NekoHomey
Purely Joyful Movie!
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
Frances Chung
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
Paynbob
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
wab-99500
The tartars casts some of the same characters as "The Conqueror" which starred John Wayne and Susan Heyward and is widely known as one of the worst big-budget Hollywood movies ever made. It is so bad it is usually seen as a comedy due to awful scripting and acting.The Tartars takes Wayne's character 30-40 years into the future in the shape of Orson Welles. Welles here attacks Victor Mature, miscast as a Viking (?), and murders his wife. Terrible vengeance is the theme of this laughable epic. It is hard to tell whether the worst thing about this movie is the acting, the script, or the costumes featuring all the men in mini-skirts.Turner movies has both epics in the library and should combine them on any weekend billed as 'The worst historical double feature of all time'.
collegeofuselessknowlege
Welles always seemed to need money to make his own movies. He'd take on a role (even if it was just lending his voice) no matter how good or bad the movie was just for the paycheck, saving up until he had enough money to make his next visionary film that was far removed from the normal type that audiences were used to.You can tell by his acting that he really didn't care about the role--but it was the money that mattered to him--and where the money was--no matter what country he had to go to to get it, he'd take the role--even if it was a piece of crock--and this film sure is! But 1961's THE TARTARS helped finance Welles' next movie (Despite, as usual, his having to film it in another country plus having problems getting a US distributor) the following year--1962's Kafka's THE TRIAL.As usual, Welles' small indie film made little money and he barely broke even--but he was already planning Shakespeare's CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT and going through the process once more in acting in any role given to him to get those paychecks in his savings account.
gohlson
This was one of those awful exotic spectaculars of the 1950's and early 1960's that tried to place a grade b western into an exotic place. In this case, Orson Welles and Victor Mature quarrel over control of the steppes of central Asia. The dialog is stilted, to be kind only because I can't think anything worse to say about it. The plot consisted on Orson Welles plotting(he was already getting fat)and Victor Mature running around showing his muscles. The movie combined the worse attributes of the two. Victor Mature was never noted for his ability to handle sophisticated dialog and Orson Welles was never noted as an action hero, except at the dinner table. The movie did feature some rather stunning blonde women with large mammary glands, but their parts were limited to lines like, "Yes, Great Khan." Even something that simple was often blown. After seeing this film it's hard to understand why they say Orson Welles was so great. This one certainly didn't do him any honor. I gave the movie a 1 only because they wouldn't let me give it a 0.
Gregor Hauser (gregorhauser)
This is no boring picture but it is far away from well entertainment too. The story is too simple. Most of the actors are not very convincing (especially too old and too dark "Viking" Victor Mature and an uninspired Luciano Marin). There remains an interesting Orson Welles as "Tartarian" Burundai and the experienced directing by Richard Thorpe (director of legendary historical epics like "Ivanhoe"). Good work is also done by the Italian cast members who composed the music, took the location shots and designed the costumes. To sum it up an average movie.
