IMDb user comments for
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

71 comments in total

---

32 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
High Drama, 18 December 2000

Author: kitticat-2 from Berkeley, CA

It's particularly interesting to compare this movie with Gladiator (2000), as both take the same historical event as a starting point. While the fight scenes are more exciting in Gladiator, and while Gladiator is probably the superior film overall, this film does have three distinct advantages.

First of all, the armies and crowds are better here - it's real people and not computer generated icons. Some of the marching scenes were a bit lengthy for my tastes, but the soldiers, the horses, the armor, the swords and spears, all of it, were very authentic and impressive. Second, as the armies look more realistic, so do the sets. We do not see the coliseum in this film, but we do see the palaces, pools, forts and throne rooms. Very exciting. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this film has superior acting. Christopher Plummer is probably the best thing here - his Commodus is at once more dastardly and more likeable than that of Gladiator; again, this means more realistic. James Mason is also in top form, here; for once, he does not play a slippery philanderer.

There is something flawed about this film that I can't quite put my finger on. It does not reach the heights of other 50s and 60s epics such as The Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur. Still, it is a dramatic and at times moving film. It does convey the gravity (some might say tragedy) of the Empire's fall and the pax romana that never was.

---

32 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
The Way They Used to Make Them, 18 May 2004
Author: al-eaton from Longmont, Colorado

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

First of all, just for the record, Marcus Aurelius DID want his son Commodus to be his successor. He elevated his only surviving son to co-regent shortly before his death. Marcus was not murdered; he died of natural causes. Secondly, Commodus did not die in a single-handed combat with an army general. He was drugged and strangled at his diner table.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" boasted historian Will Durant as the historical consultant. The historically inaccurate script caused him deep embarrassment. In his history of Rome, "Caesar and Christ," (1944), Durant had already printed the real story.

Outside of that, this 70mm color epic is, as one reviewer put it, "eye Candy." As usual for these types of productions, the behind-the-camera professionals did a splendid job. The movie is breathtaking. Just sit back and enjoy the cinematography, especially of the luscious Sophia Loren. The script isn't half-bad; Christopher Plummer works very hard on the character of Commodus, even though he is too old in the beginning: Commodus was only 19 when he became Emperor.

The producer built an exact replica of the Roman Forum in Spain and it is spectacular; it was afterwards used by historians for research purposes.

I will single out one actor: Finlay Currie. From "Ivanhoe", to "Quo Vadis"; "Ben-Hur" to this film, he always landed a wonderful, commanding and lovely presence to the epic-type of film. Here he is on-screen for far too short a time; luckily, James Mason is around to take up the slack.

---

22 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
A kind of Film Artistry that modern hollywood cant duplicate, 8 March 2004

Author: Chimale1025 from Plano, Texas

This is one of those gorgeous Ultra Panavision 70 Epics that no current director is capable of making. Seen in pristine form, this film is eye candy of the highest form. Unlike the blurry stupid comic book mess made by the hack scott, this film has a very intelligent script, incomparable sets, historically acurate costuming and a more realistic plot. This film is long by the standards set by the MTV flashcut video generation. It also might lack action for some of the testosterone challenged. If you have an open mind and enough education, you might appreciate the nuances of the Dmitri Tiomkin score, the carefully framed visuals, the retrained performances, the delicately played mood, and the sheer spectacle of it. This is huge piece of filmmaking. It is definitely a must see for the Cinema Literate. Of the films about the ancient world this is one of a very few that capture an environment so richly concieved and beautifully rendered. Production values this detailed are totally unthinkable today. It was filmed in a film format that was the state of the art in its time. It would be nice to see it again, mastered in high def, remixed and restored to its original glory.

---

17 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
I loved it, 13 April 2004
Author: akhenaton-1 (akhenaton@bellsouth.net) from Miami, FL

I saw this movie en 1964 when I was 19 years old and enjoyed every minute of it, I have seen it again and still enjoy it. The cast is outstanding, a movie of the league of Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Pity that no more movies like that are made nowadays.

I still remember some of the words by Commodus (after becoming Caesar) "let it be heard in the four quarters of the Empire that I Commodus, now Caesar, proclaim Gaius Metelus Livius Pro Consul of the Roman Empire, Commander in Chief of all the Roman armies, second only to Caesar himself"

An epic indeed.

---

17 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
All Roads Lead to Rome, 23 October 2005

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

I saw another reviewer remark that he regretted the fact that films like this are not made today. In today's dollars the salaries of all the name actors who appeared in The Fall of the Roman Empire might retire the debt of some third world country. Then again, I think that was part of the message this film was trying to convey.

All roads lead to Rome was certainly a popular saying way back in the day. The legions by 180 have conquered a big chunk of Europe and a lot of Asia Minor, but it's becoming too big to police. Emperor Marcus Aurelius has it in mind that there must be a better way of securing peace than having a big Roman military industrial complex on the empire payroll. Answer, make the outlying provinces all Roman citizens and equalize the distribution of economic goods. Back then all those Roman roads gradually became one way streets.

Unfortunately some folks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, do in Marcus. He's succeeded by his son Commodus and the film is the story of Commodus who has a more traditional political view and those who want to bring about the ideal world that Marcus Aurelius envisioned.

In a role that cried out for either Kirk Douglas or Charlton Heston, we got Stephen Boyd instead. Boyd in a blonde dye job, just doesn't come across well as the hero Livius. He's so much better as villains in films like The Bravados, Ben-Hur, and Shalako.

But Commodus may very well have been Christopher Plummer's finest performance on screen. The film is not the real story of Commodus's reign, but Plummer does capture the heart and soul of the emperor who ran things from 180 to 192.

Holding up the view of a free and equal world are a couple of classic performances by Alec Guinness as Marcus Aurelius and James Mason as the Greek slave Timonides who counsels Marcus in his changing world view.

And any film is worth watching with Sophia Loren's pulchritude on prominent display.

I'm no expert in ancient history, but this may have been the first time that someone like Marcus Aurelius took a global view of things other than what I can plunder out of my conquests. What's not told in this story is that Christianity is invisible here. Marcus didn't like them at all, thought they were way too exclusive in THEIR view of things.

Nevertheless The Fall of the Roman Empire and the issues it raises from the ancient world are still being thrashed out today. Hoperfully it will all be resolved in the future.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
The Nail in the Coffin, 17 October 2006

Author: mr_sboub from Switzerland

the philosopher Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guiness) summons the leaders of the Empire to the northern Frontier. he plans to announce his desire to place his power in the hands of his loyal star general (Boyd), rather than to his wild, unpredictable son Commodus (Plummer). He is killed before doing so and the Empire crumbles under Commodus.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" was the nail in its genre's coffin. Ponderous, expensive, it bombed and put the swords'n'sandals epic in a coma for a good 34 years, until the arrival of "Gladiator", with which it shares quite a few story similarities. But where Ridley Scott's film is lean and mean, Anthony Mann's is slow, stately and overly in love with its production design. It also has undeniable weaknesses. Stephen Boyd is bland and uninteresting, Sophia Lauren is painfully bad in many scenes, and the haughty tone is often overbearing, as if the film were too important to bother with simple, human emotions (though whenever it does, it fails, as the calamitous romantic scenes prove). It never helps that the music is ghastly beyond words.

This epic does have its supporters, however, and a few very precise elements are the cause of that: the sets are indeed sumptuous, John Mason keeps his dignity and his scenes with Alec Guiness are a pleasure to watch. The hero to worship here is Christopher Plummer. Plummer can do dark and ambitious, but he is unnervingly charming and dangerous as Commodus.

So in fewer words: not a complete waste of your time. A film that could have been better with different actors as its romantic leads.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Far too literate a film for lovers of epic action, 2 November 2002
Author: Noel Bailey (uds3@hotmail.com) from Baulkham Hills, New South Wales, Australia

The inspiration and source material for GLADIATOR in case you hadn't noticed. This particular historical romp coming very late in the epic cycle in the 60's was a masterpiece of script, direction and set construction. You may have thought the Colosseum in GLADIATOR was impressive - digitised though it was, but compare it to the jaw-dropping scenes in Commodus' Rome - and they BUILT those! Ridley Scott used LESS than 50 people in his Colosseum scenes - every ONE of the thousands of Roman citizens you see, are there! To film this today with the same realism would cost $600-800,000 perhaps one billion plus!

Other scenes, such as the funeral of Aurelius are simply spinal-tap if you have the slightest understanding of what you are seeing. Most people didn't - leaving the theater (even in the 60's) feeling they'd just sat through a history seminar rather than an entertaining movie. I suppose it comes down to WHAT exactly "entertains" you? Master director Martin Scorcese (an extremely literate man himself) singled this movie out as one to study for those interested in the history of American Film...I wonder why?

Curiously the role of Marcus Aurelius was the highlight (acting wise) of both THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and GLADIATOR. Sir Alec Guinness gave us a totally masterful and benevolent emperor here in just the same way that the late Richard Harris dominated GLADIATOR during his on-screen moments. The film was one to LISTEN to, to reflect on...not too munch popcorn and watch the big men fly! James Mason as Timonides, gave one of his most enduring and touching roles....he was actually injured during that scene with the lance and was unable to film for a few days.

Comments that Boyd was "wooden" and Plummer "over the top," irritate me also. Livius was a noble man of integrity - that's how Boyd portrayed him, these weren't times for off-the-cuff humor. Similarly, evidence exists that Commodus himself was not the "thinking man's choice" of emperor - cruel, vengeful and way left-field of normal! Plummer brought all this out rather well I thought. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me OR Anthony Mann I suppose, what YOU thought about it! Sophia Loren? Not your average "legally blonde" Romanic bimbo either. The epitome of poise and elegance...way too "wooden" for the new millennium!

I believe the FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is right up there with BEN HUR and Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS. Most any intelligent and perceptive person would agree! I would happily have watched it for 280 minutes!

---

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best of the 60s epics, 3 January 2000
Author: heedarmy from United Kingdom

This film really should be seen on a big screen, in Panavision. The spectacle is breathtaking, immensely aided by Robert Krasker's superb photography, ranging from the misty forests and snowscapes of Northern Europe to the brilliant sunlit colours of Rome.

But the actors aren't outdone. Alec Guinness and James Mason lend the production a touch of class, whilst Christopher Plummer's dissolute emperor is a splendidly monstrous figure. Watch out too for old Finlay Currie, Magwitch in "Great Expectations", as an aged Senator.

---

15 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Sobering history lesson, 24 August 2001
Author: Matthew Ignoffo (mermatt@webtv.net) from Eatontown, NJ, USA

Though this film isn't as flashy as its remake (GLADIATOR), it is insightful into the vanity, greed, and pettiness that caused the fall of Rome. It is also a lesson for us in our own time -- to be careful of destroying ourselves from within.

The film has some interesting character sketches and good action scenes -- impressive because, unlike GLADIATOR, they were done without computer imagery. Some of the scenes are sluggish, but the film is worth seeing despite its length. I noticed obvious echos of BEN HUR -- Stephen Boyd's character having an old friendship with another character, chariot racing, and the souring of the friendship. Tiomkin gets a bit carried away with the soundtrack, as he did in many of his film scores, but here it seems especially annoying. And though I admired Alec Guinness' scenes, I thought James Mason stole every scene he was in.

This is one of the 1950s-60s epics in the grand style.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazingly bad in spots, but surprisingly interesting, 20 September 2005

Author: (reggie_nepomuceno) from United States

I found this movie interesting for two reasons: 1) I love historical epics 2) It was so surprisingly awful in spots for such a great cast and obviously large budget.

There was some good acting here, but it seems everyone had some really bad moments in front of the camera. This is probably the first movie I've seen were Alec Guinness (as Marcus Aurelius) is just awful. His portrayal of a dying Caesar is lifeless (pun intended) and flat. His character was totally lacking the charisma one might expect from a great caesar. The scene of him greeting the representatives of the Roman provinces seems to last any eternity, seeming to even strain Alec Guinness' attention span.

James Mason on the most part was good, but even his acting was rather comical in the scene in which he is being tortured/tested by the Barbarians in a cave.

Christopher Plummer and Stephen Boyd, as Commodus and Livius, are both unintentionally comical (I think) in their early scenes together, especially in the scenes were they are reunited after an apparently long separation. The scenes were meant to show their long standing friendship since childhood, but instead it looks like two 30 year olds acting as 14 year olds. Stephen Boyd is fairly pan-faced throughout the movie, however, Christopher Plummer's performance at least gets more interesting as the movie progresses.

The dialog between Sophia Loren, as Lucilla, and Stephen Boyd was stilted and lacking the real emotion of lovers. At least Plummer was capable of extracting some passion out of Boyd in their scenes together.

As far as production/direction/editing, they obviously had plenty of film at their disposal, as there frequently were long drawn out scenes of inconsequential marching, parades, etc (or perhaps I'm just use to the MTV-age quick cutting). The musical score was almost comical, as highly dramatic scenes would be underscored by fairly light-hearted music. And why do all the Barbarians look like they have yellow mops on their heads? And why do they look like cavemen? Overall, however, somehow this movie held my attention, both for the story it had to tell and for how awe-inspiringly bad it is for such a grand spectacle.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history