Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

trashgang This is called the first women in prison flick ever made, so only for that alone it's a reason to watch it to see where it all started. But for the geeks in horror genre there's more. It was a co-production between the USA and Italie and it showed. Roger Corman was producer. The cinematography was done by Joe D'amato en the editing was in the hands of Joe Dante. All of them becoming notorious for their flicks. And if you look at the thespians, it had Pam Grier in it just coming out of Coffy (1973). With all those famous names it should have been a fantastic flick but it's all done before their heydays and it shows even as it do has a few potentials. The story is simple but believable and of course due some catfight in the kitchen it's decided that all women who are slaves should become gladiators. Being raped and humiliated by Romans they all work together to destroy the Romans. Don't expect big effects, there aren't any, and when stabbing takes place it's all done off-camera. Being an exploitation flick it also has a bit of nudity full frontal from the slaves. It was so typical back then around those years because porn was the big thing so nudity was a must in most of the flicks made early seventies to compete with the porn business. Clocking in under 90 minutes makes it watchable. And it do show the use of the typical zooming in on faces or action seen in spaghetti westerns made then and Italian horrors. If you aren't into WIP flicks then forget this but if you want to see the start of a few famous horror directors and producers then you must pick it up. It's not a good flick as I wrote earlier but a perfect example of early seventies exploitation.Gore 0/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 0/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

gridoon I wish there were more actresses out there like Pam Grier. A very pretty face, a wonderful body, a tough attitude and surprisingly mature acting for a woman who was, when this "Arena" was made, only 24 years old. And Margaret Markov, her co-star here, is not far behind in any of those categories. The biggest virtue of this film are those two characters - strong, well-defined, acted with conviction. Others have compared the "Arena" with Roger Corman's WIP flicks, but the treatment of the subjects here is much more thoughtful and non-exploitative. As for the actual fight scenes, considering that most of these women probably had not touched a sword before in their lives, they did a fairly good job. Too bad the DVD is full-screen, which damages the compositions severely. (**1/2)

bensonmum2 At first glance, it appears that Roger Corman was trying something new and different with The Arena. But once you get into it, it's easy to see that the movie is yet another Women in Prison film, albeit in a different setting. As far as WIPs go, it's middle-of-the-road - some of the movie works while while some of it doesn't.There are a couple of things that The Arena has going for it. First and most obvious is Pam Grier and Margaret Markov. These two seem to have a natural chemistry. The scenes with both actresses are the highlight of the movie. After watching Grier and Markov together, I really want to see Black Mama, White Mama more than ever. Another thing The Arena has going for it is a sense of fun. If you don't take it too seriously, there's a lot of silly, almost cheesy fun to be had.Unfortunately, not everything in the movie works. I'll start with the plot. Actually lack of a plot would be a better description. Women are kidnapped, taken to Rome to serve as slaves, forced to fight, and try to escape. There's absolutely no character development and no reason to care about most of them. Another area where The Arena doesn't hold up to close scrutiny is the fight scenes. These scenes are so obviously choreographed and staged that nothing looks natural. Usually I enjoy seeing Pam Grier kicking butt, but here it's not as good as I had hoped.

-6 Nothing like seeing washed-up blaxploitation actresses further their careers with such shimmering nuggets of bile as this. She has since gone on to bigger and better things, but this film is noticeably absent from her resume.. Hmmm... I wonder why? This is just another mindless t&a flick with some dumb cat fights and forgettable characters. Except for maybe Priscium, a drag queen Roman praetor portrayed masterfully by Sid Lawrence. And some big goofy bald guy who was sort of reminded me of Tor Johnson, one of Ed Wood's old spooks. If you absolutely must know what this garbage is about.. I'll enlighten you. Roman soldiers recruit "beautiful" (read: laundromat recruits) women to be love slaves for the hedonist government officials. When two of the girls, Pam Grier and some blonde chick, start a particularly brutal food fight, those ever-crafty Romans devise a new plan to keep the proles entertained: we'll make these girls fight! So, they make 'em be gladiators. I would've thought that Pam Grier would've used this film to showcase her awesome whupa$$ skills, but.. she didn't. She was suprisingly subdued, actually. Especially for being a Nubian warrior woman. Anyway, after several boring battles, unsaved even by copious amounts of jiggling flesh, the girl gladiators start a revolt and overthrow the government, allowing Pam Grier and blonde chick to escape.If you're looking for bad movies, this is merely average. There are so many better ones out there, but it is nice to see Pam Grier again. I bet she looks back on this one as a crowning achievement.