User Reviews

I was unaware of this film until recently and became interested in it for three reasons: because it is a swashbuckler, because it concerns Catherine The Great (I have been checking out several efforts revolving around her as part of my ongoing and extensive Josef von Sternberg retrospective) and because, in view of the title, I was under the impression that it would be a remake of the excellent 1925 Rudolph Valentino vehicle THE EAGLE (but, as it turned out, not only the hero here was no Zorro-like avenger but he is never actually referred to by this nick-name!).

Being such an obscure film (it is not even listed in the "Leonard Maltin Movie Guide"!), I went into it not expecting much but I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed it and, more importantly, was quite impressed with the film's noir-ish look (Erwin Hillier's shadowy cinematography and expressive lighting is exquisite throughout); another historical piece made in this style had been Anthony Mann's fine THE BLACK BOOK (1949) – yet it is all the more surprising here because, rather than a Hollywood picture, this is a British/Italian co-production (even if a reliable Tinseltown artisan was recruited for the job after all)!

Still, the plot itself, while offering nothing we have not seen before, is most engaging (it was based on an unproduced script by the French Jacques Companeez who numbered the likes of Jean Renoir, Robert Siodmak and Jacques Becker among his collaborators along his career!) and the characters ably served by the cast (albeit minor league): star Richard Greene made several films in this vein and, though I had not watched him in any for several years, I had somehow pinned him down as a lightweight lead – however, he proved reasonably dependable in a Louis Hayward kind of way (though, thankfully, the actor resisted the urge to 'send it up'); his leading lady is not the typical bland beauty either, rather a respected actress i.e. Italian Valentina Cortese, here in the heyday of her international career. Interestingly, the protagonists 'meet cute' at the famed Venice carnival, so that they are then astonished to learn of each other's identity (he is the notorious Count Orloff dispatched by Catherine to eliminate the pretender to her throne) from across the balconies of an opera house!

In support, likewise unassuming yet undeniably effective, we have: Binnie Barnes as Catherine (she had been Katherine Howard in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII {1933}, Lillian Russell in DIAMOND JIM {1935} and Milady De Winter in THE THREE MUSKETEERS {1939}); Charles Goldner, familiar to me by face if not by name, is a slimy villain (forever badmouthing Greene with the Empress who, ultimately, gets his just desserts in his own dungeon!); and Walter Rilla as the aristocrat orchestrating an attempt to usurp the Russian throne by presenting the daughter (Cortese), born out of wedlock, of the late Elizabeth II (the ruler that preceded the German-born Catherine, who had ascended to power after marrying and eliminating Elizabeth's mad son Peter) – he had hoped to marry the girl himself and then dispose of her to get his real love (Greta Gynt, from the above-average Bela Lugosi vehicle THE HUMAN MONSTER {1940}) by his side, but the latter is jealous of his attentions towards Cortese and is thus just as ready to double-cross him as give her 'rival' away to Goldner!

There is plenty of intrigue and action to keep one watching, a believable romance and, at the climax, a dash of sadism to boot (Cortese is tied and whip-lashed so as to force her to renounce her professed claim to the throne) but, as I said, the film's trump card remain the visuals (highlighting imaginative camera-work while being sumptuous in costume and production design) which go a long way into belying the modest budget that was probably at its creators' disposal.

There are few times I've seen films where I actually think that the actors saved the show. This low budget action/romance uses the exterior of Venice to its fullest. Richard Greene and Valentina Cortesa makes a romantic couple even if some scenes are a bit superficial. There is something old fashion about this film, sort of outdated for its time. It seems like the film should have had a cast of thousands. Some scenes seem empty, especially where there are guards chasing after Green or horses riding across empty fields. Scenes like these do not become dangerous enough to keep you in suspension. The film lacks the energy and enthusiasm a good script gives. It makes you wonder whey this film was actually made. But the acting is good and Binnie Barns and Greta Gynt (Gynt said yes to the role in order to get her out of her contract with Universal International) makes the best of the characters they play. If you are a fan of any of the cast members it will be a worthwhile film to see.

SHADOW OF THE EAGLE is a film with potential, but lack of production values and a script that has originality makes it an unforgettable experience. Unfortunately !

Richard Greene had been swashing buckles since the thirties when he made this film.It is competently made but not very memorable.Obviously not quota an A film given that it was shot in black and white rather than colour.It has to be said that the story is a touch on the dull side.However the climax is on the violent side.Valentine's Cortessa is chained to posts and whipped and a failed has his head pushed into a bucket of molten steel.Of course Richard Greene was going to go on to fame and fortune in 144 episodes of Robin Hood.

What impressed me about this film was the un-stereotypical plot, which is centred about a power struggle for the Russian and Polish thrones and located mainly in Venice. I was rewarded for ignoring warnings in film guides and elsewhere, by an astonishing display of black & white photography. Erwin Hillier is a master of chiaroscuro, his treating of light and dark the cinematic equivalent of Rembrandt. The only similar film that I can think of in this respect is Powell and Pressburger's 'One of Our Aircraft is Missing', which is filled with mesmerising seascapes and pastorals. Indeed Hillier has immense pedigree, he was the cameraman for Fritz Lang in his expressionist masterpiece M and was the cinematographer on the three Powell & Pressburger movies, Silver Fleet, A Canterbury Tale, and I Know Where I'm Going as well as being director of photography on The Dambusters. Some of the shots, including Orloff's ship silhouetted on the Lagoon at sunset, with the sun devouring its sails and spilling over the decking; spectral views of the Russian prison; and the rooftop chases (at dusk with the clouds scudding above) are utterly inspired.

If I were to make a comparison to another film it would be to the silent film The Eagle (1925) starring Valentino in what is regarded as one of his best roles. Shadow of the Eagle borrows quite heavily both aesthetically and in terms of the plot from this film, but I think that it is superior in many ways. The costumes, hair and makeup are much better, the plot is souped-up, and the acting much more assured.

I feel similarly to the previous reviewer about the feel of the film, there is something tremendously antique about it, and I was astonished to find out that it was filmed in 1950, it feels almost like it was filmed back in the eighteenth century, and I would have guessed at around 1935. This antique feel is perhaps because of the tremendously tasteful art direction; the locations are exquisite: the wonderful room in the Russian Embassy, the glorious church of Santa Maria…, and the staterooms in the palace of Prince Radziwill are all masterpieces of Venetian architecture. The costumes are fantastic, and the attention lavished on them reflects the importance that costume played in Venetian society. Another example of the film's scrupulousness is the hairstyles of Cortesa, which put modern coiffure to shame and varied kaleidoscopically from scene to scene. The overall Venetian atmosphere was very well done; I remember reading Calvino's Invisible Cities, which was a fictional collection of descriptions of Venice by Marco Polo, and feel that the atmosphere evoked in this film was as similar and as unique as one of Calvino's vignettes.

Whilst the excellent attention to art drew me into the film, the romantic scenes enraptured me. Valentina Cortesa looked magnificently beautiful as the graceful, lovely, and slightly nervous Princess Tarakhanova and there was clearly chemistry between her and her co-star Richard Greene. I think that women can watch The Eagle and fall in love with Valentino; I watched Shadow of the Eagle and felt myself falling in love with Cortesa. The scenes where they are enjoying the Venetian Carnival together, and later when they are under arrest in the cabin of Orloff's ship are quite memorable. In fact they lifted me out of a particularly black depression.

The action in the film is quite well done but I would warn off those expecting a typical swashbuckler, which this film has been labelled as by others, but which it is most emphatically not. Following in the lead of The Eagle, this film is quite dark, and there are few similarities to be drawn from action scenes in movies like The Crimson Pirate or Robin Hood. The scene of the arrest of Tarakhanova and Orloff is quite terrifying psychologically, almost Lynchian. In the midst of a deserted square, they are surrounded and then swamped by slow moving men wearing dominos and then incapacitated; I feel quite certain that this is the inspiration for a similar scene in a much worse later swashbuckler, Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. More darkness follows: towards the end Orloff buries a torturer's face in what might have been either a brazier or a crucible of molten lead, and the principal baddie, General Korsakov, is quite atypically dispatched: In Hollywood movies there usually has to be a contrivance so that the hero is left with no option other than to kill the baddie after having attempted to spare him (a typical 'having you cake and eating it' Hollywoodisation - both mercy and retribution can be achieved). General Korsakov, on the contrary, was surprised and then butchered with a rapier.

All in all I was amazed that a director of little consequence, best known for directing the television series, The Addams Family, pulled off such a resounding triumph.

Criticisms that could be levelled include a couple of minor plot discontinuities, a little plot opacity, and a lack of extras. If you are interested in the first two criticisms then the cinema as an art form sui generis is probably not your cup of tea anyway. Films need to be seen in the round, and are the vehicles for images and emotions rather than great stories - if the Pushkin novel that inspired The Eagle was put into film there would probably be a week's footage. As for any supposed lack of extras, I feel that that criticism completely misses the mark; whether deliberately or by mistake the lack of thousands of participants neatly focused attention on the foundations of the film - the romance between Orloff and Tarakhanova and the antipathy between Orloff and Korsakov. The lack of extras in this film, just like in David Cronenberg's excellent Crash is entirely beneficial to the atmosphere, which is Byzantine and anfractuous. In conclusion I give this film 10/10.

This is a film I can watch over and over again, for the beauty of the black and white photography, the Venetian interiors and exteriors, the Carnival, and the costumes. But above all for the romance - Valentina Cortese's assured, dignified, brave, and lovely Tarakanova, and the commanding air of Richard Greene as Count Orloff, with his unflappable right-hand man Captain Sergei Nikolsky ("I am within my rights at present, and that suffices").

This British swashbuckler movie, directed by an American film maker, specialist of westerns and adventure flicks too, and made in the mid fifties looks really like a French swashbuclers movie from the forties, or also maybe English, but certainly not American movie from the fifties. Everything here is shown in dark, dark photography, most of scenes filmed in darkness; I guess it was mde on purpose but I was surprised. So, yes, this is a feature of shadows. That said it is rather agreeable to watch, not bad at all, speaking of the feud between Catherine of Russia and the rest of Europe; a not so usual topic during this time. Not the most action packed swashbuckler or cloak and dagger movie ever though, a bit talkative. I prefered from director Sidney Salkow. RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS, THE GOLDEN HAWK, far more spectacular, and most of all, colourful.

Some old films are awful, even with great big stars and all the trimmings. But this one is so good. It is a story that I can follow, I know who the characters are, the acting is always great, there are some really good scenes and good dialogue. So, I rate it a 10.

Two features, 1. Noticeably good filming. The scenes look good and sharp. 2. The actors look as though they are really enjoying what they are doing and that spreads to me too. A minor negative is that the carnival scene seems to go on a bit long?

The story is about Europe in 1775 or so. There are treaties, alliances, double-crossing, betrayal ... Hey, not much different from today in many respects, but the characters are different, the ladies wear really fancy kit, and men and women have crazy hairstyles.

Set largely in Venice, and maybe some of the sets were also used in "Dangerous Beauty"? It looks real enough. There is action, romance, some lighter moments, some thrilling ones and even if we know that the heroes will survive, it is great watching. Everyone involved should have gone to greater things?