Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

andras-ocskay Quit boring for me, too long talks, slow actions. They walk walk walk, nothing happening than they stop and talk few sentences, than walk again for few minutes, than talk again.Shooting scene is clamsy, no targeting just shoot. Main caracters nearly bullet proof.One guy always stick his dagger next to his belly. Seems that dagger not real, otherwise he would cut his belly badly when he jump, sit or just move.Sleeping scene is lame.Let the main enemy guy go in the end is clamsy also.Funny all of them has brittish accent and perfect englishActions are bad, they taking risk without real reasonBad acting, unnecesery dialogsKissing scenes are good, and funnyWhy they scared about elephamts? I did not get that.This movie could be 15 minutes only.Get there, grab the girl, walk a lot, find out his father dead, set the wildlings free, than meet again in the fort with a big fight scene.I know its 1963 but ppl had to have brain. It seem they did not have.

Wizard-8 While Steve Reeves certainly made a lot of musclemen movies for European filmmakers in the 50s and 60s, he would occasionally branch out into other genres, from spaghetti westerns to movies like this one. However, in this particular case, Reeves was used poorly in his new environment. He doesn't have his usual magnetic charm to keep the audience looking at him, one reason that he is not as up front and centre as he was in other movies, the other reason being that he hides his muscles for most of the movie. But even if Reeves had been better used, the movie would still have suffered from extreme dullness. Though filmed on location in Asia with a considerable budget, the pretty backdrop does not hide that the story is both slow-moving and has plenty of plot devices used in many other movies before and since. There's also a very limited amount of action, and except for the okay climatic battle, none of the action is particularly compelling. If you have a hankering for Reeves, pick one of his musclemen movies instead; they may be cheaper and cruder, but they are more lively than this movie.

DaviK24 First of all: The Sandokan movies from 1963 and 1964 are trash- cinema of the 60s, which nowadays appears once again cultic. You notice the low budget, but you will be abducted to beautiful original locations in India and Sri Lanka. Also the look of the costumes is very worth seeing.To the content (WARNING: SPOILERS from now on!):Sandokan, the pirate but also native prince, whose family was deposed and killed by the British, leads his people (a bunch of faithful, pirates, and adventurers) in the fight against the British colonial masters, who are as evil as the Nazis are in some US productions. It is very refreshingly one-sided and wonderfully politically incorrect, that the British here are only bad guys. The first part is, as far as the action is concerned, a little lame, up to the last 15 minutes, but then it's really right. The Malayan natives, supported by Sandokan's men, storm the mighty British fort. The portrayal of the violence in this battle is already quite violent. The British soldiers are really massacred here, which I have not yet seen in this mass of kills. Particularly noteworthy is the scene in which Sandokan fires with a conquered machine gun in a bunch of soldiers in the yard of the fort also backwards and mercilessly mowed them down, which is all shown by the camera. Here is no shading of the camera, you see them going down and in other scenes their dead bodies lying around overall in the background around the whole fort. The Stuntfights are partly quite amateur, but this does not stop the spectacle of this mass struggle.However, the second part is still a little more violent when Sandokan breaks out with his men from a prison camp with a mine and a quarry. There he used also a conquered British machine gun, which he mounted on a truck and then firing around on a ride through the mine, killing British soldiers in rows with it. This goes even further when he slaughters nearly the entire British garrison alone in the yard of the camp with the MG, so that the court is covered with the bodies in red British uniforms. The fight is quite one-sided but this machine gun raid is really suspicious. There are three of these battles in the second part, one on a ship, in the prison camp and in the final battle. In all three battles the British soldiers are completely slaughtered by the pirates and the natives, something which would been no longer shown in this intensity and political incorrect size of the massacres. Infortunately we have only one battle in part 1. A few more battles would be better but the Fort battle here is probably the best.Overall my conclusion is: Good entertaining films, in which the natives are the really one-sided good ones, which I find very refreshing.

alphaboy This film even seemed stiffer than other Italian adventure-films of that time, and Steve Reeves, believe me!, doesn't help a bit. The storyline is tedious and unattractive. There is a lot of archive footage for the jungle-fauna built in (that even looks livelier than the film itself). Only fun scene: Reeves' fight against a tiger.But in the last ten minutes the situation explodes, and there is this gigantic battle at the fort, well staged and fun. Reeves gets to fire a machine gun (a little like Django) and matches the strength of an army. If only Lenzi had divided the action and strewn it all over the film's time, it would have been more watchable (if you don't skip the beginning, that is). My rating: 5/10.