for many reasons, Gordon Mitchell was not the most inspired option for the role of Achilles. but this choice becomes a small detail across the film. because , "Fury of Achilles" has a first virtue - it is different by the Italian movies , inspired by the mythology/history of Old Greek / Rome. motifs - Iliad is not a pretext for fight scenes and love stories but source for an adaptation who use accuracy as one of its virtues. the second motif, the acting who could not be reduced at good intentions. and the beautiful cinematography. so, "The Fury of Achilles".

I saw Achilles (1962) listed on my satellite TV programme guide and decided to see if it was better than the typical dubbed Italian muscle-man movie. Fear not, it is really good. It is one of the better films of the genre I have seen. It is a surprisingly moving film, very watchable and giving no impression of card-board background. Throughout the film, the well-paced and convincing battle-scenes are interspersed with many instances of well-written dialogue from the main characters, conveying the deeply humanistic motives running throughout the Iliad. There are no crass scenes: heroes show fear or nobility whilst kings betray their obligations or come to their senses and do the right thing. All the main characters emerge as real humans with all the flaws and virtues that characterise humanity. The scriptwriters get it just right many times. As for the casting, Gordon Mitchell is just right as Achilles and gives a fine performance. This film is highly recommended.

I purchased the WARRIORS 50 DVD pack and watched almost all of the films and I have to say that FURY OF ACHILLES was one of my least favorite out of the whole bunch. There's almost nothing about it that distinguishes it from the average film from the pack. In fact, I can hardly remember anything from it aside from the fact that it's more serious, certainly compared to other Peplums which can only be described as lightweight fun stuff. But FURY OF ACHILLES is too serious for its own good and too convoluted and confusing. Halfway into the film, I forgot what was going on, who was who, etc.Of all the Sword & Sandal actors, I always found Gordon Mitchell to be the creepiest. Aside from his physique, I don't see any reason why he kept getting work. Casting him as a villain made sense but as a hero? No. His hatchet face was way too distracting. And Mitchell was cast as one of the main characters here. Mitchell does give a performance of sorts, certainly compared to more lightweight S&S but he came across as a repulsively arrogant character. Not a good thing, if you ask me. In fact the whole film has an odd unpleasant & mean spirited tone to it. If you want to see a successful version of Homer's Illiad, check out Robert Wise's HELEN OF TROY.

Unable to support the war in Troy, the Greeks begin raiding along the coast. While the classic heroes are off raiding the Trojans try a sneak attack against those that remain behind. Just as the battle turns against the Greeks, Achilles arrives to save the day...so goes the first 20 minutes of the film. This is a telling of the end of the Trojan war just prior to the death of Achilles. Its a very strange film in that for a good portion of it you really can't stand the Greeks who are more interested in raping than fighting the war. They are shown to be petty people who are not really heroic and who spend more time fighting over women and gold than matters of state. This is a big movie with a cast of thousands so you really do get armies clashing. Unfortunately the movie is very unfocused and feels stretched by about 20 minutes, which is a shame since its one of the best made films of this genre, but its not the best told. I liked it but I wanted to love it.