The Last of the Vikings (1961)

Viking Prince Harald has returned to his homeland along with his younger brother Guntar. The two brothers soon learn that King Sveno of Norway has murdered their father. King Sveno is forcing his cousin Hilde to marry the Danish King in order to create an alliance with them. In order to stop this and avenge his father's death Harald disguises himself as a Danish ambassador to gain entrance into Sveno's stronghold. Harald runs into Hilde, learns she does not want to marry the Danish King and he falls in love with her. Harald has his hands full and more on his plate when his brother Guntar is captured and the real Danish ambassador enters the picture. Prince Harald must straighten all this out.As exciting as this scenario sounds, the film barely caught my attention at times. The actors and the dialogue was unappealing to me. It was filmed in such a way that it left me bored with it half of the time.2/10

A rousing adventure yarn made in probably Italy's finest year for costume adventures. If not the finest then it was probably the most prolific, I'm sure that at least a hundred such titles like this and other muscleman epics must have been made in 1961. The list of them is endless, if you don't believe me then just check out the IMDb. THE LAST OF THE VIKINGS is one of the films in the seafaring sub-genre and is a colourful romp throughout, with some good direction from Giacomo Gentilomo (and apparently an uncredited Mario Bava, although I have yet to hear this verified?).Things start off well with the opening titles playing over a Viking long ship sailing into shore. The small army arrive on land, perturbed as their trumpet calls go unanswered. This leads to a brief handful of atmospheric scenes in which a messenger walks around the surrounding countryside sounding his horn to no response, with only skeletons and ruined temples in view. After this brief but haunting interlude, the film begins for real with the arrival of a friend who tells the tale of the cruel King Sveno who has captured the Norse throne through force alone and murdered the rightful king. We immediately know that he must and will be stopped at any cost, so the scene is set for a showdown between the forces of good and evil.Taking the lead is the underrated Cameron Mitchell, who doesn't seem to get much credit for all the movies that he's made. I'm sure he appeared in a dozen of these Italian productions over a period of years but nobody seems to dwell over him as they do Steve Reeves. Sure, he's not muscular like Reeves but his acting is as good as, if better than that of Reeves. Mitchell is the just but vicious Viking leader, Harald, who fights for the forces of good throughout the movie. He's saddled with a younger, stupid brother Guntar who gets himself in all sorts of scrapes but still finds time to romance Hilda, a Norse maiden, while all this goes on.The film starts off slowly with little action but picks up as it goes along. The subplot of Harald infiltrating the enemy castle under the guise of a Danish messenger from the king is a good one, leading to plenty of tense and fraught moments as his identity is threatened to be revealed. When it finally is revealed, the scene is set for some good action as Harald fights off the guard and barricades himself in a prison cell where he discovers that his captured brother has been crucified! Rescuing him, the pair jump into the sea but only Harald survives. In the typical tradition he burns his brother's body on a funeral pyre. Eventually, after discovering and brutally murdering a traitor in their midst (by chopping his hand off, apparently!), Harald and his men storm the enemy castle, taking massive injuries from the arrows and spears of their enemy. Their secret, though, is to throw burning tree trunks from the top of their makeshift tower over the battlements, thus destroying most of the archers in a single go. Then the hand-to-hand combat men arrive and the scene is set for a violent confrontation man-to-man with an obvious outcome.Although I found this film hard to get into at first, and occasionally boring, as soon as Harald goes undercover in the enemy's castle the movie picks up and stays fast-paced until the rousing climax. The photography is good, crisp and colourful and with a couple of inventive camera angles (love the camera that followed a rolling tower from UNDERNEATH as it went past). Especially in the battle scenes, which are well staged and very exciting. Also surprising is the high level of violence and brutality. During the battles one man is hacked in the head with an axe and we see blood pouring down his face! Another goes through the old "arrow in the eye" routine! Plus the usual quota of stabbings, impalings and slashings. It's all violent fun.Another main reason to hunt down this film is to see Edmund Purdom overact like no-one before him. In the lists of bad performances, Purdom must surely rank near the top for his completely barmy portrayal of the snivelling, whining, and totally without merit King Sveno, who spends most of the film grovelling, cackling, sneering, or just generally being a creep. I love it! It makes a change from his good-natured turn as the hero in QUEEN OF THE NILE, that's for sure. Along with Purdom, Mitchell's strong hero and some unusually believable supporting acts make the cast above average. All this is topped by a stirring score which highlights the battle and action while giving the movie an almost mythical feel. In all, THE LAST OF THE VIKINGS is a bit of a classic and should be hunted down by fans of these adventure films.

A couple of Hollywood names Cameron Mitchell and Edmond Purdom who were finding it harder and harder to get decent big screen roles with the coming of television spent some time in Italy in the Sixties doing all kinds of film genres. In The Last Of The Vikings the two are on opposite sides as Viking prince Mitchell seeks to reclaim the throne of his father which has been stolen by Purdom the usurper.In Hollywood in some of his more known features, Edmond Purdom was said to be wooden by some critics. To make up for that Purdom chews an entire carpet factory in his performance. It reminded me of Jay Robinson as Caligula on steroids it was that overacted. Purdom was such a nut case I found it hard to believe anyone would join in a revolt with this loony tune as a usurper.As a study in the extent that overacting can be carried on screen, I recommend watching The Last Of The Vikings, otherwise beware.

Though made in the wake of the worldwide success of "Hercules," this modest but vigorous Italian production plays less like a "sword-and-sandal" and more like a "Robin Hood." Much of the action takes place in the villain's medieval castle but the action, perhaps because of a limited budget, rarely results in the hoped-for excitement. The cast, however, is a notch above average, led by Cameron Mitchell in the good-guy role and Edmund Purdom as the Sheriff-of-Nottingham-like villain. Mitchell's hair has been unconvincingly bleached blond but he manages to get through the proceedings with dignity largely intact. Purdom, however, is another story. He played the title role in 20th Century Fox's most expensive production of 1954, "The Egyptian" and in 1955 he played the leading man to Lana Turner in MGM's most expensive production of that season, "The Prodigal." This one-two punch should have made him a star but he soon wound up back in Europe slumming in B-movies such as this one. Here he plays a mincing, giggling villain who scampers about like a campy Richard III, his eyes darting nervously here and there and his hands, when they're not being wrung, clasped prissily across his chest. It's a "fun" performance but, oh, how the mighty have fallen. Perhaps the film's most memorable moment comes when Mitchell rescues his brother (George Ardisson) from a cell in Purdom's castle. The brother's palms have been nailed to an X-shaped cross and Mitchell has to pull the spikes out, mostly by hand. Fans of beefcake-bondage, laced with blood and sweat, take note.