Here is a well-paced epic which veers sharply away from the exploitation field, and enters the waters of historical film-making, only to lag conspicuously when viewed from that perspective. The story itself is decently told, with almost no "action" taking place between the characters, most of the plot being dialog and drama. The English dubbing is nicely done, Holophernes being dubbed by American actor Frank Latimore. The tale is based on the Apocryphal story of Judith, and is a reasonably faithful rendering. However, the lack of action tired me at last, and left me wishing that something would "happen." I've noticed this flaw in some of Cerchio's other films, and although he was a director of some professional capacity, he didn't pay enough attention to the entertainment factor. Although we're entertained to a degree, certainly Cerchio could have done more to pick up the pace. This movie was filmed on a moderate budget, with judicious use of set decorations by Sergio Scalco.
Add a Review
-
copycat102510 December 2003
-
dbborroughs12 February 2004This is the biblical tale of Judith saving her people.The version of this film I saw seemed to be dubbed on an alien planet with voices only matching lips rarely. The dub is so awful as to hurt an already leadenly paced film. A grade school version I once saw moved better. Avoid unless in need of sleep.
-
Despite the intrigues of the fairly original storyline, this French/Italian peplum film is a pretty sorry affair that will sorely test the patience of any modern viewer. The film has an interesting plot which is dragged out through endless scenes of dialogue and exposition whereas nothing in the way of real action happens until the end of the film. All of the strong characters are present, along with fine actors and actresses to play them (Girotti fine as the tyrant of the title, Isabelle Corey lovely as the torn rebel), but the script calls for them to sit around and talk for so much time that watching the movie becomes a chore. This is a shame, because real effort has gone into the production. It's beautiful to look at and there are some very impressive sets acting as a backdrop to the storyline. But the romantic aspect of the film is sluggish in its handling and it takes an age for the plot to actually get in motion.
Until then we bear witness to lots of handsome men and attractive women going about their business (including the obligatory dancing sequence) with only a smattering of action thrown in along the way (watch out for the controversial child-whipping scene which ends in murder). Where HEAD OF A TYRANT does succeed is in the shocking climax, in which an incident occurs which is alluded to in the US/UK retitling. I was surprised that the film-makers were prepared to display such material on screen in the fairly restrained late '50s, but I guess with the onslaught of the gory Hammer films anything could happen. Aside from the good conclusion, the film is really slow and uninteresting, but costume fans might just want to watch it to see the outcome anyway. -
dbdumonteil12 September 2011the Catholic Office of Cinema wrote in 1959:"from the Good Book ,they only took the proper nouns and they depicted a false Judith /tyrant relationship (1)." Even if they tried to make this "Biblical" episode story like ,they did not succeed in making a very interesting tale.The action is very slow ,the relationship ,if we are to believe the screenwriters, derivative and predictable .This couple is no match for Cecil B De Mille's "Samson and Delilah" .There is only one good actor ,Massimo Girotti (who was notably the star of Visconti's "Ossessione " ) but he is completely wasted here and does not seem to believe in the part he is playing.
(1)In the Bible,Judith did not fall in love with her enemy ,she only used her charms as a weapon.