Kirpianuscus
epic. it is the first word. than - heroic. or fascinating. or great. or amazing. only words about a film who remains seductive decade by decade. in fact, it is a well -made work. same ingredients of many other historical movies from the same period. same recipes. and Heston and Loren in a love story who escapes from clichés few times. and that could be the essence of its success. because it is a wise adaptation of one of most impressive Spanish stories. and the care for details, the use of nuances in brilliant manner are the virtues who defines it. a film who could be a beautiful one. but it has the science to be more. a seductive trip in the heart of myth using memorable scenes.
ingi-johnson
I give it a three because the footage of Spain and the costumes are nice. El Cid is famous for his beard. No beard on Charleton Heston. He got power from that hair. Second, maybe they were trying to teach us a point at the time of the cold war to just get along in the opening scene where El Cid shows compassion and tells the Moors that he will let them go if they don't return to fight. From there its bad. The acting is stiff the story line is nothing of the real Cid's life. He had a famous horse and fought on the side of three different lords one was a Moor. He was undefeated that's about all they get right. Its bad acting and will leave you no historical knowledge you could use. The fight scenes which are so common are terrible too. Charleton Heston was right about the director sucking in this epic with his fight scenes. Pretty bad and not worth three hours of your life.
denis888
I love Chralton Heston's roles. He was the very essence of a masculine, clever, smart, superb actor who could perform almost every role he got his hands to. He was absolutely mesmerizing as Moses in Ten Commandments, he was good in many other movies. Here he is not bad, to be honest, the thing is he cannot save this plodding dud of a film from mediocrity that it slowly plunges to in a course of endless 3 hours. The plot seems to be very trite and smacks more of a Shazam Orient Fables than that of a real history. Another big (I mean it B/I/G) mistake was Sophia Loren as a main female part. She is a fish out of her element here completely. The poses, the looks, the smiles, the faked sufferings all betray lack of depth and lack of genuine feeling. She is not even that attractive to be cool just for her looks. To sum it up, this is a rather middle-of-the-road effort, with all the mistakes and prolonged scenes that add more to drag and help not to develop.
Armand
more than a classic , it is a beautiful film.that is its secret and basic virtue. a film about fundamental values more than image of a hero. and it is a precise lesson about making of a epic movie. not only for good performance, atmosphere, dialogs or fight scenes but for its special poetry who makes it different by another blockbusters of period. the theme is delicate - a national symbol and the Hollywood recipes is too clear. but in this case, a splendid puzzle appears. and the work of entire team, especially of Charlton Heston, makes each part to be almost perfect. it is not Ben Hur or Cleopatra. the ingredients seems be the same but it is only impression of first sigh. it is itself, after decades, after trends and evolution of artistic taste. so, a beautiful movie. love story, heroic scenes, delicate nuances. and something more. a secret ingredient. or, only, the shadow of a knight.
AD
