Voice-over narration in the opening scene describes Glaucus, (the Richard Harrison character), as being the lineal descendant of Hercules. Otherwise there's no justification for the "Son of" title which was obviously chosen to appeal to that American audience which had earlier embraced Steve Reeves' movies. In most respects, this effort follows the formula set by those movies, mixing together such familiar ingredients as heroic strongman, evil queen, rebellion against tyranny, sword fights, depravity in high places, etc. Missing, however, are any mythological trappings -- no gods, no fantastic monsters. The result isn't so much bad as simply forgettable. Much of the movie's weary, almost listless quality can be attributed to the fact that the villains -- first Caligula, then Messalina -- are much livelier and more interesting than the stolid Galucus and his whiny, clinging-vine girlfriend, Ena. Eliminating Ena and giving Glaucus a more assertive role would certainly help. As it is, Glaucus too often seems to simply be milling around inside the plot, waiting for it to assume a form and direction which it never quite achieves.
Richard Harrison was about at his physical peak when filming this movie yet, curiously, the movie makes little of the expected use of his physique. In fact, he doesn't have a single bare-chest scene! The most audiences get are a few scenes in which he wears one of those tops with a wide strap which crosses over his right shoulder. Sharp-eyed viewers may thus get an occasional glimpse of Harrison's left nipple. Although threats are made in the movie to kill Glaucus or to subject him to unspecified tortures, the anticipated beefcake-bondage scenes never occur. (No stretching-between-teams-of-horses, for example.) We only have a brief sequence of Glaucus being forced to pull a plow while yoked to a wooden pole tied to his outstretched arms. This failure to exploit Harrison's body seems especially curious in view of Harrison's earlier work in America as a physique model. It's still easy on auction sites to find for sale photos of a handsome young Harrison wearing nothing but a smile and one of those scanty posing straps which struggles to contain the bulging evidence of his manhood. Why did this movie all but ignore such an obvious opportunity for visual appeal?
Richard Harrison was about at his physical peak when filming this movie yet, curiously, the movie makes little of the expected use of his physique. In fact, he doesn't have a single bare-chest scene! The most audiences get are a few scenes in which he wears one of those tops with a wide strap which crosses over his right shoulder. Sharp-eyed viewers may thus get an occasional glimpse of Harrison's left nipple. Although threats are made in the movie to kill Glaucus or to subject him to unspecified tortures, the anticipated beefcake-bondage scenes never occur. (No stretching-between-teams-of-horses, for example.) We only have a brief sequence of Glaucus being forced to pull a plow while yoked to a wooden pole tied to his outstretched arms. This failure to exploit Harrison's body seems especially curious in view of Harrison's earlier work in America as a physique model. It's still easy on auction sites to find for sale photos of a handsome young Harrison wearing nothing but a smile and one of those scanty posing straps which struggles to contain the bulging evidence of his manhood. Why did this movie all but ignore such an obvious opportunity for visual appeal?