Too much of everything

good back-story, and good acting

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Wow! I wish all my Sword and Sandal films looked this good. He print shown on TCM was crystal clear and in widescreen! The story is OK but it is the Cinematography that really makes this film shine.Sylvia Syms is absolutely gorgeous in this one and I don't agree with the reviewer who says that Louis Jordan is miscast for the part. Oh, I agree he is no barbarian. But that isn't his role. His charismatic portrayal is perfect for the part. The opening battle scenes is where he steals the show.Seeing this one in widescreen good quality was a real treat. It's too bad all of the other Sword and Sandal movies couldn't be viewed the way they were meant to be seen. That is good quality and widescreen. See this TCM print!

The US title of this movie - "Amazons Of Rome" - is rather misleading: the Roman women do occasionally dress up as warriors and carry weapons, but they almost never fight. And since there are so many of them, the accuracy of the original title - "Virgins Of Rome" - cannot be guaranteed, either! Never mind, this film is an above-average sample of its genre, mostly thanks to its cast: instead of having a muscleman who can barely talk as the lead, it has the witty, distinguished Louis Jourdan, who plays a noble barbarian; a contradiction in terms, perhaps, but then again, Jourdan's character describes himself as a "strange bird". He is paired with the very appealing, courageous, smart Sylvia Syms, a great beauty who should be better known: together, they make the thinking man's sword-and-sandal couple. The rest of the cast is also good, and we even get to see Michel Piccoli with hair! The battle scenes are a bit clunky, but you have to admire the authenticity of the stunts - when the women cross a deep river on horseback, it's really them doing it. I watched the US version - the print was quite nice but according to IMDb the original version is 12 minutes longer, which may explain why the narrative feels a bit rushed at some points. **1/2 out of 4.

I recently saw AMAZONS OF ROME on cable. The first thing that stood out was the look. The quality of the transfer was truly beautiful: pristine and sharp. The lighting, the background sky, the sets, the costumes, everything looked authentic and gorgeous. Credit should go to cinematographer Marc Fossard. It looked like it was filmed yesterday. Much better looking than 90% of Peplums made during that time, including the stilted and dull THE 300 SPARTANS. With that said, the story is lifeless. It lacks urgency. Is it a comedy or a drama? The whole thing looks like a bad sex comedy. Sorta like GIDGET GOES TO WAR. Or THE COLOSSUS & THE AMAZON QUEEN.But the film's biggest liability was casting Louis Jourdan as a Barbarian. What, Cary Grant wasn't available? I'm certain producers hired Jourdan in order to get financing for the film but it was a big mistake. He's simply too debonair to be a Barbarian. Sylvia Syms looks like Julie Andrews before Julie Andrews made her first movie. The best actor in the whole thing is Ettore Manni. Totally believable in anything he does, certainly in Sword & Sandal films. What a great, overlooked actor.It's a shame the production team for this film wasn't involved in a more action oriented or serious story. The looked of it all would have rocked even more if it hadn't been involved with such a lightweight story.

Good looking spectacle with a cast of tens. You can see that actors are playing both sides in what amounts to a Euro-western set in the ancient world. Its Etruscans vs Romans with the woman taken hostage after they dressed as Roman soldiers after their side lost. The dialog is stupid and the romances wobble any hope of a decent story. Its the kind of film that almost seems good but isn't so seems much worse as a result. I've seen it twice by accident and I hope never to see it again.