Quo Vadis (1951) User Reviews (146)

How we missed having the city of "Neropolis"

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 3 December 2005]

Henryk Sienkiewicz was one of Poland's great historical novelists, and one of the first recipients of the Nobel Prize for literature (1905). It has only been in the last decade or so that translations of other novels by him have appeared in English, but his major work, QUO VADIS?, has been known since it appeared over a century ago. It was a study of the early days of the Christians in Rome, and their first persecution by the Emperor Nero (54 - 68 A.D.) It concentrates on the burning of Rome and the persecution of the Christians (including the death by crucifixion of St. Peter). So the background is identical to Cecil B. DeMille's THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. Inevitably comparisons between the two films, their plots, and the performances of the two Neros (Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov) result.

But the two stories are not the same. Sienkiewicz threw in far more of the history of the Rome of that period than the author of the play THE SIGN OF THE CROSS did. And because of his deeply felt commitment to his faith, Sienkiewicz showed the destruction of Nero's rotten regime and the first triumph of Christianity. THE SIGN OF THE CROSS does not do that - my comment there was that DeMille never made such a pessimistic and tragic film in his career, with all the good people being destroyed and Nero (at that time) triumphant. This does not happen in QUO VADIS, where the corruption and incompetence of the regime finally loses the support of the people (and ... ironically worse ... the army!).

There is also the addition of the leading poet-courtier of the day, Petronius Arbiter. A man of wit and taste, Petronius was one of several figures of literary note in Nero's court, and one of several to meet tragedy by being near that egomaniac. The others were led by Nero's original chief minister Seneca, the stoic philosopher and dramatist. Seneca's nephew Lucan was also a leading figure in the court. Both men were eventually turned into foes of the regime, especially as Seneca fell from his ministerial position after the murder of Nero's mother Agrippina. Petronius managed to avoid the political conflict that involved the other two, but the Emperor's irrational jealousy helped link the three. Lucan wrote a savage epic poem against the Imperial family (PHARSALIA) which signaled his rejection of the regime. Lucan joined a conspiracy against Nero led by a Senator named Piso. It was discovered, and Lucan and Seneca implicated. Both were forced to commit suicide (by opening their veins). Tigellinus, Nero's leading adviser, insinuated that Petronius was involved too (he wasn't). Petronius also committed suicide the same way, but wrote a witty and accurate denunciation to Nero which was given to the Emperor after the writer's death.

Petronius' major surviving work, THE SATYRICON, was a wonderful look at the rot at the center of the regime of Nero. It (by the way) was turned into a film by Fellini in the late 1960s.

Leo Genn brought Petronius and his delicate wit and taste out in the film, and merited the Oscar nomination he got for this - his best remembered role (aside from Dr. "Kick" in THE SNAKE PIT). Ustinov brings a degree of frailty to Nero - an uncertainty as to the acceptance of his public persona. He flails about between seeking the approval of the artists like Petronius and those who manipulate the tyrant in him (Poppeia and Tigellinus). Despite his vicious evil one sympathizes with him - he is a sick man. And his reconstruction program (he burns down old Rome to create "Neropolis") is on par to that of another tyrant of more recent vintage, who planned to build a world capital called "Germania" over Berlin's bones. He too left many bones, but it is hard to consider him at all sympathetic.

As spectacle and history QUO VADIS? is quite rewarding. It may telescope the events of 64 - 68 A.D. (when Nero committed suicide with assistance), and avoid the three brief Emperors who ruled after Nero within the year (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) before Vespasian came back from the war in Israel to take the throne for a decade - but it does show how Nero's regime collapsed. DeMille never tackled it. But despite those two omissions the film does do the period pretty well.

Robert Taylor is more effective as a military commander / hero than Fredric March had been in SIGN OF THE CROSS. Deborah Kerr is more believable as an early Christian convert. And Finley Currie is wonderful as Simon Peter - who realizes that he must die for the Lord that he once denied. His end is based on a legend that Peter was crucified upside down, supposedly at his request that he did not deserve to be crucified in the same way as the Lord he briefly failed. Altogether a superior religious - historic epic.

"Nothing do I see that is not perfection"

[jpdoherty · 7/10 · 1 May 2009]

At Last one of the great classic Hollywood blockbuster epics of the early fifties has finally found its rightful DVD home with this exceptional two disc release from Warner Home Video.

Produced by Sam Zimbalist for MGM in 1951 and expertly directed by Mervin LeRoy "Quo Vadis" was Hollywood's first wallop in the fight against the onslaught of Television. Available at first, and for many years only on VHS tape, it then began to appear on a plethora of foreign DVDs but with varying quality it must be said. One such unfortunate issue, which originated in Korea, was released without any opening credits whatsoever! I kid you not! That said - we now thankfully have it in our possession and a superb issue it is! With perfect pristine colour resolution, Robert Surtees' Acadamy Award nominated colour Cinematography comes across with well defined and plush imagery. The various cast members are attired in the most gorgeously coloured costumes. Particularly dazzling is the golden uniform worn by the picture's star Robert Taylor as he proudly bears himself aboard his golden chariot during his triumphal parade through Rome.

Also here is Miklos Rozsa's outstanding Acadamy Award nominated score! His main Roman motif, bold and strong, dominates the scenes in the Forum and in the Arena. In gentler mode is his beautiful love theme for the scenes with the star-crossed lovers Marcus and Lygia. Then there's the frenetic bacchanal-like Hymn of the Vestal Virgins followed immediately by the robust and heroic Triumphal March. Also heard on this issue - and for the first time since the original roadshow release 56 years ago - is the composer's Overture and Exit music. The great Rozsa would barely eclipse his "Vadis" music eight years later with his Oscar winning score for "Ben Hur".

The assembled cast are uniformly excellent except, perhaps, the syrupy and simpering characterization of Deborah Kerr as Lygia. But Robert Taylor is fine in what is probably his best known role as Nero's legion commander Marcus Vinicus. Outstanding is Leo Genn as Petronious - the sardonic and sarcastic confidante of the tyrannical Emperor Nero. And of course there is the wonderful Peter Ustinov chewing up every bit of scenery there is as the crazed and loony Nero. Both Ustinov and Genn were nominated for Acadamy Awards. The picture is also buoyed by some colourful and elaborate set pieces such as the Vestal Virgins singing and wildly dancing in homage to the goddess Vesta, the spectacular triumphal parade of the Roman legions taking the salute from Nero as it passes the great palace, the exciting chariot chase, the brilliantly staged burning of Rome and the harrowing scenes in the Arena as the lions are released on the hapless hymn-singing Christians.

These scenes all come across extremely well on this excellent DVD which comes with a trailer, a splendid 45 minute featurette "Quo Vadis And The Genesis of the Biblical Epic" and a commentary by one F.X. Feeney who persists in calling the leading lady's character Leega instead of Lygia and neglects to tell us that the opening narration is spoken by MGM favourite Walter Pidgeon (uncredited). However this is only a minor quibble and does nothing to diminish the greatness of this issue. Bravo Warner Home Video!!

Whither Thou Goest

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 2 December 2005]

Quo Vadis, based on the late nineteenth century novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, has been filmed many times in many lands for the cinema and for television. It was done as a Broadway play at the turn of the last century. But this is the version that most people remember and talk about.

It's also the first of the big budget sand and scandal epics that the movies made to try and compete with that little home entertainment machine that was popping up in more and more homes. MGM built the magnificent sets the film was done on and sent Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and the whole cast over to Italy to shoot it. Those sets later popped up in Ben-Hur, The Fall of the Roman Empire and dozens of Italian gladiator films. Supposedly somewhere in the cast of thousands both Elizabeth Taylor and Sophia Loren appeared as extras. Spot them if you can.

Another extra was Lia DiLeo and gossip about her and Robert Taylor led to the break up of the Robert Taylor-Barbara Stanwyck marriage.

The story is about Robert Taylor as Marcus Vinicius, Roman soldier and his lust then love for Christian girl Lygia played by Deborah Kerr. Their story is set against the background of the early Christian church in Rome and the persecution of it by the Emperor Nero.

Taylor and Kerr are fine in the leads, but in this case the supporting cast really overshadowed the stars. Peter Ustinov as Nero and Leo Genn as Petronius were both nominated for Best Supporting Actor of 1951, but lost to Karl Malden in Streetcar Named Desire.

Peter Ustinov got a once in a lifetime part as Nero. It's the kind of role that one can overact outrageously and still convey all the sinister impulses that this villain possessed. Ustinov was compared with Charles Laughton as Nero in The Sign of the Cross and I wouldn't dare say who was better.

My favorite part in this film has always been Leo Genn as Gaius Petronius. He's the only actor in the film who's holding his own with Ustinov. He's a pretty smart guy this Petronius, keeping his place at the court by flattery and guile. It's a bitter pill for him to swallow when after Nero burns Rome, the Rome he loves and has dedicated his life to. He could have prevented it by taking a righteous stand against the tyrant. But instead he played the cynic once too often and decides what he deems to be the only course of action open to him.

Finlay Currie is a strong and hearty, but aged St. Peter. My conception of St. Peter has always been that of Finlay Currie and in his youth that of Howard Keel in The Big Fisherman. Peter's a hands on kind of pastor used to hard work. After all he was a fisherman in his younger days and that certainly is outdoor work.

Whether people are confirmed Christians or not will depend on how they take this film. We all can certainly admire the spectacle and the talent of the players. And nobody questions the atrocities committed by Emperor Nero against the early Christians.

But at one point after Taylor realizes his love for Kerr, he makes what I consider a quite reasonable offer to allow her to continue in her faith and he'll even put up whatever kind of chapel on the house grounds for that purpose. Not so says Kerr, it's going to be all or nothing. That all or nothing attitude today has got a few people upset with organized religion for various reasons. But that's in the distant future from the First Century AD.

Lives up to your expectations...Leo Genn and Peter Ustinov steal the acting honors...

[Doylenf · 11 May 2001]

Ancient Rome never looked so good--especially in the gorgeous MGM technicolor of 1951. Costumes, sets, photography and music are all of a high order--and all of the performances are competent with two outstanding ones by Leo Genn (Petronius) and Peter Ustinov (Nero). Ustinov reminds me of an overbaked Charles Laughton in some of his mad scenes, but he is a convincing weakling as Nero. Leo Genn has some of the wittiest dialogue and handles his lines with professional ease, his eyes flashing with humor as he pretends to agree with Nero on certain points. Robert Taylor is stalwart in the lead giving his usual dependable performance and Deborah Kerr is lovely (if a bit British in manner) as Lygia.

All the action and excitement you want from a spectacle--the burning of Rome, Christians in the arena thrown to the lions, the triumphal marches accompanied by Miklos Rozsa's mighty score--and scenes with sentimental and religious overtones (sometimes too extended and talky) --all combine to make the kind of lush spectacle MGM knew would be popular at the box-office. Although discriminating critics found fault with certain factors, it won eight Academy Award nominations with Ustinov and Genn both nominated for supporting roles.

Grand scale spectacle--but don't expect anything deep.

Grand visual spectacle, magnificent score and solid performances make this worth watching

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 7 June 2011]

Quo Vadis is a good movie, but I personally don't consider it a truly great one. I did find some of the religious aspects over-bearing, some of the script rather stilted(Petronious' philosophical lines excepted) and a little rambling and bloated in the story and pace. Problems aside, Quo Vadis is a film of visual spectacle and grandeur. You can never go wrong with sweeping cinematography, lavish scope, sets and scenery and colourful costumes and Quo Vadis succeeds in all these areas. Mervyn LeRoy directs excellently, while Miklos Rosza's score is absolutely magnificent. The performances are solid, Robert Taylor does a good job playing it straight and isn't too dull and Deborah Kerr is as ravishing as ever, but it is Leo Genn playing Petronious more than admirably and especially a superb Peter Ustinov as Nero that walk away with the picture. All in all, a solid film albeit not one without its flaws. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The Big One!

[Gooper · 10/10 · 29 December 2003]

It is a great pleasure to see so many comments here that are enthusiastic about 'Quo Vadis'. I just saw it again last night after about 15 years, and I marvelled at what a high quality spectacle it is - better than ever, in fact.

In his autobiography, 'Take One', Mervyn LeRoy has some great stories about 'Quo Vadis'. Such as: while filming one of the really big crowd scenes, a voice pipes up from the extras: 'Hey Moy-vin!', and it's Jack Benny. And in a scene right out of one of his pictures, when 'Quo Vadis' is screened in San Francisco, and LeRoy is present, the theatre happens to be right near the corner where the big-time director once sold papers as a kid. He revisits the corner after the screening and sheds a few tears. LeRoy was an extra in C.B. DeMille's first 'Ten Commandments', so the desire to deliver something DeMillian was realized at last, and with smashing success.

We all agree on Peter Ustinov's ingenious performance, so all I need to add is that in his own autobiography, 'Dear Me', Sir Peter's recollections of the filming are as wonderful as his performance.

Whatever his capabilities as an actor, I always thought that Bob Taylor's performance was pretty darn good, and appropriate, too: what high-ranking Roman officer wouldn't be pompous? In any case, the story is much larger than Marcus' character, and the story comes to dominate the picture.

It is indeed a pity that the excellent Rozsa score wasn't handled by the Warners sound department, where it would have been been presented to full effect Much of its impact is squandered by its being kept in the background. I don't think Merv LeRoy had so much to do with this decision, as his alma mater was Warners (try watching 'Anthony Adverse'!) It seems that it was probably MGM policy. With sensitivity, a DVD version could perhaps offer the picture with a 'sweetened' soundtrack.

The quality of the camera work by solid professionals Bob Surtees (later MGM's UltraPanavision 70 specialist) and Wm V. Skall (his work on 'The Silver Chalice' was outstanding) really cannot be overstated.

Along with the delights of Sir Peter's performance, I still get choked up when noble Buddy Baer takes on that bull, and when Marina Berti's character displays so much love and devotion to Leo Genn's. Genn is right up there with James Mason in quality, and indeed, Mason may have taken a few pointers from Genn's performance for his own acting in subsequent epics. Patricia Laffan is decadently sexy without being campy.

Trivia: scenes for the burning of Rome were sensibly used in MGM's 'The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao' and 'Atlantis, The Lost Continent' to great effect.

It is a credit to Merv LeRoy for allowing great actors like Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn to 'do their thing'.

'Quo Vadis' is a classic: a stunning spectacle, intelligent, good script, fine performances by practically everybody, and it remains long in the memory, and holds up well indeed.

You will be worthy of the spectacle - as the spectacle is worthy of you.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 13 June 2010]

General Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) returns to Rome after battle and falls in love with Lygia (Deborah Kerr), an adopted daughter of a fellow general, but effectively a hostage and considered a no no. When she is presented to him as a gift, things are further compounded by the fact that she is in secret a Christian. Enter Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) who orders that all Christians must be thrown to the lions, leaving Marcus with no option but to deny his Pretorian ways and to try and save Lygia and her family. Rome, will never be the same again.

A big, bold and lavish historical epic out of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer that's directed by Mervyn LeRoy, shot in glorious Technicolor by Robert Surtees & William V. Skall and is scored by Miklós Rózsa. Joining the big hitters in the cast are Leo Genn, Finlay Currie, Felix Aylmer & Abraham Sofaer. While the adaptation of Henryk Sienkiewicz's novel is written by S. N. Behrman, Sonya Levien & John Lee Mahin. There's no denying that Quo Vadis, meaning "where are you going" and appertaining to the encounter between St Peter and Jesus Christ on the Appian Way, is a technical spectacle. It's also tough going for its over talky melodramatics during the first 90 minutes, but you just have to stay with it, once you are in, you are in for the long haul. A whole afternoon in my case!

For its time, this was the bigger than than biggest, a studios dream, the cast of thousands, the sets, the costumes and the gazillion speaking parts that make up the story. It's also a point where the historical epic became more than just entertainment and a reason to make money. No doubt about it, Quo Vadis is very pro Christian, it has something to say, even if ultimately it takes a long time to say it and is historically dubious. There's thought and intelligence within, with that, it pays to pay attention and sample the dialogue whilst feasting your eyes on the magnificence that surrounds the characters. Once the worthwhile action kicks in, it's no let down, the fights in the Coliseum, the burning of Rome (we can thank the great Anthony Mann for that one) and the dramatic climax, all make the time spent leading up to them more than worth it. The cast are mostly agreeable, Kerr is gorgeous as ever and Taylor is, ahem, straight as ever, while Ustinov goes full tilt campy loony. Genn steals the movie as Petronius while Patricia Laffan as Poppaea Sabina gives one of the most sensually minx like portrayals given in an historical epic.

Some may find the religiose aspects over bearing, but the spectacle does win out. Looking as gorgeous as ever now after being remastered, Quo Vadis is a must see for like minded historical epic fans. It's some way down the pecking order of the genre greats, but still a must see movie regardless. 7/10

Superb set and costume design. Ustinov outstanding.

[allen_hahn · 10/10 · 15 February 2002]

I first saw this film as a re-run in 1964--on the big screen. Much is lost, I think, when viewing it on television. Peter Ustinov's portrayal of the emperor Nero raises the bar for anyone else who is ever cast as an unbalanced and corrupt Roman emperor. Certainly, we don't see this style or quality of acting in newer films such as "Gladiator." I focus on the "Nero" character more than others because Ustinov was truly able to get inside the role, and appeared to stay very focused. Robert Taylor was fine in the movie, but his role could have been handled by nearly any leading man of the time. Ditto for Deborah Kerr. The remaining cast was very, very good. The set designs and costumes were sheer artistry and the score was effective and complimentary. I recommend this to anyone who is interested in spectacles and studying fine acting techniques (i.e., Ustinov's).

Christians sure are boring. Luckily, there're pagans, too

[zetes · 6/10 · 28 December 2009]

The first of the big Biblical/ancient epics of the 1950s and '60s. Hardly the best, though. It's a film I was quite clearly mixed about - one half of it I found a total bore, the other half I was in love with. No prizes for guessing how I felt about which. Quo Vadis is, of course, the story of young Christianity during the rule of Emperor Nero in Rome. The Christians meet in secret (with St. Peter and St. Paul) and are mostly harmless at first. Nero is kind of a pretentious dope and fairly harmless, too, until he decides he must set fire to Rome for true artistic inspiration. Afterward, however, the poo hits the fan and he scapegoats Christians to get the heat off of him. Oh, and there's a love story. Yes, it's the love story that sinks Quo Vadis. Robert Taylor is an army leader who falls for hottie Deborah Kerr. She's a Christian, though, and that eventually leads him to the lion's den (where he finally accepts the religion). Taylor has to be one of the blandest actors of all time and, I hate to say this, Kerr is no better in this film. She sure is beautiful, but one just has to roll their eyes at her utter piety. Her love for him is ridiculously abrupt. One scene she is spurning him, the next she has always been in love. Oh, if only the film were all about Nero! Peter Ustinov is hammy as Hell, but how else do you play Nero? And no one (whom I've seen) has ever done it better, not even Charles Laughton. He of course was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, as was Leo Genn as Petronius (historically this character was more like Seneca, who is a very minor character here). Genn is okay, but rather forgettable after Ustinov. The only other performer who deserves mention is Patricia Laffan as Nero's wife, Poppaea. Oh, and Peter and Paul are here, but the film loves to forget they even exist. There's a brief shot of the infamous upside down crucifixion, but it's quickly passed by for more dull romance.

"I didn't wish to be a monster. The gods willed it."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 24 March 2012]

As many times as I've heard the saying 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned', I never gave thought to the idea that Nero instigated the fiery inferno himself as a sort of artistic cleansing in order to remake the great city in his own image. If that's really the case, then the historical Nero was as loony as Peter Ustinov's over the top portrayal of the hapless Roman Emperor made him out to be. That scene with the 'weeping glass' was so outlandish that I had to rewind it to watch it again. Truly marvelous over-emoting by the incomparable Ustinov.

If it's grand spectacle you're after, "Quo Vadis" is up there on the scale of "Ben-Hur", "King of Kings" and other historical epics of the era. At a time well preceding the wizardry of computer generated images on screen, one can appreciate the planning and effort it took to translate this 'cast of thousands' to the big screen. The scenes of Roman legions marching back home and the spectacle of the arena presided over by the god-like Nero and his court are full of color and pageantry.

At the center of this film is the story of the rise of Christianity and the romance between a Roman general (Robert Taylor) and an adopted Christian girl (Deborah Kerr). Not so much a romance actually, as a gradual conversion of faith and conscience for a man who's entire career was in service to Emperor and country.

The real story however is in the machinations and brutality of the Emperor Nero. With casual indifference and haughty self importance, Nero is so self absorbed that he becomes a caricature of himself. I can think of few actors who could have pulled off this feat besides Ustinov; Charles Laughton and Robert Newton come to mind, but Ustinov gives his character such a vile edge here that it makes him just perfect for the part. Pairing him with Paticia Laffan as wife Poppaea is the icing on the cake.

The title of the film can be literally translated as 'Whither goest thou?', or perhaps more literally as 'Where are you going?'. That would be a question for someone like Marcus Vinius, on the fence between a lifetime of service to a self-proclaimed divine emperor and the promise of spiritual freedom offered by the emerging doctrine of Christianity. Interestingly, and to varying degrees, that struggle of faith remains alive to this very day.

Status Quo

[tomsview · 7/10 · 3 April 2016]

I guess nostalgia would have to be a big part of my evaluation of a movie that is the earliest one I can remember. I must have been about 5-years old when I saw this in a suburban cinema in Sydney around 1952.

Three things imprinted themselves: the slave being trampled as the legions march towards Rome; Ursus throwing Croton down the steps, and most vivid of all, Nero looking through the coloured glass ovals - I was a cheap date in those days.

I have seen the movie many times since then, but it always seems like an old friend. Of course these days I am a little more discerning about its strengths and weaknesses.

The story is gleaned from Henryk Sienkiewicz's slab of a novel, about an all-conquering Roman General, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), who falls in love with a Christian girl, Lygia (Debora Kerr), set against the backdrop of Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov). It was a great period for an epic; we get massive triumphs - "Remember, you are only a man" - the burning of Rome, and the persecution of the Christians complete with human torches, crucifixions and of course lions - the ancient Romans knew a thing or two about showbiz.

Robert Taylor made a very clean-cut, all-Roman kind of guy - he gives the role a suitable touch of arrogance, but his tunics look as though they have just come back from the cleaners, and they didn't spare the Napisan. Taylor seemed to breeze through these types of parts, but there are others who gave the film more gravitas.

Deborah Kerr glows in her role, however it's the relationship between Petronius (Leo Genn) and his slave Eunice (Marina Berti) that I find the most touching - he orders her whipped, but not to damage her skin.

Then of course there's Peter Ustinov as Nero. Charles Laughton had given Nero a certain piquancy in DeMille's earlier, "The Sign of the Cross", but Ustinov out-lyres him all the way. His Nero is maybe a little one-note; he plays him as a petulant teen possibly dealing with gender issues, but his death scene is pitiable, "Is this then the end of Nero?" There are some great lines in the film, nearly all shared by Petronius and Nero.

I think the film is quite spiritual and uplifting when Finlay Currie delivers as Peter. Much of the film's spirituality also comes from Miklos Rozsa's soaring score - conversions are definitely on the cards when a theme such as "The Miracle and Finale" gets the full orchestral treatment.

As a movie, "Quo Vadis" is the equivalent in painting to a monumental salon piece by Lawrence Alma-Tadema rather than a more intriguing and challenging work by El Greco or Picasso.

However it has its moments with scenes that CGI would find hard to beat, and the Christians in the arena never fail to bring a lump to my throat. And you know what? I still love those coloured glasses.

Colossal and profound spectacle that indeed has its place in movie history!

[marcin_kukuczka · 9/10 · 2 August 2006]

The 1st century Roman Empire, the fire of Rome, early Christianity, martyrdom...this historical content was dealt with in many films before and after 1951. Yet, it is LeRoy's QUO VADIS most viewers associate with the infamous period of Roman history, the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68). Why? There are, I think, several reasons. One is, definitely, the source, a Noble Prize winner novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz. The Polish writer, being an acknowledged historian, contained detailed historical facts and a vivid fictitious story in his novel. As a result, QUO VADIS is a universal masterpiece, absolutely worth reading for anyone. But, since the film, though an adaptation of the book, skips many events or even characters, we may treat Mervyn LeRoy's QUO VADIS as a separate Hollywood production. In this respect, the movie is also well known as a gigantic spectacle with great cast, lavish sets, crowds of extras, which constitutes a magnificent journey to ancient Rome, the Rome which was on the verge of becoming "Neropolis". Then, a viewer does not have to know the novel and will enjoy the film.

THE STORY: If we consider QUO VADIS? as an entertaining movie only (which is, of course, a limited view), then anyone more acquainted with cinema will find much in common with Cecil B DeMille's great epic THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932). Yet, comparison does not work that well concerning the perspective of QUO VADIS (1951). After deeper analysis of the films, a lot of differences occur. While DeMille's film based on Wilson Barret's play shows early Christianity in Rome, it foremost concentrates on the clash between the new religion and the Roman order being put in danger. LeRoy's movie, since based on Henryk Sienkiewicz's, focuses on the undeniable victory of Christianity. Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) at first finds a new faith meaningless. He has reasonable arguments from the Roman point of view (what about slaves, conquest, enemy treating, etc). Yet GRADUALLY thanks to love for Lygia (Deborah Kerr) and the courageous faith of the martyrs, he shouts out with confidence "Christ, give him strength!" The story of Nero and "the imperial companions" is also much more developed. Yet, Nero (Peter Ustinov) is not only the one who heads for delicious debauchery but also wishes the crowd to have one throat that could be cut. He is an artist who burns Rome in order to create a song. He is a coward who blames the innocent for his own guilts. He is a cynic who collects tears in a weeping phial after the death of his "best friend" Petronius (Leo Genn). Finally, he is a lunatic who praises his "divine ego" and screams at his death seeing no future for Rome without him.

CAST: Anyone who has seen ancient epics must admit that most of them can boast great performances. Nevertheless, I believe that QUO VADIS is one of the top movies in this matter. Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr are a gorgeous couple portraying a Roman leader and a Christian girl. Taylor naturally expresses a change of heart. Kerr appealingly portrays innocence, gentleness and true love. Leo Genn is excellent as Petronius, a man of art and elegance who is fed up with Nero's "secondary songs and meaningless poems." Peter Ustinov gives a fabulous performance as Nero combining all wicked features of his character. I also loved Patricia Laffan as lustful empress Poppaea with her two pet leopards. There is no milk bath of hers, she does not imitate Ms Colbert but Laffan's Poppaea is foremost a woman of sin, a woman of lust, and a woman of revenge. The Christians, except for a number of extras, are portrayed by very authentic-looking actors: Abraham Sofaer as Paul and Finlay Currie as Peter...not more to say than that they look identical to the old paintings.

SPECTACLE: The movie is a visually stunning epic that can be compared in its magnificence to BEN HUR (1959) and even GLADIATOR (2000). There are numerous breathtaking moments: arena scenes, lions, bull fighting, triumph in the streets, and foremost the fire of Rome. We see the real horror within the walls of the burning city. A moment that is also worth consideration is Vinicius hurrying to Rome on a chariot being chased by two other men. When he comes nearer, we see the red sky... The authenticity is increased by a lovely landscape of Cinecitta Studios near Rome where the film was shot. For the sake of spectacle, I went once to see QUO VADIS on a big screen in cinema and felt as if I watched a new film made with modern techniques. It was a wonderful experience.

All in all, I think that QUO VADIS by Mervyn LeRoy is a movie that has stood a test of time. Although it is 55 years old, it is still admired in many places of the world. It's one of these movies that are the treasures of my film gallery. Not only a colossal spectacle, not only great performances but a very profound historical content at which Henryk Sienkiewicz was best.

QUO VADIS DOMINE? Where are you going, Lord? These are the words that Peter asked Christ while leaving Rome. After the answer that Peter heard from his Lord, he turned back... in order to proclaim peace to the martyrs and to be crucified. Yet, where once stood decadent "Neropolis" now stands the Holy See where people yearly pilgrim to the tombs of the martyrs and where the blessing "Urbi et Orbi" is goes to all the corners of the world. Sienkiewicz writes about it in the touching final words of the novel. Yet, LeRoy changes it a bit in the film...

A small group of Christians who survived, including Lygia and Marcus, are on a journey. But after a short stop at the place where Peter met Christ, the journey seems to turn into a pilgrimage towards "the Way, the Truth and the Life"

The definitive version of a classic film

[ozthegreatat42330 · 7/10 · 3 March 2007]

One of the first of the cross and sandals epics of the fifties and sixties, this movie is a visual splendor. With some of Hollywood's finest character actors like Finlay Currie and Felix Aylmer, the sensitive roles performed by Deborah Kerr and Robert Taylor, and the very excellent decadence of Peter Ustinov's Nero. This film, which was the last great film under studio head Louis B. Mayer for MGM started a string of magnificent epics over the next fifteen years. The sound score of Miklos Rozsa was the first of many epic scores (to include "Ben Hur," "King of Kings" and El Cid" among others.) Mervyn Le Roy here proves why he became such a big name in MGM history with this lavish and satisfying vision of the early persecution of the Christains.

Although this title has been filmed many times since, this is and will probably always remain the definitive version and rightly so. I have seen it at least twenty times and each time it remains a fresh and riveting experience. If you have not already seen it, do so at once.

Don't Expect Subtlety

[steven-222 · 4/10 · 6 March 2006]

This movie has its virtues, but subtlety is not among them. It opens with a narrator telling us what to think about the story we're about to see, and closes with a hymn sung over the end credits. In between Peter Ustinov plays Nero, and we know he must be mad because he pouts and rolls his eyes and chews every carpet in sight. Was this performance the inspiration for Jennifer Saunder's Eddy on ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS? Watch Nero's blubbering tantrum after he reads Petronius's letter, and you'll see what I mean.

The movie is visually sumptuous and (at least until the last hour or so) pretty entertaining, but every time the script diverges from the novel to engineer "big" Hollywood moments — Peter orating from the stands of the Colosseum, the climactic palace revolution, etc. — the action descends into melodrama and the acting seems very dated. The film gets preachier as it goes along, which is unfortunate; the filmmakers don't seem confident that the images and situations can speak for themselves, so the message is shouted at the audience: Nero bad, Christians good! Well, yes, but because the prudish 1950s film-making won't show the Christians actually suffering as they're crucified (they sing hymns and look heavenward), there's no real emotional involvement. We're told what to think, but we're not made to feel anything.

Two other versions, the 2001 Polish television series and the 1985 Italian mini-series — truly profound productions that capture the dark genius of Sienkiewicz's novel (and the terror of Nero's reign)— are both so vastly superior that they can't even be compared to this campy Hollywood extravaganza.

The original novel and this cinema version of it are two very different kettles of fish!

[gregcouture · 13 September 2003]

A fellow IMDb-er from Poland, defending Henryk Sienkiewicz's monumental, Nobel Prize-winning novel (which I HAVE read, by the way) calls this M-G-M Technicolor spectacle "CRAP"!

Please! The novel is incredibly dense and detailed; possibly a lot truer to what was known in the early part of the twentieth century of the actual events of the time of its plot; with lots of references to the cruelty and luxury of Nero's Rome; frequent mentions of the pervasive nudity under all kinds of circumstances among the Romans of the time; and, given its length, a perhaps more respectful view of the emergence of Christianity at a time when its converts risked their very lives to admit their beliefs. There is no way that even a multi-part TV mini-(I mean, maxi-)series could come close to approximating the novel's overwhelming complexity.

But, as a piece of filmed entertainment, this cinema extravaganza is not at all worthy of being consigned to the proverbial garbage heap. The cast, yes, including Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr, but, especially the supporting actors (Peter Ustinov, of course; plus Leo Genn, in particular, as well as Patricia Laffan, Marina Berti, Finlay Currie, Felix Aylmer, Rosalie Crutchley, et al.) all take full advantage of a script that had many witty as well as dramatic moments and, for its day, a fairly reverent (though not historically accurate) rendering of Christianity's emergence in a hostile Roman world.

In addition its production values have never been surpassed; in fact, they've never been equalled. One understands how beleaguered those of Polish descent often must feel (I, for one, have never been a fan of so-called "Polish jokes."), but let's not set impossible standards for a translation of one of Poland's most memorable literary achievements! This production is an example of Hollywood marshalling some impressive resources, while avoiding more than a modicum of the cliches that can sabotage such a project. It may not honor its source as some might wish, but it's still a quite grand and opulently eye-filling way to enjoy close to three hours.

As they say, a film is as good as the villain...

[ElMaruecan82 · 7/10 · 25 February 2017]

Mervyn Le Roy's "Quo Vadis" takes place during the climactic twilight of Nero's despotic reign over the Roman Empire or the dawn of the Christian era marked by the seal of martyrdom, it explores a pivotal point of Occidental history, and indirectly of Hollywood.

Following "Samson and Delilah" and preceding "Spartacus", "Cleopatra" and "Ben-Hur", you get indeed two "histories" intertwined in that big juicy blockbuster of former days, a time where the barbarians from the little screen were threatening the foundations of the Hollywood empire, and Zanuck needed the kind of escapism TV wouldn't even be able to deliver, not for five decades. So just assemble the world Technicolor and Cinemascope and you get the idea of the kind of 'fun' movie lovers were seeking those days. And there's no irony in my statement as this trend almost caused the whole industry to collapse by the end of the sixties, where even box-office grosses couldn't sustain the financial losses. Hollywood came too close from a fate à la Roman Empire.

So we can enjoy "Quo Vadis" with a sigh of relief, and 'enjoy' is an appropriate word as the colors are absolutely breathtaking and the infamous Rome fire is perhaps the most instantly identifiable after Atlanta in "Gone With the Wind". "Quo Vadis" is also one of these feast to the eyes, with ordinary extras contributing to extraordinary takes, whether legionaries marching, Christians assembling around St Peter, or circus' crowds thumbing up or down,, it's just as if the director needed to show the producers that they made the right investment, the kind of big-budgeted productions that had just recently inspired the Coen brothers' latest film "Hail, Caesar!". So, speaking of Caesar, you got to give him the credit he deserves and acknowledge that the film is a delightful entertainment despite the kitschy charm, the kind that makes you think, they don't make like this anymore.

Still, you can have the same opinion with a more negative thought in mind. By that I mean that the catch of this appreciation is that you also consider the fact that we live in a time where they don't make many religious movies, so in regard to this evolution of the mentalities, there is no way out from the feeling that the film tends to be over-preachy for its own good. And actually, I'm trusting the audience from 1951, those who enjoyed risqué movies like "A Place in the Sun" or "A Streetcar Named Desire", I suspect that even by the 50's standards, all these solemn speeches and gaze into the stars, driven by powerful chorus in the background, might have felt too stagy and atmospheric at the expense of the film's realism. It's like a big-scale Christmas special play. Again, no irony; checking the reviews of the time, I wasn't the only one.

So that's the flip side of "Quo Vadis", it is a spectacular movie whose spectacular ambitions never leave much latitude to the characters, who are only moving pieces of a big package and are not given much depth to play with. Robert Taylor does a fine job as General Marcus who falls in love with Christian hostage Lygia (Deborah Kerr) but the relationship is Hollywood standard and doesn't have this steaming passion of Clift and Taylor or Brando and Leigh. And while Christians are supposed to be martyrs, they're all played like overly dignified people, using great and lyrical sentences, everything about "sin here, sin there", as if they were part of a brainwashed sect. By sanctifying them, the screenplay dehumanizes them and prevents a rooting process that could have worked better had they been ordinary people. But then, which character was 'ordinary'?

I think I shouldn't be too pointy on the characters because "Quo Vadis", for all these flaws, emerges above the other swords-and-sandals epics and guaranteed its ticket for posterity thanks to one character: Emperor Nero, played by the inimitable Peter Ustinov, actually, the only Oscar-nominated performance of the film. There is no doubt that Ustinov lies on a pedestal of greatness over the other actors, playing a tormented, egomaniac and sadistic emperor. Ustinov is so good that he produces a miracle almost of Biblical proportions, while the Christians' sanctification creates empathy on a religious level but not our individual empathy, we root for Nero because Ustinov makes the tyrant childishly and grotesquely weak, hence human. That's one of the film's most delightful ironies.

And as much as I admired the looks and the Circus' sequence, it is never as good as when it orbits around the world of Nero and his close entourage, I also appreciate Leo Genn who did a fine performance as Petronius. It is the credit to the actor to have spiced up what would have been an otherwise bland entertainment, all in Technicolor and Cinemascope. Indeed, as the title says, this is one of these cases, maybe school cases, where the film is as good as the villain, and on that level, "Quo Vadis" is almost great.

One the most interesting of the 40's and 50's biblical epics

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 24 October 2009]

This biblical epic has Peter Ustinov giving the definitive performance of the emperor Nero, in spite of the motion picture code. But then, it seems they were always relaxing that motion picture code back in the 40's and 50's as long as it was for a biblical epic of some kind. In this case, you see - although from a distance - lions carrying the limbs of dismembered Christians upon which they are feeding, along with all of the other insinuations of decadence present under Nero. Robert Taylor, who was normally a rather wooden actor IMHO, did a very good job in this one as a Roman soldier entranced by a Christian girl. If you didn't know better you might think this film was the work of Cecil B. DeMille, but instead the director was Mervyn Le Roy. Le Roy directed some of Warners fast-paced urban early sound films including Alice White's musicals, Gold Diggers of Broadway, Cagney's "Hard to Handle", Edward G. Robinson's "Little Caesar", and "Three on a Match". He also directed one of Robert Taylor's other great performances in 1942's "Johnny Eager", unbelievably not on DVD. In other words, Le Roy directed many crowd-pleasers. This might explain why this film got seven or eight Oscar nominations, but none for the director himself. He just wasn't considered good enough by the Academy to be "in the club" in spite of this excellent individual achievement.

Everyone knows the popular legend. Nero burns Rome to clear the way for the magnificent city he wants to build, but the peasants are revolting - literally. He then blames the odd and unpopular but quickly growing sect of the Christians for the burning, and begins feeding them to the lions for the amusement of the Romans. However, the Christians face death so bravely that Rome turns on Nero. Well, that's the movie.

The facts are much more in argument. In an ancient city such as Rome, accidental fires that destroyed cities were common. In fact Nero did lead a massive relief effort after the fire, and fires just as large broke out in Rome after Nero's death. Some historians do have the Christians confessing to the crime. The fact is that the people did begin to circulate rumors that Nero was at fault, and he was responsible for blaming th Christians for the fire to save himself. He ordered to have them thrown to dogs, though, not lions, as in the film. However, one can somewhat overlook all of this historical jumping to conclusions and outright inaccuracy in the name of fine entertainment.

Impressive costume drama about life in Nero's Rome

[PimpinAinttEasy · 7/10 · 31 May 2017]

Quo Vadis is an engaging costume drama about life in Nero's Rome.

The film is a love story between a roman soldier and a captive Christian woman. It is about the conflict between the pagans and the Christians and the persecution of Christians under Nero's rule. It is about Nero and his relationship with his sister and Petronius (who wrote Satyricon). There are a few sub plots as well - one involving Petronius' intense love affair with a slave (played by Martina Berti).

The Christians in Rome look down on the debauchery of the pagan rulers while the pagans look at the Christians with a certain amount of fear. In a prolonged scene, a Christian priest conducts a secret meeting with some underground Christians. Parallels can be drawn to today's world where Muslims look down on the debauchery of the Westen world while the West consider Muslims to be backward.

The action is limited to a chariot chase sequence and then the bloody finale in the coliseum. Quo Vadis is more of a drama than an action film like BENHUR or GLADIATOR. But the coliseum scene is spectacular. While not as opulent as CLEOPATRA, there are many epic scenes and long shots involving thousands of extras.

I watched it in two sittings. I was impressed by Leo Glenn as Petronius. Deborah Kerr was very erotic even when she played a tame but devout Christian woman. Peter Ustinov nailed the role of the boorish Nero physically. But his dialog delivery was too theatrical. Marina Berti was nice eye candy. Robert Taylor was effortlessly macho as the Roman soldier.

I bet Martin Scorsese loves this film.

(7/10)

Remarkable epic film

[Rectangular_businessman · 8/10 · 30 July 2012]

"Quo Vadis" Is an excellent adaptation of the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz about the vicissitudes experienced by the first Christians in Nero's Rome, which has a correct balance of adventure and romance, with an impressive historical drama setting as the background.

The most fascinating aspect of this movie is the unforgettable performance of Peter Ustinov in the role of Nero, which practically steals the movie, and the great performance of Deborah Kerr which gives a great sense of dignity to the insipid character that she plays. Also, the soundtrack by Miklos Rozsa was simply excellent.

"Quo Vadis" is a big, beautiful love story that deserves more recognition that it gets. It is one of the best historical and adventure films from the 50's.

Glenn and Ustinov justify this otherwise standard biblical film

[MissSimonetta · 6/10 · 20 April 2014]

The biblical epic was one of the most popular movie genres of the 1950s and early 1960s. Unfortunately, most of these films were expensive, Technicolor bores with stiff acting and cheap sensationalism. A few of these films were good/great (Ben-Hur (1959), Barabbas (1961)), some were kitschy fun (The Ten Commandments (1956)), and others were outright awful (The Silver Chalice (1954)). However, most of them were merely average to dull in quality, and that category is where Quo Vadis (1951) falls.

The story takes place during Nero's reign and concerns his persecution of Christians after Rome is burned to the ground. The main plot concerns star cross'd lovers Marcus and Lygia, a macho Roman general and a gentle pagan princess-turned-Christian convert. The two encounter historical figures and events as they fall in love and come close to being martyred by the maniacal Nero and his equally vicious wife, Poppaea.

The love story is handled poorly. Though Lygia later admits to Marcus that she knew he was the one for her at first sight, their first encounters involve him objectifying her, belittling her intelligence by saying she should not concern herself with philosophy, disgusting her with stories of battlefield gore, and to cap it all off, he forcibly takes her from her adopted family with the hope of legally owning her. Yet Lygia "knew she could come to love him"? She wants to be his wife even though he's shown her no respect? Some would say I'm being too "PC" and that Lygia is representative of 1st century women, but this film is not trying to show a realistic portrait of the 1st century. Many of the events in the film are not historically accurate as it is, so I doubt getting the mindset of 1st century women was on the mind of the screenwriter. It's bad writing, plain and simple.

The acting is nothing to brag about (save for two special performances, but we'll get to them soon). Robert Taylor is his stilted, wooden self. Deborah Kerr is stuck in an uninteresting part that she struggles to breathe life into. Patricia Laffan is your standard pagan vamp, shooting bedroom eyes at Taylor while seductively posing on couches.

The only two worthy performances come from Leo Glenn as Petronius and Peter Ustinov as Nero. Glenn's sarcastic, smart character is a thousand times more interesting than Taylor's cardboard soldier, and the love between him and his slave girl Eunice is more endearing than the one between Taylor and Kerr. Ustinov is just fantastic, whining and screaming and reciting bad poetry. He steals the show from everyone, making you wish this were a Nero biopic instead.

Honestly, if you wanted to watch an old school biblical film concerning the love affair between a Roman soldier and a Christian woman, watch Cecil DeMille's Sign of the Cross (1932). Frederic March is a superior actor to Robert Taylor, and you can never go wrong with Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert. No, it does not have the budget of this film, but it certainly sustains your interest a great deal more.

"Omnivorous power"

[Steffi_P · 8/10 · 22 April 2010]

A clue as to the tone MGM were striving for with their first major ancient world epic of the 1950s lies in the opening titles. The costumes and hairstyles are not credited merely as "by…" but "recreated by…" Quo Vadis is not like the thought-provoking but modestly-budgeted efforts of 20th Century Fox, or the slightly lurid and action-orientated offerings from Warner Brothers. And although it is similar in magnitude and production values it is not like the grandiose behemoths Cecil B. DeMille was making at Paramount, the messages of which were somewhat self-defeating in their splendorous portrayal of despotic empires. Instead, the aim here seems to have been to provide a sense of scale and lavishness that is believable rather than awe-inspiring – a no-expenses-spared attempt to rebuild an entire bygone culture as a backdrop for a story.

Quo Vadis was made just before the arrival of widescreen formats, and it was the burgeoning scope of pictures like this which was to prompt the development of the new technology. However Quo Vadis itself makes up for its lack of width by working wonders in the field of depth. Use of depth was something of a speciality of director Mervyn LeRoy. He shows off the might of a marching column by having them advance upon a retreating camera. In the triumphal parade scene he often keeps the camera far back, looking out over the crowd, showing the size of the space that way. Even in the more intimate dramatic scenes, LeRoy creates layers of action, sometimes having the main focal point further back in the shot behind some foreground business, or creating a distant vanishing point far beyond the action. In this manner he helps maintain the illusion of a full and functioning world.

And into this world comes a cast of considerable prestige and propriety. The principle players are mostly British, for that stately touch. Of course, having all the Romans speak with RADA accents is no more authentic then having them sound like hillbillies, but this is about expectations of tone rather than actual historicity. Still, you have to have an All-American hero for the male lead, and stepping into the sandals is Robert Taylor, verging on middle age but still in possession of his dashing demeanour and handsome honesty. Taylor is not a particularly interesting actor, but he fills the role nicely. Opposite him we have the sensitive and professional Deborah Kerr. This part doesn't demand much of her considerable capabilities, but she brings a great deal of sincerity where it is needed, especially in the scene where she argues with Taylor over her acceptance of Christ.

But there is another duo here next to whom Taylor and Kerr make pale candles – the delightful, irresistible pairing of Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn as Emperor Nero and his adviser Petronius. Ustinov, in his breakthrough role, is outstanding, displaying with every facet of his performance the frankly undignified manner of someone who has never been told "No". He is wildly exaggerated, but his hamminess is acceptable because, after all, Nero is an exceptionally colourful character. Genn on the other hand is a model of knowing serenity, whose precise delivery makes a comedy of his manipulative counselling to the emperor. Between them these two get all the best lines, and to be honest this picture would be no worse if it were three hours of Nero and Petronius's witty interplay.

And that is in itself very telling about Quo Vadis. It is the periphery of the picture that appeals – not the heart. When watching Quo Vadis we get to bask in the glorious cinematography of Robert Surtees and William Skall, full of natural yellows, greens and oranges. We can take in the powerful score of Miklos Rozsa, who contrasts blaring Roman fanfares with haunting chants of faith. And all this, to overlay a rather hackneyed and uninspiring tale of heathen-turned-Christian in ancient Rome, which in any case has been done better elsewhere. Yes, this is a classic example of style over substance. But what's wrong with style when it is this wondrous? Indulge yourself.

Spectacular!

[dinky-4 · 7/10 · 10 May 1999]

This and SAMSON AND DELILAH ushered in the era of the Biblical epics which lasted till the failure of THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD in 1965. QUO VADIS is a prime example of the genre -- a bit stiff and stilted at times but filled with some awesome moments. Robert Taylor's triumphant entrance into Rome remains one of the most spectacular moments in all of moviedom. Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero is a delight and Deborah Kerr never looked lovelier. Not a great movie but a great entertainment.

Larger-than-life production with breathtaking scenarios and exciting scenes

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 10 April 2006]

During 63 a.d. a Roman official prefect named Marco Vinicio (Robert Taylor) returns from Gaul wars and goes home Petronius (Leo Genn and enamored the gorgeous slave played by Marina Berti ), adviser of emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) . Vinicio confess him he has fallen in love from Ligia (Deborah Kerr) , a virginal and mysterious young whom has known in the Plautus's home (Felix Aylmer and wife Nora Swinburne) . Meantime , the Christians are accused by Nero (Peter Ustinov) , along with Poppea (Patricia Laffan) and Tijelinus (Ralph Truman) of burning the ancient Rome . Depraved emperor Nero wants to get rid the Christians followed by Apostle Peter (Finlay Currie) and Paul (Abraham Sofaer) and then orders burn on stakes and use them as meat for hungry lions . Vinicio helped by Ursus (Buddy Baer) risk their lives to save her .

This huge epic film gets lots of crowd scenarios, fabulous gowns, dramatic scenes and is realized on a giant scale , spectacular sequences and Christians' bloody martyrdom as lions attack in arena and cruel crucifixions . Originally cast in 1949 with Elizabeth Taylor as Lygia and Gregory Peck as Marcus Vinicius . But as the production changed hands the following year , the roles were recast with enjoyable Deborah Kerr and robust Robert Taylor . Among the many actresses who tried out for a role in the film : a pre-stardom Audrey Hepburn. Peter Ustinov's overwhelming hammy acting , he gives an immortal and unforgettable performance . Film debut of Bud Spencer , who plays one of the Emperor's guards and as extra appears Sofia Loren and her mother . The film was an epic colossal with big financial success , 32,000 costumes were used in the film ; besides , spectacularly and colorfully photographed by Robert Surtees and magnificent musical score by Myklos Rozsa . The movie was very well directed by Mervyn Leroy . The motion picture is the ultimate version of the classic novel by the Polish Henryk Sienkiewicz . Remade for television by Franco Rossi (1985) and inferior version (2001) by the Polish Jerzy Kawalerowicz .

A Classic

[unclet-30169 · 7/10 · 10 May 2020]

I honestly do not understand the negative reviews at all. Anyone who has enjoyed cinema classics like this would see that this was the style of production in this era of hollywood epics, it was 1951 after all. This is a worthy watch along with the other classics such as Ben Hur, El Cid, Ten Commandments etc...

pretty awful, really

[deschreiber · 4/10 · 28 August 2023]

Yes, the scenes of spectacle are impressive. They almost make the movie bearable. Robert Taylor can't act, of course, but his looks and physical presence make a good soldier who doesn't understand what all those Christians are going on about. Deborah Kerr is pretty in her usual Ice Queen way, and she does her best in the romantic scenes with some really awful dialogue. The costumes are terrific.

But the religiosity of the story keeps spoiling one's enjoyment. Devout Christians may be able to submit to the swelling music, shining light from Heaven, dopey-looking faces awe-struck to be in the presence of the apostle Peter, and so on over and over, but for the rest of us, it gets very annoying. Too many scenes seem childish, on the level of Sunday School stories. The two romances are drivel, too, without any effort to give them a sense of reality. The religious scenes and the romantic scenes are just schlock.