Hannibal (1960)

Lack of good storyline.

Absolutely Fantastic

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

"Hannibal" is a great movie for nine year-old boys, or at least it was back in 1960 when I sat through it twice at a Saturday matinée. I don't think it had much of a mainstream release, playing mostly to kiddie matinée and drive-in audiences. The film planted in me an interest in this historical period and was my first taste of cinema gore; my one memory being the blood pouring from a soldier's mouth after he was crushed by an elephant during the army's march over the alps.In style "Hannibal" is like a really bad spaghetti western, only set it 200BC and produced by people generally clueless about just who was their target audience. On one hand the less your sophistication the less energy you will need to burn suspending disbelief. On the other hand the subject matter cries out for a more sophisticated audience interested in history. And finally the awkwardly inserted love story will go unappreciated by both sophisticated and unsophisticated viewers.Hannibal was a brilliant military tactician from Carthage (now Tunisa) who gave imperial Rome a run for its money as the dominant world power two centuries before the birth of Christ. The film was promoted by Warner Brothers as "a fanciful adaptation of history" (make that an extremely condensed adaptation). Given all the omissions it is difficult to understand why they felt compelled to invent a love story. It might have made some sense if they had paid a box office draw actress to star as the title character's love interest; but Rita Gam was an aging bit player, pleasant in a wholesome Dorothy McGuire way but too detuned to add any sizzle to a production desperately in need of some sparks.After an especially ponderous title sequence a narrator begins the film by getting the audience up to speed on current events (circa 200 BC). Rome is threatening Carthage and Hannibal has decided to head things off by moving his army from Spain to Northern Italy via the Alps. Then we get 15 minutes of the 40,000-man Carthaginian army making its way single file over the icy slopes. The editor cuts it shots of officers shouting, "keep moving," soldiers slipping off the path to an icy death, and the same group of elephants rounding the same fake soundstage boulder. At several points the men must pull themselves up a steep incline with a rope. There are no shots of the elephants, horses, or wagons climbing this rope and this becomes the first of many suspension of disbelief moments; it is unwise to dwell on why the soldiers are subjecting themselves to this dangerous climb since there must be a nearby Roman road for all the animals and baggage.Hannibal's army emerges from the icy mountain and camps near the country villa of Roman Senator Fabius (Gabriele Ferzetti - despite the name this is not a girl). Fabius is in Rome futilely suggesting that they employ guerrilla warfare and avoid direct confrontation with Hannibal's army. This was in fact the way that the Romans were finally able to rid themselves of the invader but it took them several years to adopt such tactics.Fabius' son Quintilius (Terence Hill who I've always confused with Terrance Stamp) and niece Sylvia (Rita Gam) are at the villa and Hannibal captures them. Hannibal and Sylvia have a romance and she is released to tell Rome what a big army he has and that he has only crossed the Alps because he wants peace (could have fooled me). Before you know it Hannibal has hurt his eye and Victor Mature spends the rest to the story wearing an eye patch and the Roman Senate spends its deliberations telling pirate jokes.The elephants get inserted into several poorly edited battle sequences. They lumber around (on occasion they speed up the film to make it look like they are charging) and crush a lot of Romans off-camera and the sound people make noises that make it seem like the straw being thrown toward the elephants are actually arrows.Then at about the one third point of the actual story they run out of film, the narrator briefly explains that Hannibal never was able to sack Rome, and the ponderous title sequence runs again but this time it is full of credits.Mature was a horrible actor nearing the end of his career at this point. Since most of the cast are Italians whose lines were dubbed and there is no indication that anyone received acting for the camera direction, the production manages a nice lethargic unity.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

The legendary Edgar G. Ulmer has much to answer for -- certainly his willingness to make pictures on a shoestring resulted in some bloody awful pictures -- but he nevertheless has a talent that shines through even in some of his flimsiest pictures. On the other hand, even with fairly strong material (as here) the unevenness is always evident. Among Roman/Biblical epics, though, this, for all its messiness and its generally miserable acting, is not one of the dullest. (For me those are the almost-impossible-to-sit-through "El Cid" and "The Fall of the Roman Empire," pictures with much higher budgets and fancier casts, and made by a far superior director, Anthony Mann. But they are truly tedious.) Why? First of all, the story of Hannibal's campaigns is genuinely interesting from military and historical standpoints, and Ulmer brought them to life in a number of really superb battle scenes, beautifully edited. (Yes, yes, there are obviously cheap things -- the fake blood is terrible and the mix of studio and outdoor scenes is very poorly matched, but the effect of these scenes is generally excellent.) The novelty of seeing elephants climbing over the Alps, too, is refreshing. On the other hand, much of the acting, and, especially, the dubbing and sound mixing, is frankly at an amateur level. Rarely, in fact, have I heard such a poor soundtrack, with characters voice levels not matching camera distance, ludicrous crowd ad libs, etc. The score, too, though rather stirring, frequently seems wildly inappropriate (a common problem in Ulmer films, which is ironic, since Ulmer considered himself something of a musician). So it's interesting to see, to put it bluntly, how working in the lower depths corrupted a basically talented director into accepting standards way below par, even on what was, apparently, a film with a more or less "normal" budget. Kudos, though, to Victor Mature, that oft-misused and underrated actor ("My Darling Clementine" and Anthony Mann's "The Last Frontier" give strong evidence of actual talent). He makes a strong, sober Hannibal, not without a sense of humor. "Hannibal" is, despite fully justifiable criticism, a pretty entertaining picture. We've all sat through much worse.

I've red a lot about this figure and I got to admire it; I think he was in the level of Julius Caesar and Alexander when it comes to ancient history's generals. The involving tactic he used at Cannae is still studied in Military Academies around the world. He was an extremely clever man most educated for his time and he loved his country. The Crossing of the Alps back in 200 B.C. with an army and 30 war elephants can only be qualified as epic and a true highlight in Military history.The guy sure deserved a better try in films. Italians were never good at making epic spectacular films, but Americans did some very good products and its a pity they were never interested in Hannibal.Edgar Ulmer's film is slow, boring and irrelevant. It starts with the crossing of the Alps and ends after Cannae; that period was precisely Hannibal's most glorious when he moved through Italy (Rome's dominions back then) at will defeating the legions four times and retiring without ever being defeated. The movie doesn't transmit at all the real significance of such a quest against the most powerful nation of the ancient world in its own soil.Victor Mature (Hannibal) was the master of overacting and he proofs it in this picture once more moving around with his usual 60's greasy hairdo. The rest of the cast is average or below average. The battles are not very realistic and the elephants that were used as today's tanks don't even look dangerous (even if you pass over that they were Indian elephants instead of African).Don't waste your time on this one. The great general deserves a lot more and he sure gave a lot of material for a good script.

This film was good, it followed the series of battles from 218 to 216 BC which culminated in Hannibal's victorious, heavy defeat of the biggest ever assembled Roman Army of 80,000 (Battle of Cannae).This film even mentions the siege of Saguntum (Rome's Ally in Spain) which brought on the second Punic War when the Carthaginian senate refused to surrender Hannibal Barca to them.After briefly showing the events of the Battle of Trebia (December 218BC) and the battle of Lake Trasimene (June 217BC) there are political scenes involving both the Carthaginians and the Romans as Fabius Maximus tries to persuade the Roman senate not to engage Hannibal in open battle, rather skirmish and harass.Victor Mature played Hannibal well, but the only element which was wrong with this film was that it did not appear to command the same budget available for it's production as The 300 Spartans or Spartacus (in particular had) so the battle of Cannae, Hannibal's finest hour (or hours) did not come across as the battle would have done.The reason for this is that they would have needed to assemble AT LEAST 130,000 extras in order to portray the events at Cannae. However, they still managed to assemble a lot of extras for the battle scene, just not nearly as much as 130,000 Aside from this minor flaw, I LOVED IT.