or fast paced as it could had been but it still is an adventurous one. The swashbuckling and adventure genre had pretty much died already when it was 1958. This is a movie that obviously tries to revive a genre, with some new more 'modern' changes and elements in it. After this 'historic' and mythological movies such as "Jason and the Argonauts". "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad and "Spartacus" were made. It's hard to say if this movie influenced any of those movies but fact is that this movie was a popular one at its time, also in America. Therefor it's a really thinkable that this movie played at least some part in redefining the genre.Not great, most especially not by todays standards but considering the time it was made, a good genre movie that is adventurous and therefor also has entertainment value in it.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This picture is impossible to defend. I saw it for the first time when I was 11 and I must say I liked it. But then I saw it again as an adult and the awful truth came out: 1) it is impossible for Steve Reeves to even try to act; 2) it is impossible for the supporting cast to act; 3) the sort of monster the argonauts face when they find the golden fleece is definitely funny (though he probably puts on the best acting of all); 4) Reeves's hairdo is unthinkable in ancient Greece; 5) any other ingredient you may think of.But then, why did I vote with a 3 mark? 1) the film is supposed to be a mythological fantasy film and it was quite original back in 1958; 2) without any doubt it is the best movie ever made in its genre; 3) Sylva Koscina (the woman, not the actress).Just terrible !!!

Hercules – hybrid of greek mythology and cheesed dubbing. It does add to the campiness of the film, but I'm biased having already seen Hercules Unchained.Herc randomly comes to aid the luscious Iole (RAWRRR). Steve was born to throw freshly torn-from-the-ground trees. He runs around with greek guys (played by beefy Italian guys) and does battle, rows. Herc won't even sing good old-fashioned oar songs! There's your typical dark side in this epic schlock, but time starts to drag at scenes when you'd rather see the Herc bending iron bars across his skull.I used to think Hercules Unchained was plain goofy and dumb. It's actually much less of a yawner than the original. What is with Hercules and the lions in both movies? Where was PETA when this happened? `YO-LAY!!!'