IMDb > Ator, the Fighting Eagle (1982) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Ator, the Fighting Eagle More at IMDbPro »Ator l'invincibile (original title)

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 4: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 34 reviews in total 

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

So bad it's good... Once

1/10
Author: Steve Schonberger from near Seattle, WA, USA
27 October 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw "Ator" or "Ator the Fighting Eagle" in a theater, with a bunch of other people who like sword-and-sorcery stories. The movie was terrible, but we had fun watching it because everyone in the theater thought it was terrible, and found our heckling remarks entertaining. On a number of occasions, one of us made a comment speculating mockingly on where the plot was headed, and the movie was predictable enough that our speculations were usually correct. (I could offer examples, but they would be spoilers. The movie is too bad to spoil, but that would still spoil the plot prediction game that the only entertainment value I could find in this movie.) Without the audience participation, we would have felt cheated, but we managed to entertain ourselves adequately.

Some time later, the movie returned -- either to theaters with a new ad campaign, title, or both, or possibly to the early days of video rental. I had the misfortune of seeing it again. Once I recognized it, the plot prediction game was no longer fun.

More amazing: This movie actually had sequels!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Ator, the fighting failure

1/10
Author: lordzedd-3 from United States
10 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

God, it's irony that Miles O'Keefe's mother sued because all the nudity in Tarzan, the ape man when she should have sued for all the crap in this movie. The dubbing was God awful, the plot was confusing and that is putting it mildly. There was some nudity in it, but what was the point, the camera was so far away you couldn't see anything. It was like the movie makers was peeping on the actress instead of a scene in the movie and couldn't afford a telescopic lens. There were so many subplots hidden within the main plot that you barely could see the main plot. Plus, the amazing vanishing birthmark, the birth marked reappeared when the guy removed but it vanished again almost instantly. God what a load of Itallian cheese and normally I like Itallian cheese, but this is totally rotten crap that should be avoided. THE RASBERRY.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Simply hideous, simply hilarious

1/10
Author: Bill Perkins (wperkins@onramp.net) from Dallas, TX
7 January 2000

I too saw this when it first came out at the theatre. Ten minutes into the film, a Friday night packed house was beginning its exodus towards the door. Those of us that stayed did so for the same reasons people stare at car wrecks. What I found surprising is that however little you think you know about filmmaking, watching something this bad reveals reminds you what you do know. The effects were non-existent (how many times can you slash and gash as someone with a sword without any blood being spilt?), the acting was embarassing (particulary the love interest), and the finale was the most anti-climactic conflict I've ever seen (Trust me: the first time you see this, you will be hysterical with laughter). I'm curious: does anyone know if this was ever "reviewed" by the MST3K regulars?

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

How can the sequel be any worse?!

1/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
20 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I accidentally saw this film. I thought it was the same Ator movie that was currently ranked #40 on IMDb's Bottom 100 list--only to discover that was ATOR 2, not this first film. You see, I've got a crazy quest to try to see as many of IMDb's Bottom 100 as possible! However, after seeing ATOR I wonder how the sequel can possibly be any worse?! However, while ATOR has overall score of 2.3 (which is terrible), ATOR 2 is significantly lower at 1.8!!! Yikes...that's bad. But how is this possible as ATOR was 100% craptastic?!

The 1980s were an odd time and I remember lots of enjoyable but silly films of the day, such as BEASTMASTER, the Conan films and KRULL. However, there really isn't much about ATOR that is enjoyable.

The film begins with a prologue read by someone with a deadly serious voice. In fact, the incredibly serious nature of this film was one of the worst things about it--it was so oppressively somber and there wasn't a second of mirth or fun about it. According to the narrator, the land has long been ruled and oppressed by the Spider King--for 1000 years to be exact. But, now there is a child who will one day destroy the Spider King and his minions. Oddly, however, you never see more than about 20 men working for this king and controlling this vast kingdom! It's obvious the film had a minuscule budget, as there are only a few baddies and Ator and his army to battle the king consist of him and a woman....oh, and a baby bear. Talk about lame!

The star of the film, Miles O'Keefe is an odd sort of hero. Compared to the man other mythical heroes of the 1980s (and there were many), he looked awfully pretty--with Farrah-like hair and a rather effeminate outfit. Personality-wise, he's also a pretty dull guy. Perhaps this is because the crew and many of the actors were speaking Italian (much of the film is dubbed) or maybe he's just got the charisma of balsa wood....I'm not sure which.

I'd talk more about the plot and the many adventures, but they were all so forgettable. The only really memorable thing was the finale. First, killing the Spider King and his pals turned out to be incredibly easy--so easy, I had to laugh. But the biggest laugh came when I saw the giant spider that was apparently the arachnid behind the throne. It was hilarious to see--with the most obvious wired making it's legs dart up and down--making the spider DUMBER than the octopus in BRIDE OF THE MONSTER (an Ed Wood crap-fest).

Overall, you have a very dull story, a dull leading man, a very dull villain, little adventure and a giant spider on wires. So how, then, can the next film be any worse?! And, if it is, how is it legal to show this to anyone in any country?! I thought they had laws to prevent this sort of travesty.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Sword and sor.... huh?.....

1/10
Author: buchass from Portugal
9 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Like all sword and sorcery fans, i sincerely expect that the next sword and sorcery flick that i can get, it would be better..but i always fell in the same mistake all over again...do you know what i mean?Im sure you do... What can i say about "Ator"...hum..its really bad, one of the crappiest ultra-low-budget sword and sorcery flicks i ever seen. Milles O'keefe is bad, Sabrina Sianni is awful(as actress). Dakkar, the High Priest of the Spider...ITS ONE THE WORST BAD GUY EVER!!!!The plot is terrible, i think everything is terrible in "Ator the Invencible"...But what can we say. If you like this one i recommend: "Deathstalker" sequels; "Ator the invencible", "Gunan il Guerriero" and "Warrior and the Sorceress".

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Ator The Fighting Eagle (Joe D'Amato, 1982) *1/2

2/10
Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
23 February 2008

I'm not sure whether I caught both adventures of Ator back in the day (this was followed by THE BLADE MASTER [1984]): however, I assume that I didn't check out the sequel prior to the original, so I must have watched this one for sure. That said, there's nothing remotely memorable about this title – little wonder, then, that I couldn't recall much of anything from it after some 25 years; truth be told, I have a hard time recalling its action highlights even a mere couple of days since getting re-acquainted with the film!

Anyway, ATOR THE FIGHTING EAGLE was evidently rushed into production to cash-in on the success of CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982); versatile (if not exactly talented) and multi-purpose "Euro-Cult" figure D'Amato shrewdly (but, perhaps, unwisely since the result is just as dire) acquired the services of the actor who had just incarnated another highly popular pulp character – namely Miles O'Keefe from TARZAN THE APE MAN (1981). By the way, Laura Gemser – star of several EMANUELLE films by D'Amato (and others) – appears here as a witch who seduces (and perishes at the hands of) Ator. While the script (by the director himself, with the reported assistance of Michele Soavi) managed to come up with a reasonable mythic background for the storyline (complete with portentous narration) – this and the presence of an amiable bear cub for Ator's inseparable companion are the only things that spare the film the dreaded BOMB rating – it all goes for naught in the face of exceedingly dull treatment and lifeless performances!

As was the case with the John Milius/Arnold Schwarzenegger semi-classic, the hero has to defeat a bloodthirsty ruler (the Snake Cult in CONAN being replaced by one worshipping spiders with, again, a massive specimen to which sacrifices are often made), rescue a virginal damsel (whom he loves even while believing she's his sister – though, of course, she isn't really), and is himself aided in his exploits by a brawny female (who has feelings for him but eventually expires to ease the path to his true love). Besides, the man who saved his own life as a child, then, played by Edmund Purdom (a Hollywood star who got stuck all-too-soon in lowbrow "Euro-Cult" fare such as this) turns out to harbor designs of his own on the kingdom!

Like I said, the film ends up being nothing more than a time-waster – and, actually, far closer in spirit to the two contemporaneous Luigi Cozzi/Lou Ferrigno HERCULES adventures (both of which I also caught as a child and got to watch again recently) than CONAN itself…

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

amateurish, cheap salad bowl copy tripe fest

2/10
Author: r-c-s from Italy
6 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It'd be very difficult to point out ONE original detail in this movie, for most pieces are stitched together from more famous movies...the magic shield; the newborn child raised by foster parents escaping his doom; the sexual trap set by a sorceress who then turns into a demon; the fighting statuesque amazon; there you had snakes, here you have spiders...come think of it, Jason & the argonauts, Conan the barbarian & other classics return here in a very low budget Frankenstein (poor ) job. The "blind warriors" wear ten cents prosthetics, as if they had chewing gum smeared all over their kisser. Fight scenes are amateurish & poorly choreographed. Most "dungeon" sets look like a cheap "horror tunnel" from a carnival. The mountain of the spider is laughable and you'll watch out for officer Tackleberry/Mahoney or officer Drebin to save the day. The script is as thin as the one of a condom infomercial. The best thing is definitely the way Sabrina Siani LOOKS. Acting...? Forget it...all you get is the "fitness"/aerobic instructor version of Conan wearing an horrendous whig monkeying around. Edmund Purdom is the least credible in the role of resident mr. Miyagi (would you believe it was him decades earlier playing in THE Egyptian? )... Tripe fest to watch only once.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Fantasy Adventure, I think not.

1/10
Author: Delenn Moresby from England
28 May 2002

This film was recommended to me by some friends who said it was a must see. It was only after watching it that I understood what they were saying.

This is quite honestly one of the worst films I have ever seen. It has an idiotic story that is so badly acted that a block of wood appears to be more animated. In every aspect, this film is as bad as anything I have ever seen before.

Even so, I have to admit, I will watch the sequel if only to see if it is possible to make (and I can't believe I'm even thinking this) a worse film.

Normally I would say something like "this film had only one saving grace, it was so bad it was funny". Unfortunately, this film was so bad it doesn't even deserve that.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

About as spectacularly bad as Plan-9

1/10
Author: mattt8 from Lake Forest, CA
7 February 2002

There are approximately 4 movies that I hold to be so utterly, spectacularly bad as to transcend that badness and achieve a level of surreal "goodness". They are: Plan-9 (the classic), Laserblast, Highlander 2:The Quickening, and yes, Ator The Flying Weasel. Err. Flying Eagle (Credit also should be given to Mark Borchardt and "Coven", a short film). I was unaware that the official title was "Ator l'invincible", but I saw it in the theatres long ago, billed as "Ator The Flying Eagle". Anyway, all I can say is that this film fails on every front. The acting is so bad it is laughable. The giant armies of the Huns number about 6 guys in bad Mongol costumes. The "Giant Spider" who bleeds beer at the end just has to be seen to be believed. And the little bear with the "white fur" on it's head that moves from place to place all over it's head in each scene...brilliant. The director, like Ed Wood or Mark Borchardt, is Dali-esque in his presentation. Spectacular, stunning in it's badness.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Quintessencial cheap Italian sword&sorcery flick. I mean really BAD!!!

1/10
Author: CrackerJam from Russian Federation
26 August 2005

While watching this movie I was having a strange feeling, that if I save breakfast money for about a week, I could make a movie that will look like "Ben-Hur" or "Titanic" compared to this "Ator l'invincibile". I don't what was the box office of the "movie", but I'm sure: 10 VHS copies sold can make it twice profitable. You can make your own conclusion, how cheap the "movie" looks. There's no stars to look at. There's no even actors, who can "act". And when I say "act" I mean "not to look like mannequins". Miles O'Keeffe... I wonder, if he knows the word "charisma". Maybe he knows the word, but doesn't just get the sense of. Main chick of the "movie" is sexy... but only if you've spent last 25 years on the lost island, where the coconut was the closest thing to a female being. F/X? None existed! I can't remember anything good to say about this waste of time... Well except one - it wastes only 82 minutes of your time.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 4: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history