StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

weezeralfalfa This is a 1958 historical drama directed by Vittorio Cottafavi, sponsored by the Italian Peplum TV organization......The complex politics within the far off Roman province of Armenia are what drives the screenplay. And, yet, I find the various alliances confusing. In the beginning, Roman Senator Lucillus(Nando Tammberiani) sends tribune Marcus Numidio(Ettore Manni) to Armenia to try to placate a rebel organization, mostly staffed by gladiators. who want to throw out the Romans, and their gladiator contests. When he arrives, he is greeted by the Roman governor Crisipius(Jesus Tordesillas), as well as by the Armenian boy King Osvoe(Fidel Martin), as well as his apparent regent, Princess Amira(Gianna Maria Canale), who initially attracts the romantic interest of Marcus, with her beauty and intelligence. Asclepias(Georges Marchal) is the leader of the rebel organization. Amira is jealous of Asclepias's popularity, and tries to have him killed by substituting a wild lion for his usual gladiator combatant(Gladiator victors weren't usually allowed to kill their opponent). Fortunately, this didn't work. Then, apparently, she tried to serve a poison drink to Marcus. Servant Zahar(Mara Cruz) served the drink, but refused Marcus's request that she test taste the wine, implying that she knew it was poisoned. Marcus threw the wine away, and roughed her up a bit. However, instead of ordering her executed, he ordered that she be the personal attendant for King Osroe(strange!). Pretty soon, Osroe falls into a slumber after drinking wine. Zahar hadn't taste tested it, but strongly suspected his wine had been poisoned. It soon becomes obvious that Amira had ordered the poisoning. As soon as she got information that Osroe was nearly dead, she ordered that she be crowned Queen. However, Osroe eventually recovered, with Zahar receiving credit for saving him. Amira was very angry that Osroe recovered, and later would have Zahar whipped, and then try to burn her at the stake. However, Marcos came to her rescue at the last second, and they end as a romantic pair......Now, the confusing part, for me. Marcus would switch from opposing the anti-Roman element to having a Roman cavalry unit help the rebels in their pitched battle against Amira's forces, near the end. Also, strangely, as Asclepias lay dying of a battle wound, he named Marcos as his successor in leading the anti-Amira(not anti-Roman) forces! Also, strangely, King Osroe disappears after the Roman cavalry strikes the capital. He had passed out again, as he and Marcus struggled to find the cavalry. Of course, Amira meets her deserved end in the end, but I won't say how...... Unlike one reviewer, I didn't find the film boring. Gianna always makes a beautiful and forceful lead woman in these types of films. Certainly, there was a reasonable amount of action sequences. I did downgrade it because of the confusion over the rebel's principle target: the Romans or Amira's forces? See it at YouTube

Brucey D 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.

Leofwine_draca Despite some decent set-pieces and good characterisation, I found THE WARRIOR AND THE SLAVE GIRL to be a pretty dull and routine entry in the peplum genre; even sub-par outings like THE SWORD OF EL CID are more fun. It sounds strange to call a film which features gladiator battles against lions and a full scale uprising against cruel oppressors dull, but there you go.The problem with THE WARRIOR AND THE SLAVE GIRL is that it just plods along to a joyless climax without making much effort to intrigue or indeed excite the viewer. The various plot elements of the Roman film genre are all present and correct, and yet you get that "seen it all before" feeling about the production.Not that there's anything particularly at fault here; certainly, seasoned cast members like Gianna Maria Canale and Ettore Manni do their best, and the production values are mid level; the scenes of spectacle are a lot of fun. Yet it's not good enough to come across as a classic, nor is it cheesy enough to be entertaining as a B-movie, nor is it bad enough to laugh at. Instead, it's just a forgettable, middle-of-the-road kind of production.

MARIO GAUCI This is another splendid peplum (actually the director's entry into the field he would revisit 6 more times) vastly undersold by the "Leonard Maltin Film Guide", which he rates at a mere **. That said, I managed to acquire and watch a widescreen print in Italian (albeit somewhat worn and with virtually illegible credits!), and could not picture it English-dubbed and panned-and-scanned afterwards – which may well be how many foreigners caught the film, on TV, to begin with...and, in fact, it has frequently aired on the U.K. channel "Movies 4 Men" this last year! Anyway, it re-unites Gianna Maria Canale and Georges Marchal from Riccardo Freda's equally fine THEODORA, SLAVE EMPRESS (1954), though the two do not actually meet face-to-face here – as the passage of just 4 years had relegated the former (despite receiving top-billing) to a villainess role and the latter to second lead! The hero, then, is Ettore Manni who would virtually become synonymous with the genre (in fact, he appeared two more times for Cottafavi) and, in this case, is possibly at the very top of his game.Its deceptively-brief running-time of 82 minutes betrays a busy and rather complex plot (whose essence neither the bland English title nor the prosaic original, translating to THE REVOLT OF THE GLADIATORS, can really hope to capture!) that sees the Romans, led by Manni, taking on two different countries that rarely featured in this type of fare – the Armenians and the Shi'ites. Canale is the aspiring Queen of the former (the official ruler is a child whom she is slowly poisoning to death!), ingratiating herself with the conquerors in order to keep her status (but subsequently conspiring with the latter people so as to regain the upper hand), while Marchal is the rugged leader of a rebel Armenian army – who has lived much of his life fighting, either in the gladiatorial arena or for his country's freedom. There are several twists-and-turns along the way which has all the protagonists going from victor to vanquished (the hero's hatred of injustice and display of clemency towards the barbarians actually brings about the titular rebellion!): more importantly, following the obvious initial enmity, Manni and Marchal eventually earn one another's respect and, through a mutual understanding, join forces against a common enemy.Similarly, an Armenian girl whose father had been killed by the Romans and ends up as Canale's slave (her knowledge of medicine even results in the little King's recovery!), is confounded by her feelings for Manni but, by the end, the two are at each other's side (in fact, rather than the standard anonymous long-shot of the landscape, Cottafavi emphasizes the intimacy of the narrative by sticking with them, silent observers to Marchal's funeral procession, for the closing shot). Indeed, such sturdy film-making abounds in this outing (in direct contrast to the director's two subsequent juvenile adventures featuring the mythical Greek demi-god Hercules!)...but, as with his picaresque masterpiece THE HUNDRED HORSEMEN (1964), we also get a mischievous dwarf thrown into the fray for (thankfully not over-stressed) comic relief purposes! Other memorable scenes here include: Marchal's duel in the arena with a lion; Canale's demise at the hands of one of her escaped pet tigers; Manni getting virtually single-handedly freed from prison by his devoted strong-man lieutenant (hilariously, the midget is thought to have thrown a guard clear across the room when it was really him!) but who pays the price with his life – incidentally, both he and Marchal also have strong-minded female companions (which is quite atypical of the genre!); and the heroine being herself saved from the stake at the proverbial eleventh-hour by her lover.