Amazons and Gladiators (2001) User Reviews

Laugh or cry?

[A_Chimp · 2/10 · 21 August 2003]

I guessed the film would be terrible, and indeed it was. Really crappy fighting scenes (seems like they were constantly fighting in slow-mo, assuring not to hurt eachother with their toy weapons), terrible acting (did they even retake a single scene? Can't give credit to a single actor), laughable costumes (at least when looking on the romans and the half-naked amazons in such a cold climate).

Don't ask me about the story and don't ask me about the silly clichées. Read a book instead of watching this film, go feed your goldfish. Anything.

Sometimes Breasts Aren't Enough

[bobwildhorror · 2/10 · 15 January 2009]

Thank the gods I didn't pay to rent this. Obviously intended as a cheap T&A knockoff of GLADIATOR, this flick is lamer than your average episode of Xena.

A bunch of Amazonian warriors hide in the woods outside Rome, intent on battling the mighty Roman army. They revel in their sisterhood, which would be fine if this was a woman's rights movie instead of a sexploitation flick. The only things viewers are asked to revel in are fur covered push-up bras and midriff bearing outfits (hardly the best protection against the brutal weather). But this isn't a skin flick, my friends. It's a badly scripted, badly acted, B movie. Cleavage is a secondary consideration.

My favorite piece of cheesy dialog, and it's difficult to single out one exchange in a movie rife with it, occurs between the Amazon leader and the newest arrival.

Leader: "Your training begins tomorrow." New arrival: "What training?" Leader: "Amazon training." Need I say more?

garbage

[ace_pilot16 · 3/10 · 6 November 2005]

Just like the other Dutch guy I was mislead by a 1towatch sticker on it, and all I got was bad acting,bad script,ridiculous costumes,historical inaccuracies,insipid feminist propaganda... nothing but Xena type garbage.

I was at least expecting some exciting (sword)fight scenes , but even that was missing.Actually, the only exciting scene in this movie was when Wendi Winburn got naked out of the bath (nice ass!) and I think that says enough.Oh, there's a nice plot twist in it,too !But that's about it.

I will at least give it a 3-star rating for the nudity.

An amusing B-movie to cash in on the box-office potential of GLADIATOR movies.

[TheVid · 6 February 2002]

Frankly I'm surprised there hasn't been more of these cut-rate costume epics since Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR proved the genre was ripe for re-cycling. The only other video exploitation film that I'm aware of besides this one has been Roger Corman's remake of THE ARENA, which is a cut above AMAZONS AND GLADIATORS because it's visually more exciting, sexier and has better Playboy bunnies in the lead-babe parts. For the most part, A&G is a reasonably well-performed actioner with a sneering, indulgent performance from Patrick Bergin as Crassus (of SPARTACUS fame), a Roman Leader pissed off with his new assignment and taking out his anger on the local folk. Among the local folk are a couple of babes who end up joining a local tribe of Amazon babes, who eventually give Crassus his comeuppance. For my tastes, there's too little nudity and sex in this feature to make it a first-class exploitation gem; and the violence and fight choreography are only satisfactory. When you're dealing with restricted budgets and cliche genre material, it's absolutely necessary to go over the top with the obligatory Roman orgies, arena violence and flesh peddling, particularly when you're not governed by the pandering PG-13 standards of the major studios. This isn't a bad B-movie for a night's rental, but if you're going to add a low-budget Roman opus to your DVD collection, you're better off with the Corman remake of THE ARENA.

Baywatch?

[ulf-akesson · 1/10 · 8 July 2002]

This is N O T a good movie. A mixture between Baywatch and Xenia (TV). I was very disappointed. OK the costumes are ok, but the make up looks like it is made for the theater not for a movie. Wendi Winburn looks like she has had 10 cosmetic operations. That's ok i guess, but not for an actress in a historical movie. Can't say the acting is good ether. I could write about a lot of bad things in this movie but I won't. I only wish to warn you for this movie if you liked Gladiator. It's miles between the two movies. No a movie I recommend. Only if you are interested in watching good looking women half naked. (And who is not?!)

Once I stubbed my toe

[SteveRaccoon · 1/10 · 10 July 2006]

and a small amount of blood coagulated beneath the nail. What has this (perhaps somewhat) gruesome little snippet got to do with Amazons and Gladiators? It's this: that blunted digit was considerably more gory than the 'big' gladiator fight in this film.

A prolonged close-up of a throat-cutting involved a smear of ketchup on said fool's hand, between thumb and index.

The camera wobbles and pans around so that you cannot see weapons contacting (read: missing by a mile).

Swords 'cut' through flesh and bone by passing several inches in front of them and being accompanied by the same cloth ripping sound.

Is this a serious film? Is it? No, I think this is too heavily influenced by Sesame Street. The fight scenes should have been dropped in favour of can-can dancing, or maybe a Chinese lion dance, it wouldn't have made the film any more ridiculous and may have presented something worth watching. Get those knees up!

But wait, it doesn't stop there. We have a cast of characters who are just about all as unlikeable, unremarkable and shallow as each other. We have clichés spilling around like claret in a proper gladiator film. We have a combination of Xena and Hercules with all of the (few) good bits ripped out. We have a plot that would be laughed off the side of cereal packets.

There's plenty of nudity, attractive naked young females draped around the sets. Quite how they managed to make such nymphs SO unappealing and non-sexual is beyond me - it's more interesting to watch the clock.

The crowd from the 'arena' (possibly assembled and filmed within the director's shed, by the looks of it) acting like the three stooges in smocks. How did they get that many people to look so DENSE and act so annoying within one film? How? I'm giving this painful pile of tosh a 1, because I am extremely hard pressed to find a single good thing to say about it. Well.. some of the weapons and armour looked nice enough, but that isn't going to cut a 2.

Don't waste your time watching this tripe, seriously. Have a nap for a few hours, read a chapter of a good book, go for a walk, call your mother, heck.. watch Spongebob Squarepants. Just don't say you weren't warned. I will fight lions in the arena armed with a biro before I let anyone submit me to this torture again.

Why people in the middle east hate us...

[shutupyou14 · 1/10 · 24 May 2003]

This movie is absolutely terrible, anyone who likes it should be shot. Wait, there is no one who likes it, thus negating the threat of the shooting of any demon spawn of satan who should per chance come along and happen to enjoy this aborted fetus of a movie. Not being able to stop the creation of this monstrousity of a movie negates the entire purpose of my life, and exemplifies all that is wrong with the world. This movie makes me believe that the terrorists have indeed won. Now that we are done ranting about how terrible this movie is, we must describe it in 3 short sentences. 1. Girl stabs man with blade that randomly appears from a candlestick. 2. Girl fights man, girl has sex with man, girl speaks with man whilst sleeping, girl watches man die after being shot with arrows. 3. Girl smites evil man, who had smote her beloved family and tribe of scantilly clad whores. Throw in random scenes of naked women bathing a fat man in a bathhouse and this is the entire movie. People who have given this movie greater than a 1 rating must have their fingers cut off and their foreheads branded with the mark of Satan. This necessitates the need of a possible zero rating in the rating system.

This movie caused people to hear their neghbors dog commanding them to kill people, write helter skelter on peoples walls in blood, and to send letter bombs to universities. Fin.

Title says it all... out of work pron actors...

[scott-mcauley-thomson · 2/10 · 18 October 2010]

Appallingly bad. Deliciously bad. Bad in the sort of way that makes you really proud that you made it all the way to the end.

This is sword and board 1980's at its best. Soft pron without the pron. Go Amazons!

Amazing to see this kick started so many amazing careers.

Not sure the squeaking leather underpants will catch on but the plastic chariots are a must have solution to global something.

The delightful mishmash of international accents left us wondering if this was a play for cornering the international film festival market.

Why is it always Autumn in Lithuania? Perfect Epic night, more like this please!

Did the Romans have crushed velvet and techno music?

[erinbear80 · 2/10 · 3 February 2006]

Historically inaccurate in every aspect. Corny dialog. Unbelievable characters. Generic sound effects. Horribly choreographed fight scenes. Shoddy camera work. Nudity at every turn, probably only put in to keep the audience on it's toes, because nothing else will. Don't watch this unless you want a movie to make fun of! I bought this DVD in Spain, hoping it would be a good souvenir. I have an interest in the Roman Empire and it's offshoot stories, and this one only disappointed me. Yes, I know that they are few and far between, but believe me when I say that you would be better off not watching this one. Xena is more entrancing.

It could have been a great B-movie

[Miora · 5/10 · 18 August 2007]

The beginning was kind of interesting. Of course the historical facts and costumes and several other things were way off, but it was in an entertaining way. Who cares about historical accurate costumes with accurate dirt when you can have a clean shiny Amazon in a pretty skimpy suit that looks a bit like armor? Who cares about historical facts when you can have scenes that fit the story better? But then when the fighting starts something terrible happens... Suddenly the clichés start piling up and logic is shoved mercilessly aside for more cheap action. It goes downhill so hard that it's impossible to suspend disbelief any longer. A feeling creeps up that the movie has stopped being a cute fantasy-like movie about tough women and starts being the script for a video clip of some R&B singer. I suspect that either from that point someone else was writing the script, or the ending got a last-minute editing because someone though it should be more targeted towards teenage girls. I started the movie with an entertained feeling but ended it with a feeling of utter disappointment.

Could have been a lot better

[dgrolin · 3/10 · 6 February 2012]

This movie suffers on a number of counts. The most obvious is that the lead actress (Nichole Hiltz) was ill-suited for a period piece. I am sure she would be well cast in a teen movie set in a modern high-school or some such. Jennifer Rubin would likely have brought the gravitas necessary to make the character more believable. Unfortunately, this miscasting of the lead role covers over a number of fair if not stellar performances by some of the secondary cast, such as Melanie Gutteridge's portrayal of the sister. Another problem is the poor script. The story is, by and large, predictable and the dialog falls flat and fails to give the sense of verisimilitude. Great acting can sometimes overcome poor scripts and poor acting can be overcome with an excellent script. Fail to provide either, inevitably leads to a poor overall experience; which unfortunately is what one gets from this movie.

Conflicted.

[ada-p · 10/10 · 20 July 2003]

Feminism and misogyny at the same time! I'm all for a movie that depicts womyn standing on their own two feet and kicking patriarchal butt. But, and this is a big but, the movie managed to be exploitive of womyn at the same time. For some strange reason Serena always wore tight boob-raising body armour, there were constant scenes of naked and half naked womyn, the female leads were all unbelievably beautiful and the men (with the exception of the fairly attractive Nortin) were all rather ugly or... out of shape.

I honestly don't know if I love this film or hate it with a passion. It has Thelma and Louise appeal, but also appeals to male sexual fantasies by making womyn sex objects. But the idea that it spaws Satan or other such extremes is a little gynophobic and paranoid. If you feel this way then I suggest you stay clear of "8 Mile" and Britney's "Crossorads". The only movies worse than those that spark thoughtful debate, ie A & G, are those that are mind numbing and appeal solely to...... easily controlled minds.

Great B movie

[K_Ripley · 6/10 · 12 May 2013]

If you're looking for a flashy, high budget film with stellar cinematography and top notch acting, this movie certainly isn't it. It's definitely a cheesy indie B-movie. However, considering it doesn't come from a major production company, it's pretty good. The story, though historically inaccurate, is interesting and very entertaining. The characters are compelling though not necessarily multi dimensional - some characters you really love, and others you really hate. But you definitely connect with them, one way or another. It passes the Bechdel test, and though it does have a lot of scantily clad women and a few nude scenes, there isn't an excessive amount of sexploitation and it generally stays true to its Amazon theme. Overall, this movie is good for men And women.

Waste of time

[toma_calin86 · 2/10 · 8 August 2008]

call me whatever you want, but i think this is a waste of time. not that i don't like the idea, but this depiction of the amazon myth is a poor one. and i have seen better. the story was poor, the acting was atrocious. it has all the elements of a failed movie right from the start. if you want to make a good amazon movie, at least try to have some sense in the way the story is told, or you will do like i did and walked out at the half of it. the only good thing about this movie are some of the actresses. sad to say, but i think this movie is a sorry attempt at making women feel in control. and a note to the director of this movie: if you try to direct your own work, it is bound to end up in flames right from the start. too much subjectivity will ruin a good idea. :-(

Truly shocking

[chakazulu · 18 August 2002]

'Historically inaccurate' doesn't even begin to describe this. Nor does 'terrible'.

The only reason anybody's given so far for watching it is the scantily clad young women. Frankly you see as much in a Meat Loaf music video. And the acting's better...

An ... um .... 'interesting' take on history

[gizmomogwai · 3/10 · 22 February 2020]

Coming our suspiciously close to the hit Oscar-winner and similarly titled Gladiator (2000), Amazons and Gladiators at least takes the inventive step of adding Amazons to the mix, a step that stirred curiosity in even my ancient History professor. It would have been easy and lazy to make Commodus the villain, or Caesar, but Amazons and Gladiators picks out a lesser-known (to lay people) Roman figure, Crassus (almost certainly plucking him out of Kubrick's Spartacus). The gratuitous nudity and extreme cleavage are a plus, and some effort in production design was expended. There, the positives stop.

Unsurprisingly, Amazons and Gladiators is a historical mess from the word "go"- and not just because Amazons are just Greek mythology. To start with, Crassus wasn't one of "Julius Caesar's generals." Caesar didn't become dictator till after Crassus was dead; they were co-rulers (with Pompey) as the Triumvirate, and if Crassus was made a governor that wouldn't be Caesar's whim but a decision made by the Triumvirate, which Crassus was a part of. Given this isn't a documentary, I would have given that a pass, but the ending particularly stirred up "nerd rage" in me, saying Amazons joined the Huns and Visigoths in taking down the Roman Empire "soon." Those invasions and the downfall of Rome came not "soon" after Crassus' death but some 530 years later. Crassus wasn't killed by an Amazon either, but Gladiator takes much the same liberty with Commodus' death.

On the flip side, the choice of the name Zenobia for the Amazon queen is a very interesting one. If the writers meant for this to be the real Zenobia, it would be another massive historical error, since she lived hundreds of years after Caesar. But I got the definite impression it was more of a tribute, and it might be a sign the writers know more about Roman history than the story suggests.

Setting aside all that nerdish pedantry, Amazons and Gladiators suffers mostly from horrifically bad acting as well as a clumsy narrative. Young Serena and Jennifer Rubin are particularly awful. Would have been ideal material for Mystery Science Theater.

Just a Bad Film

[Wulfstan10 · 1/10 · 20 October 2015]

Perhaps it arguably deserves two stars as I have seen worse, but I haven't seen much worse and this overall is, for me fully in the bottom of the heap. I feel that once we're talking about the differences in quality between really bad movies, it doesn't matter that they all get one star even if some are "better" than others, if they're all terrible anyway.

The only decent thing is that Patrick Bergin at least is capable of acting and this occasionally shows through in nice details and nuanced expressions here or there, but that is all.

The production values or cheap and not convincing, which is the least of the problems here.

The actors other than Bergin are terrible, simply terrible. They are wooden and deliver wooden lines in a wooden manner. Nothing about them is remotely convincing.

The story is preposterous, not least of all because of the entirely groundless use of "Zenobia" as some sort of noble rebel leader among ill-defined Celtic or Germanic tribes when in fact she was a queen of a wealthy city state client kingdom of Rome in Syria, partly fighting against Rome at times yes, but not a leader of freedom-loving NW European tribes.

The end is predictable yet totally unconvincing.

Great Action from Richard Norton!

[wgg-1 · 10/10 · 13 November 2001]

Roman epic fans will welcome this addition to the genre. With Richard Norton as Lucius, the film's most genuine performance, and with his

trademark action choreography/direction, adventure fans will relish the arena sequences pitting gladiators against Amazons under the evil gaze of banished General Marcus Crassus (Patrick Bergin). Crassus and his thugs destroyed the family of the heroine, Serena, and as she ages, all her roads lead to Rome and to revenge. She joins the Amazons in their battles against the Romans, and sympathetic male warrior Lucius (Norton) becomes both her ally and her companion. Norton knows how to render a compelling hero. With a formidable list of movies and martial arts accomplishments to his credit, he has distinguished himself as both an actor and a stunt co-ordinator in the film and TV industries. Net info on the film indicates that he did the stunt choreography and co-ordina- tion for this film. His work ensures that the film graduates from being a routine adventure about vengeance to an impressive stage for action sequences. Strangely the credits fail to list his work in the film as Stunt Choreographer and Co-Ordinator. They also overlook Judy Green in a visible and welcomed role as one of the Amazons. Since Norton's

contributions distinguish the movie, perhaps the producers should re- type their credits for future video printings. It should not take a prod from one of the spear throwers to give credits where credits are due! In the meantime, enjoy "Amazons and Gladiators" and its trademark Richard Norton action.

Entertaining B-movie.

[Enchorde · 7/10 · 7 December 2003]

Yes, this is a classical B-movie. The historical facts is supposedly all wrong, I am not the one to judge that, but I do not doubt it for a moment. The costumes and scenery might be all wrong for those who really knows, but frankly it was better than I expected. It contains a lot of half nude women, even the heroins wear rather little clothes, which is a little interesting because their whole cause is a cause against maltreatment of slaves (i.e women). And finally, no, this is not another Gladiator. Not even close. Those movies should not even be compared.

None the less, this was a surprisingly entertaining movie, if you're able to look beyond all apparent mistakes and clichees. As I said I think the scenery and costumes is better than I expected. The acting may not be up for any awards but fit in the movie. The fight-scenes is not the best I ever seen, a little higher tempo, especially in the "training" scenes would have raised my grading a bit, however they are good enough to be entertaining. There is not much plot to comment, it might have been a lot better if it had not been so full of clichees, another (more surprising) turn of events would have made the whole movie a lot better.

Still, in conclusion, if your expectations are not the highest, this movie is good entertainment, well worth seeing. And that is what its all about, isn't it?

7/10

Nice but...

[damien-55 · 14 December 2004]

Well, the DVD's cover does a good (but tricky) job. You think it might be a relatively nice movie shot for TV. Like Helen of Troy, Jason and the argonauts, or Odyssey.

But actually, the only reason to see this movie is for the few beautiful, and half-naked women who try to cope with a terrible director and a really bad script and story based on Ridley Scott's Gladiator. Especially the little girl in the beginning acts really bad. It was quite disappointing. I hope some of the actors get a break in the future.

The movie screams it was very low-budget. They must have used except the forest shots, 5 or 6 scenes, most of them in a dressed back-lot.

The worst mistake (except inaccuracies like amazons in the same era with romans) was that everyone is clean. In that period women didn't look like a Playboy centerfold. And people were dirty-looking. They look extremely sharp. Like they took their furs from the laundry! LOL!

Anyway, as I said, if you pass one the beautiful babes, a Xena episode is far more dramatic and action-packed.

I don't regret for my $2 for the DVD rental though. Even B-movies and first-time actors got to make a living.

A modern and better than 'middle of the road' B movie

[bbhlthph · 6/10 · 30 August 2007]

This little sexploitation film, which was presumably designed for TV and direct to video release, has already secured two pages of comments, many of them very erudite, from IMDb users who say all that needs to be said about the film itself. The comments fall into two groups, viewers who fully recognised what it was about and settled down to enjoy it just for what it provided seem to have rated it very generously, but a larger group appear to have expected a poor man's "Gladiator" and to have rejected it totally when they realized this was not what they were viewing. Currently IMDb user ratings show peaks at both 10 and 1 - this is an interesting although not unique situation, but my sympathies (although not my judgment in so far as any rating near ten is concerned) lie entirely with the first group. I find it very hard to understand how any viewers would have had expectations of watching an historically viable film, rather than what is so clearly a work of fiction that has been set in a recognisable historic period.

Historically we are only very gradually beginning to learn something about the legendary female warriors we know as Amazons. Early European settlers followed a largely matriarchal form of society in which women took a prominent role; but these were later often absorbed by incoming Indo-European tribes, who traditionally gave women a much more subservient role. Archaeology largely replaces history for this period but these two very different cultures intermingled for a long period before many of the matriarchal groups were absorbed by the dominant Indo-Europeans and there is general recognition that many of the matriarchal groups resisted male dominance to the point of migrating and fighting for their independence. The Greek legends about Amazons, a name possibly coming from the Greek "a mazos" (without breast), appear to relate to groups which settled in Asia Minor as female warrior tribes that played a significant role in very early history, but these were almost certainly wiped out long before they could become entangled with the legions of the Roman Empire. There has been a great deal of controversy about the legend that they cut off the right breast of their female children to enhance their future capabilities as adult fighters. Given the medical standards of the time, this would almost certainly have been a fatal procedure and it has therefore been discounted by most historians - which has unfortunately led some of them to discount all reports about even the existence of such female warriors. However Hippocrates has described in some detail how this was not a surgical procedure but was the result of applying an iron hot enough to inhibit normal anatomical breast development to female babies whilst very young in order to encourage the muscular development of their right arm. This is quite compatible with the many early legends (and even semi-historical reports) of Valkyrie like one breasted female warriors who were active in Asia Minor, probably until shortly after the founding of Troy - long before Rome was founded or Gladiators appeared. I am not a student of archaeology but I have read somewhere that at least one archaeologist claims to have discovered a bronze 'branding iron' device the right size and shape to have been used for this purpose. Other IMDb users could probably provide more accurate information about this.

Even ignoring the dates, the idea of such a tribe of female warriors encountering and disrupting a force of almost invincible Roman warriors should provide great fun whether it is presented as a novel or as a film - neither should be expected to have any pretensions to being historical, and rejecting either for historical errors is I feel only laughable. But, certainly in the case of the film, part of the appeal the promoters would depend upon for recovering their investment would involve transmuting the Valkyrie like warriors into attractive (and probably scantily clad) young women that young male viewers would enjoy watching and young female viewers would wish to emulate. Clearly therefore any legends about disfigurements intended to enhance fighting performance would be forgotten - we are in the realm of neither history nor mythology - but straight fiction. Judged on this basis, I would regard this film as a very commendable 'B' movie, distinctly superior to many of its genre. Comparisons with 'Gladiator', which has pretensions to being a historically based film, cannot be made in any meaningful way. But I very much preferred 'Amazons and Gladiators', because it showed much more ongoing character development than was allowed by the pointless and unceasing violence in 'Gladiator', and could even be regarded as providing role models for young women who feel they are being exploited and victimised by the society in which they live. Further reasons for this preference can be found in my user comments on 'Gladiator' in this database.

IMDb does not list any alternative versions for this film, but there appear to be two very different versions. I saw it on Public TV in a 90 minute PG version totally without nudity, but the large screen version was given an R rating for nudity, and both IMDb users and external reviewers have commented that many topless extras were featured. Although this may explain wide differences in the ratings received from IMDb users, the large number of one ratings seems inexplicable. What do these reviewers do when they see a really bad film? I would have rated it at five, but this led me to award it a marginally justified six.

Low budget heroine movie

[heroineworshipper · 10 December 2003]

The three forces in the universe, in order of strength, are the force that bonds magnets together, the force that bonds protons together, and the force of heroine warrior worshipping energy you feel while watching Amazons & Gladiators, a film by Beyond Films, MBP films and Drotcroft Ltd. Apparently raising enough money to make a movie about heroine warriors takes 3 studios.

Men have long waited for a movie about the Amazons, a movie which portrays Amazons as independant, intelligent, freedom fighting warriors instead of senile monsters like in Land of the Prehistoric Women. This one has good sights of heroines wielding swords, heroines wearing armor, heroines lifting heavy objects, heroines stabbing abusive dictators. If the same movie was made with Jodie Foster, Demi Moore, Ali Larter, or Radha Mitchell, had a bigger budget, a better script, better lighting, better acting it might have been one of the best heroine movies ever.

Unfortunately, there's only acting in the academic sense. The characters wear costumes, read lines, and sometimes move around.

You're better off watching it with the sound off. All the shots are closeups of a tree, building, or fighting ring. There's no wide shot of the Amazon homeland, a Colosseum, or a palace. The weather is consistently dreary. The production is so bad, you might think anyone sitting through this movie was insane but undoubtedly many flat broke, unmarried, male breadwinning gene deprived, SUV impaired men have watched it over and over.

AN EXCITING FILM

[hbaygun · 7/10 · 28 July 2001]

At first,this film reminds me that Gladiator which Russell Crowe acts.But it's not same.the screenplay is only similar to this film.Also i like the film.And i must to say that Nichole's and Wendi's performances are great. The dresses are so good,and the places are chosen so convincing.It's clearly that the fight acts are studied in detail.I suggest to see this film.

I was mislead by a "one to watch" adhesive label on the DVD

[arie2 · 14 March 2002]

If you expect a movie like The Gladiator, or Spartacus you will be very disappointed. The two films I mentioned in the former sentence pay a lot more respect to the historical facts. The voice-over in this film starts with the text: Around 60 AD the Roman empire was at his highest peak both geographical and economical. At the end of the film, a decade of years later on the decline of Rome is announced. But if you don't mind this simplistic lecture you can have a nice time watching for the juicy and well bosomed women (Amazons).

if you've Xena one battlin' Amazons B-flick, you've seen 'em all!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 7/10 · 20 June 2023]

Conspicuously low budget, and cheesier than a centurion's sandals, Amazons & Gladiators stronger points are manifestly not its plenitude of 'colourful' performances! While amiable enough, Jennifer Rubin makes for unlikely Amazon warrior, Patrick Bergin is on amusingly crass form as degenerate General Crassus, with jazz patch perpetrating action icon, Richard Norton robustly convincing as muscular sword master, Lucius. The production design is no less dog-eared than the tripe-laden text, but, quite frankly, this pleasingly bellicose peplum is rarely boring, and our plucky, immaculately coiffed, racily leather clad heroines righteously put up a bloody good fight! Some could say if you've Xena one battlin' Amazons B-flick, you've seen 'em all!!!! While history buffs should look elsewhere for cultural verisimilitude, ravening cheese-mongers should give, Weintraub's fiesty female-led fight flick a shot! For the sake of full trash hound transparency I went into 'Amazons & Gladiators' with ZERO expectations and was rewarded with goofy sequences of an unexpectedly zesty B-Movie piquancy!!