Copyright 1957 by Embassy Pictures. Presented by Joseph E. Levine. Released in the U.S.A. through Warner Bros: July 1959. New York opening at neighborhood cinemas: 22 July 1959. U.K. release through Archway: May 1959. London opening at the Cameo-Royal. Australian release through Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer: 26 March 1959 (sic). Running times: 9,987 feet, 111 minutes (Aust), 105 minutes (UK), 103 (USA). Original Italian title: "Le Fatiche di Ercole".NOTES: 4th to "Auntie Mame", "The Nun's Story" and "Rio Bravo" as Warner Bros top-grossing domestic release of 1959. By way of contrast, the movie did virtually no business at all in Australia. After deducting modest advertising and distribution expenses, M-G-M actually lost money on the deal. The U.K. figures are midway between the Australian disaster and the American runaway success. (A DVD was available from EDI Video. Rating: 7/10. This is not a wide-screen print.)COMMENT: The movie that started the craze for Italian sword-and- sandal pictures, was actually one of the funniest pictures to reach U.S. screens in years — although the humor of course was not deliberate. True, a tongue-in-cheek style may have helped to make this nonsense even more amusing, but we doubt it. One of the movie's assets is that everyone on screen seems to be taking all this lumbering rubbish so seriously. A sort of Homeric Tarzan, heavy on sex and mixed-up mythology, "Hercules" also proved the biggest surprise box-office smash in Hollywood's memory. Most of the movie is grounded in muddled mythology, jumbled with snips of The Iliad and a couple of chapters from the Bible. The scriptwriters spare no pains to throw everything into the melting pot. In the process, they seem to get Hercules mixed up with Samson, the Amazons with the ladies of Lemnos. But no matter. Like a white-washed Samson, good scout Herc topples pillars on horses and men, breaks iron chains as if they were zippers, and routs a whole army single-handed. What more could you ask of a pseudo Homeric/Biblical hero?The American distributor, Joseph E. Levine, paid only $120,000 for the U.S./Canadian rights, yet cleaned up $4.7 million at domestic ticket-windows alone.

Well, here it is: the film that kick-started the sword-and-sandal craze of the late '50s/early '60s and single-handedly turned muscleman Steve Reeves into an immortal cinematic star. Weirdly, I've only now had the opportunity to watch this after being subjected to countless sequels and rip-offs, which is unfortunate because, as a film, HERCULES is hardly the action epic you'd expect. I actually think the genre got better as it went on, to peak in 1961/2 before sliding off into no-budget obscurity by 1965. The problem with HERCULES is the sluggish pacing, which means there's a half-hour lull around the middle part where nothing happens for an extraordinary length of time. Hercules himself doesn't seem to be on screen, and even the countless beautiful women couldn't keep this viewer's attention.I don't want to be too critical of HERCULES, as it's responsible for so, so much. It offers good direction and a budget that's a lot higher than the endless rip-offs that followed, so many of the Greek-set scenes convince. Reeves fits the role like a glove, and is great in the various scenes where he has to battle soldiers, bulls, and lions (watch out for the non-muscular stand-in in the latter bit). He was never a great actor – none of the muscleman actors ever were – but he seems comfortable and at home here, and projects power and immortality as he should. With both Sylva Koscina and Gianna Maria Canale in the cast, the film's easy on the eye in that respect.The cinematography is good and I enjoyed the surprise appearance of a man-in-a-rubber-suit playing the hydra, here transformed into a Tyrannosaurus Rex by the looks of it! Some of the various sub-plots are intriguing – I liked the one involving the corrupt king, for instance – but for the latter half of the flick, the focus is too much on Jason, a rather boring individual, it has to be said. Had half an hour been cut out, HERCULES would have been a very good entry in the peplum genre, but it feels just too short on action and too bloated to be a masterpiece for modern viewers. It's worth a look to see how it all started, but for sheer enjoyment, I'd recommend the low-rent likes of MACISTE IN HELL or MACISTE AGAINST THE VAMPIRE as true classics of the genre.

One day a friend of mine came to me and said that he brings a great classics. I was ignoring him because I thought that he brought a pile of Z-production films.Suddenly I saw an attractive poster with Steve and ,when I first saw the movie I was charmed by Steves performances. Imagine how girls in 50s reacted on his deep voice.In my opinion there is a lack of quality in script , but nice scenography , good cast and music have made movie that you can watch hundred times and you still wont be bored. I have noticed a couple of mistakes but I still think that movie is great. As all movies from that time this one also poses a great spirit which now-days movies don't...

Hercules – hybrid of greek mythology and cheesed dubbing. It does add to the campiness of the film, but I'm biased having already seen Hercules Unchained.Herc randomly comes to aid the luscious Iole (RAWRRR). Steve was born to throw freshly torn-from-the-ground trees. He runs around with greek guys (played by beefy Italian guys) and does battle, rows. Herc won't even sing good old-fashioned oar songs! There's your typical dark side in this epic schlock, but time starts to drag at scenes when you'd rather see the Herc bending iron bars across his skull.I used to think Hercules Unchained was plain goofy and dumb. It's actually much less of a yawner than the original. What is with Hercules and the lions in both movies? Where was PETA when this happened? `YO-LAY!!!'