Some things I liked some I did not.

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Crappy film

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Like other films in this era of Katzman-Castle production, The Saracen Blade puts an emphasis on tableau (symmetrical composition of mise-en-scene within the framing of a static camera positioned with frontality as the dominant). Castle outdoes himself this time as he adds a new element to his beleaguered stylistic system - suture! The shot-reverse-shot editing system is not only naively constructed and overt, but poorly employed with relation to the plot progression. As a result, there is a stagnant pace. I pity that a talented director such as William Castle found himself compulsively alternating between two stylistic systems for different films. The Saracen Blade is a 1954 release - and one of eight Castle films released that year! If the authorial voice seems mute perhaps it was a result of the man being overworked. The script doesn't help as the narrative is relayed with tweenish 'dear-diary' precision and crossing-guard intuition. If only this film wore a bright reflective 'X' it might become self-aware and develop a set of compensatory unique qualities. As it stands, the film hunches and then limps. Despite each sequence taken individually having the flavor of a bad porno, there is no passion infused into character relationships. All the characters seem sickeningly smug about the conflicts that befall them. But fear not, for Castle would soon break free from a bunk system of mechanical and mass reproduction in the guise of historical action-drama storytelling in order to forge the better parts of a stylistic system that he had been struggling to express for most of his career (When Stranger Marry had established most of the elements).

Despite Leonard Maltin's bafflingly unflattering *1/2 review, this is perhaps the best – certainly the most enjoyable – of director Castle's epics; still, given the title, I expected it to have a lot more to do with the Saracens and, by extension, the Crusades than it actually did (the mentioned weapon, then, has no real bearing on the plot)! Besides, the production's low-budget is evident in an early battle sequence which is made up of sepia footage (thus instantly contrasting with the otherwise handsome-looking film) lifted from JOAN OF ARC (1948) and playing out as if witnessed from afar by star Ricardo Montalban! The latter, then, contributes an enthusiastic performance which demonstrates that he was more than a fair swashbuckling hero (incidentally, two more of his efforts in this vein would follow in my Epics marathon); indeed, the principal cast is nicely-assembled: Betta St. John is ideally cast as the sweet-natured leading lady, a grizzled-looking Michael Ansara (playing much older than his years) is one of the members of a family which are the sworn enemies of that of Montalban's, another is a blonde and rather sexy Carolyn Jones (whose relationship with the protagonist follows an amour fou-type pattern a' la that between Heathcliff and Isabella in "Wuthering Heights" but it is not taken quite so far).Complicating matters even further is Montalban's personal history: born on the same day as the heir to the Italian King (later to become known as Frederick II!), he is then brought up by a family friend after his mother dies in childbirth and his dad is thrown into prison by the villainous Ansara. Years later, the father leads a revolt in which he is even joined by his son, but dies soon after; taken into custody for his scholarliness by St. John, he clashes with his enemies once again when her father proclaims her to be intended (against her will, since she harbors feelings for our hero) to Ansara's own son. They elope together but are captured; ostensibly allowing her to free him, St. John's now-husband chases Montalban like a wild animal – having promised the visiting new King (the boy who shares his birthday with the hero!) a special type of prey. Meeting the latter and surprisingly befriending him, he not only elevates his rank but the two conspire to have Montalban marry Jones (the King proves quite the superstitious fellow, believing his luck to hold only so long as the hero is alive, thus he is ready to accede to his every whim!).As one can see, the film is pretty plot-packed (in fact, I would say there is enough here for a film at least twice its trim 76-minute length, but effectively streamlining things with, for instance, the two marriage ceremonies gotten over with via an identical 10-second shot!): anyway, the King then becomes involved in a Holy Crusade against the Muslims and orders all his loyal subjects to take part. This, of course, includes both Montalban and his nemeses – who are still thinking of how to eliminate him; they see an opportunity when asking that the newly-knighted hero (for having saved the King's life) to lead the resistance while the rest take flight in the hope of rallying more manpower. As expected, Montalban ends up a prisoner in the Saracen camp but he finds an ally – and eventual companion – in the leader's mistress (whom, however, he disfigures before relinquishing to the Christian).Back home, amidst the enmity he now feels for St. John (he is not aware she was likewise tricked during his faux escape, while she takes his having brought the Muslim girlfriend along in order to spite her!) and the burgeoning genuine attentions of Jones (even if she leads a clandestine affair with uncle Ansara!), the situation is happily resolved with the death of all three members of the family who had harassed Montalban for so long: Jones' at the hand of her own lover, Ansara's son via an arrow that leads directly into the decisive battle between the two factions and his dad's in the inevitable swordfight with the hero that ends it.

The plot: During the era of the Crusades, Ricardo Montalban plays an Italian peasant who gains favor of the king and works his way up to knight in order to avenge the death of his father.THE SARACEN BLADE should work, but it doesn't. It's hampered at all ends-- the script isn't incompetent, but is uninspired and predictable. The dialog and performances jog between "old English" to modern-day soap opera. The cast is uneven, and nary a one of them is Italian, where the majority of the film is set-- indeed, England would have been a more convincing location location given the plot. Carolyn Jones and Betta St. John are pleasing to look at, but totally out of place and are better used in many other films of this period.Henry Freulich's wide-screen cinematography is colorful, and the set design and costuming reflect this accordingly, but the lighting and camera-work is flat.The exteriors are unconvincing, often doubling the rocky California countryside for rural Italy as well as the Middle East, and during an attack on a castle, the night-tinted stock footage is painfully unconvincing in black and white, inter-cut with the Technicolor footage shot for the picture.The blame rests on the always cheap producer Sam Katzman and in-over-his-head William Castle, a director that I admire, but who was clearly more comfortable in westerns and cleverly-written contemporary pictures than costume dramas.This was screened for me in a theatrical setting (35mm) in the last month, and doesn't seem to be available in any television package at this point (TCM seems to have struck a deal with Sony, so you may see it on their channel).While I may be over-critical on what is nothing more than what would have been the "B" feature on a double bill in its time, I also doubt it's noteworthy enough to end up on DVD unless it's part of a Montalban set. No loss, as while this would have played in its day as a time-passer on the lower half of a double bill, out of this context today, it's just a mediocre time waster.

Frank Yerby's novel could easily have been turned into one of those sweeping, sprawling, big-budget epics -- such as Tyrone Power's "The Black Rose." Instead it emerged as a 76-minute bottom-half-of-the-double-bill feature starring Ricardo Montalban. The results are disappointingly thin but, on the other hand, there's a modest, unpretentious quality at work here which makes the movie easy to watch.Here's an example of the Grade-B dialog. Carolyn Jones says to Ricardo Montalban: "My cousin, Iolanthe, has probably given you her lips." To which he replies: "So? They are her lips." Montalban serves as an easy-to-like hero. At one point, he's stripped to the waist and forced to hug a palm tree as he's flogged across the back. (This scene ranks 94th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies.") Meanwhile, in "Queen of Babylon," he's stripped to the waist and bound to a wall so that he can be flogged across the chest. Does this make Montalban, along with Steve Reeves, the only leading man in the movies to get both a back whipping and a chest whipping?