The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) User Reviews (130)

right before Maximus arrived

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 18 December 2020]

As the movie makes clear, the title refers not to a single event, but to a process. Ancient Rome's collapse came about through a combination of nonstop conquest and crass decadence. "The Fall of the Roman Empire" looks specifically at Emperor Commodus's rise, and how his rule contributed to the fall.

The sets are a sight to behold, as is the cinematography. But the true credit should go to Christopher Plummer as Commodus and Sophia Loren as Lucilla. He makes Commodus out to be Machiavellian but likable, while she makes Lucilla out to be someone who just wants to get taken seriously.

It's not a great movie, but you gotta admire the effort that went into it. One might think of it as a prequel to "Gladiator".

High Drama

[kitticat-2 · 8/10 · 18 December 2000]

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.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 26 August 2007]

In the year 180 A.D., the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who led his Roman legions against the Germanic tribes along the Danube frontier, has been at war for 17 years and lived under very difficult conditions…

Now he invited every governor, every consul and every prince in the whole empire for one particular purpose… All responded to his call coming from the deserts of Egypt, from the mountains of Armenia, from the forest of Gaul and the prairies of Spain…

Marcus Aurelius greets them as friends, and tells them that in the whole world, only two small frontiers are still hostile to Rome… One, here in the north which separates the Roman Empire from those who are called barbarians, the other, in the east of Persia… Only on these two borders Rome is finding walls, palisades, forts and hatred… But these are not the frontiers he wants… He wants and needs human frontiers, the vision of a family of nations…

For the great emperor time is short, and there is a decision which he can no longer delay… He has sacrificed the love of his son as Commodus will never be his heir… His wish is that Livius, the commander of the northern army, should succeed him, and he intends to present him to the leaders of the empire openly as his successor... He has hope that the position and responsibilities would make his son grow up as Commodus is interested only in games and gladiators...

Guiness' ailing Marcus Aurelius had hope that his daughter would not have a marriage without love… And he knows better than anyone what a marriage without love can mean… But his fears for the empire are reasonable… The east is where the danger lies…He must make an alliance that will show the whole world what value Rome place on her eastern frontier… An alliance with Armenia…

Boyd's weary Galius Livius saw suddenly his world has become strange… He's not sure where he is… He knows only the ways of war… He would not know how to make allies out of the barbarians… But if he has to choose between being Caesar's heir or Lucilla's love, he chooses her love…

Loren's lovely Lucilla makes it hard for her father to take leave of this life… She knows that her father loves her, but how could her life mean anything without love? It is out of love that she dared so much…

Plummer's slimy Commodus pushes the eastern provinces to rebellion in smashing and destroying everything his father did… He makes it clear to his sister that he refused to give her anymore chances to prop against him…

Mason's genteel Timonides has been a slave, but he's not accustomed to pain…He is a philosopher and he is weak…

Ferrer's treacherous Cleander knows that Caesar will accept fruit from him… He also knows that his blade carries a deadly poison…

Quayle's gladiator Verulus snores, in the moment of truth, a deep family secret…

Sharif's king Sohamus hopes for a lovely part of Rome…

With a cast of thousands, massive battle sequences, exciting chariot races, brutal hand to hand combat, gorgeous scenery, impressive set design, Anthony Mann's motion picture is a long ride of epic proportions not designed only to entertain but to expose how gold and corruption can undermine the biggest empire the world has ever known

The Way They Used to Make Them

[al-eaton · 18 May 2004]

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.

All Roads Lead to Rome

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 23 October 2005]

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.

Real authenticity

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 6 April 2021]

Very much a historical epic of yesteryear. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE explores the political circumstances and characters that saw the Empire destroyed from within, and it's an expansive, engaging affair in which every penny of the budget has been put on the screen. You don't get this kind of lavish set-building and huge crowds/armies in films anymore, it's all created via cheaper CGI which is a real pity as this has an authenticity like few others. In an exemplary ensemble cast, Christopher Plummer stands out in a dangerous turn.

One of the great '60s epics

[JasparLamarCrabb · 6/10 · 2 March 2013]

Far from awful, this Samuel Bronston produced epic features some great direction by Anthony Mann and some terrific acting by an unlikely cast. Marcus Aurelius dies and, knowing that leaving Rome to loony son Commodus is a bad idea, names Livius (Stephen Boyd) his heir. Livius insists that Commodus take command and thus begins the fall of the empire. The film moves quickly and it's apparent fairly fast that Commodus, played by the unbelievable Christopher Plummer, is a madman. Boyd is actually quite good and has some real chemistry with Sophia Loren (playing the daughter of Marcus Aurelius). Plummer steals the film with his wicked performance. There is perhaps one too many characters to keep track of, but for a 1960s epic, this is a standout. James Mason, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland and Alec Guinness co-star. Featuring one of Dimitri Tiomkin least bombastic music scores and stunning cinematography by Robert Krasker.

The Nail in the Coffin

[OttoVonB · 7/10 · 17 October 2006]

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.

all-time classic

[johngerardmatthew · 9/10 · 6 August 2012]

This and 'Spartacus' are the best of the Roman Epics, and it's no coincidence that 'Gladiator' is essentially a remake of TFOTRE; Scott was inspired by the best.

This is a beautifully made, intelligent film with great performances, especially from Mason. And quite fitting that it was the last of the 'Epics'...I grew up watching these films on TV with my late father who always explained the history behind them, and they remind me of him when I watch them.

I've just picked it up on Blu-Ray for very little. Although the transfer isn't as great as 'Ben Hur' or 'Cleopatra', which it fully deserves, it still looks good.

Very Good 👍

[unclet-30169 · 7/10 · 19 December 2020]

I love historical Drama, I love classic, epic Cinema. This film provides it all. Makes a great companion film to Gladiator. It is also worth noting the difference between the 2 flicks is that No CGI is inherently better IMHO. 😷enjoy.

Short review of a long movie

[Maciste_Brother · 4/10 · 28 October 2007]

FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is one of the last big budgeted Sandal epics of which started in the 1950s (QUO VADIS, THE ROBE) and lasted a good 15 years before dying a quick death. 1964 seems to be the year when the genre died, whether in the big Biblical style or the pulpy Sword & Sandal genre. And it's not surprising FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE failed so miserably. It's not a bad movie. It's a meticulously well mounted film based on a dire script. The actual historical events were too complex to cover in one film, even in a 3 hour film, but the script for FOTRE is so bad that it was almost impossible for anyone to make something palatable out of it.

In the first 45 minutes, we watch Alec Guiness, as Marcus Aurelius, dying. That's it. What a dreary and long start. And then for the next 2 hours we see everyone debating the end of Rome. Again, fun viewing. I love serious movies but the screenplay and direction was ill-conceived here: who wants to watch an old man dying for the first 45 minutes of a 3 hour film, only to be followed by more moaning and groaning? The length of the movie already demanded a lot from viewers and the dour, dark tone of the movie was too much for them to sustain interest. After the first deathly dull 45 minutes, the film never recovered afterwards.

Other things like miscast actors: no one and I mean no one seems to be related. Alec is Sophia's father? Sophia and Christopher Plummer are siblings? Stephen Boyd was a befuddled looking actor. Boyd and Sophia have no chemistry whatsoever. There's a certain amount of predictability to everything, certainly in regards to the James Mason character and what happens with the Barbarians. If a film is predictable in its direction and it's 3 hours long, the film suddenly feels like 5 hours. And as a fan of big scores, the music in FOTRE is not memorable at all and this is during one of the best decades for film scores. All these elements create a film that falls resolutely flat. It's unfortunate because the resources were there. The sets in Rome are stunning and there is one good battle scene. The tone, certainly at the end, is effectively Apocalyptic but it's too little, too late. The passion seen at the end should have been present from the start.

There's no doubt that Ridley Scott was, eh, "inspired" by this film when he made the overrated GLADIATOR. The whole beginning of GLADIATOR is almost a scene by scene copy of the beginning in FOTRE. Though more visually pleasing than the dreary FOTRE, GLADIATOR is kid's stuff compared to the Anthony Mann film. The 1964 film respected the intelligence of its audience while the Russell Crowe flick is mere junk food. Oscar winning junk food that is.

All in all, THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is a somewhat fascinating misfire. It could also be called THE FALL OF THE ROMAN INSPIRED MOVIES. It's sad that this film killed the Sword & Sandal genre back in the 1960s.

We were right Livius. There is no limit with what can be done with a human spirit, for good or evil.

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 4 June 2011]

The Fall of the Roman Empire is directed by Anthony Mann and co-written by Ben Barzman, Basilio Franchina and Philip Yordan. It stars Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, Mel Ferrer, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland & Finlay Currie. Music is scored by Dimitri Tiomkin and cinematography is by Robert Krasker. Filmed out of Samuel Bronston's productions in Spain, it was shot in the 70mm Ultra Panavision format.

Plot is a fictionalisation of events involving the Roman Empire AD 180 to 192, and focuses on the last days of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius to the death of his son and successor Commodus.

It was a financial disaster for Samuel Bronston, something that might lend one to think the film to being rather poor. That isn't the case at all, time has been kind to Mann's epic, showing it to be one of the better, more intelligent, sword and sandal epics to have surfaced in cinema history. Massive in scope and production values, it harks back to a time when epic actually meant just that. A huge cast list is supplemented by thousands of extras, all cloaked by real scenery and expertly crafted sets, with not a CGI sequence in sight. Scripting is literate, where three separate writers combine to tell a tale of political intrigue, violence, romance, glory and greed, the ultimate spun narrative of a system collapsing from within. While the action is superbly marshalled by Mann as it flits in and out of the dialogue driven story. Be it the snow laden campaign against the Germanic Barbarians, or an exciting chariot duel, Mann shows himself to be adroit in the art of scene construction.

It's not all perfect, the length at over three hours asks much of the casual observer; the production for sure is grand, but some of the longer character exchanges could easily have been trimmed. After Kirk Douglas and Charlton Heston turned down the role of Livius, Stephen Boyd filed in for lantern jawed stoicism, he looks the part but with such a razor sharp script calling for dramatic worth from one of its main characters, Boyd barely convinces in a film that convinces everywhere else. Loren, a vision of loveliness, is guilty of over pouting, but both her and Boyd's failings are masked over by the performances of the others around them, and to be fair their romantic union has the requisite warmth about it. Guinness (classy), Mason (likewise) and a terrific Plummer (grand egomaniacal villainy-himself stepping in when Richard Harris bailed) dominate proceedings, while Tiomkin's Academy Award nominated score is stirring and itself epic in production.

An essential film for the historical epic fan, The Fall of the Roman Empire is a lesson in adult sword and sandalry. 8.5/10

A good movie but not great

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 27 September 2011]

I love epics, having been brought up on the likes of Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments. As far as epics go, The Fall of the Roman Empire is not among the best, but it is hardly among the worst either. There are several amazing things about it, but also some assets that could've been done much better.

Starting with the flaws, The Fall of the Roman Empire is mostly compelling, but feels very stodgy and flat in the last forty minutes or so and in the scenes with Boyd and Loren. This is to do with three things I think. One is that of the cast, Stephen Boyd is the least impressive, most of the time he is very wooden and stiff. Two is that he and Loren have little or no chemistry together. Finally, the writing is intelligent and very well-written on the most part, particularly with the nods to Edward Gibbon, but some scenes feel really contrived and stilted.

However, like a lot of epics before, during and since, Fall of the Roman Empire is visually stunning. The Roman settings are wonderfully evocative, the costumes are sumptuous and the cinematic shots are sweeping and really quite exquisite. Dmitri Tiomkin is a favourite of mine when it comes to film composers, Fall of the Roman Empire with its rousing, beautiful and majestic themes is no exception.

Excepting Boyd, the cast are fine. For any lack of chemistry with Boyd, Sophia Loren more than makes up for it with her allure and some convincing delivery. Alec Guinness' performance is brief but altogether wonderful, Omar Sharif is every bit as charismatic as he ever was, likewise with Anthony Quayle and Mel Ferrer is appropriately menacing. James Mason is excellent, and while he has some rough spots towards the end, slightly overdoing it, Christopher Plummer is wonderfully slimy.

Fall of the Roman Empire is directed by Anthony Mann with his usual finesse, and boasts some skilled chariot action and action sequences. In conclusion, a good interesting movie, but lacks that extra something to make it go the extra mile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Amazingly bad in spots, but surprisingly interesting

[reggie_nepomuceno · 4/10 · 20 September 2005]

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.

Far too literate a film for lovers of epic action

[uds3 · 2 November 2002]

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!

Thus does Rome punish cowards!

[naseby · 7/10 · 10 July 2008]

As one reviewer has quoted, it has the appeal in 'eye candy' which is what an epic is all about. This had it all, but purported to display it as history (Well, I suppose they ALL do!) A classical world soap opera, especially with lovey-dovey interest with Loren and Boyd (Naturally being a 'sixties film it was going to have 'love interest' - perhaps as the boyfriend was going to take the girlfriend to see it!).

There were however some good actors in it, Sophia Loren as Lucilla and Alec Guinness as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Boyd (Livius) has never been a great actor and in some ways he reprises his role from Ben Hur dressed in Roman garb, only he's the good guy this time - even though he has his men push some deserters over the edge of a bridge as a punishment ! - "Thus does Rome punish cowards!"! He's at odds with Aurelius' son, Commodus, who, although the heir to the throne on Aurelius' death (Which conveniently happens) basically wants to destroy the barbarians and not make peace with them, like Aurelius wanted. For that reason Aurelius entrusted Livius as his heir, to carry out the good deeds, but Livius, after now being estranged by his boyhood friend, Commodus, (Understandably!) actually turns over the Emperor-ship TO Commodus, mainly because the Emperor forgot tell anyone BUT Livius and Lucilla and was murdered before he could publicly name his heir. In the hope he'll mature, also, Livius thinks he's done the right thing letting Commodus rule (But he doesn't mature which sets the two on collision-course over the Empire as Livius strives to carry out Aurelius' last aspirations).

Anthony Quayle as the sidekick gladiator to Christopher Plummer's megalomaniac Commodus and James Mason as Timonides do quite well. But it must be said the spectacle seems the best thing, the sets truly are outstanding.

Although there's no arena as such, the climax of the 'gladiatorial contest' between Livius and Commodus in the 'make-shift' arena of shields is well-handled, as is a chariot-race and some battles with the barbarians. With respect to the latter a lot of it is also centred on the barbarian frontier, and it copes quite well here in producing the atmosphere of isolation, savagery and beauty at the same time (As well as cold weather - I watched this film on New Year's Eve in 1983 and I made sure the fire was going!).

It also shows the intrigue of sycophantic senators to the Emperor with other fine actors, Eric Porter and Douglas Wilmer sliming up to Commodus (And the odd good one in Finlay Currie).

Livius though, a war-hero of the barbarian frontier humbled and turned into a peace-seeking soldier much like an early day UN which Marcus Aurelius envisaged is pitted against Commodus to march on Rome against him.

All in all watchable, kind of must-see for the sets, but lacking something compared to the other epics that preceded it. Excellent score by Dimitri Tiomkin though. It was a flop at the box office, maybe the title had something to do with that - but what else could you call it?

Shakespearian

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 15 September 2017]

The title refers to the corrupting politics setting the stage for the final collapse of the Roman Empire far in the future. Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness) is the aging Roman Emperor. His closest supporters are the ethical general Gaius Livius (Stephen Boyd) and Greek former slave Timonides (James Mason). Livius is in love with Aurelius' daughter Lucilla (Sophia Loren). Aurelius wants to make Livius his heir instead of his son Commodus (Christopher Plummer). This sets off a series of dark events with consequences that will bring down an empire.

Although this is a sword and sandal epic, it has more in common with a Shakespearian play. There are some action battles and big set pieces. The settings are impressive. There are some big scenes with lots of extras. It is however more reliant on an epic of human drama. Some of the acting can be old fashion but that's par for the course. Loren comes off a little stiff while Plummer revels in some broader work. In a way, it fits the Shakespearian feel. This is a nice example of a lesser known Hollywood epic.

Could have been great

[tamarenne · 6/10 · 30 March 2014]

This production could have been great, but too many mistakes were made. It has so much going for it. Alec Guiness as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, is brilliant in his role. Also honorable mention to James Mason as Timonides and Christopher Plummer a very under-rated Commodus. As far as acting, that is about it.

Also not to be forgotten is the amazing set design and photography, which I think remain unmatched to this day.

On the negative side, a fright wigged Stephen Boyd as Livius practically begs the audience to chuckle. Likewise Sophia Loren, sporting about ten pounds of 1960's Italian Vogue make-up, is wasted. She and Boyd are actors that could, if given proper direction, deliver decent performances. That direction was sadly lacking in this movie. At times, when these two are together, the movie feels like a Barbra Cartland Bodice ripper, with hot declarations of love and long simmering stares at one another.

The director obviously had no idea WHAT he wanted to do with the movie. Most egregiously, the score was absolutely horrendous. That mishmash of genres and boring symphonic melodies clashed with almost every minute of screen time in which they were utilized. A worse example of a score I cannot imagine.

And let us not forget the plot, if it can be described as such. Somehow the meandering, at cross purposes, vague and boring plot managed to stretch 188 minutes into a seeming 188 THOUSAND, waiting in vain for something to actually happen. Nothing really ever does.

One of the more intelligent epics

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 24 February 2008]

First there was "Cleopatra" to put the mockers on the large-scale Roman epic then this, which despite being largely intelligent and expansive, was the nail in the coffin for this sort of thing for decades to come. Perhaps the title was prophetic; whatever, the film was a commercial and critical disaster.

Only a few years earlier Samuel Bronston's production of "El Cid", also directed by Anthony Mann and starring Sophia Loren and again filmed in Spain, (well, it would, wouldn't it), was a huge success so it seemed likely that the formula would be repeated but the tide had turned and coming hot on the heels of the debacle that was "Cleopatra" audiences stayed away in droves, the pity being that this remains one of the finer examples of the genre with an unusually literate script and fine performances from its quite considerable cast.

Ironically, the first half formed the basis of the first part of "Gladiator" which was a huge success, winning the Oscar as the year's Best Picture, (this limped home with one nomination for Dimitri Tiomkin's emphatic score). But by then CGI reduced the need for vast sets and millions of extras and, unfortunately, for the kind of imagination that this film had in spades.

Historical and epic film with big budget financed by the great producer Samuel Bronston and spectacularly shot in Spain

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 26 January 2005]

The movie deals with the great emperor of Rome , Marco Aurelio (Alec Guinness) , of the dynasty of Antoninos , formed by : Nerva , Trajano , Adriano , Antonino Pio , Marco Aurelio and Commodo (Christopher Plummer , though Richard Harris was originally cast and he withdrew because of artistic differences with the director) . After that , there happens several riots and coups d'etat until Diocleciano , who imposed peace and order with the Tetrarchy . Being dead Marco Aurelio , succeeded his son Commodo , a nutty gladiator emperor , he'll take on his sister Drusilla (Sophia Loren) and Livio (Stephen Boyd replaced Charlton Heston and he blamed the massive commercial failure for ruining his career) . They'll have to fight against German barbarians (commanded by John Ireland) and Persians (ruled by Omar Shariff).

In the picture there are struggles , epic events , a love history and being very interesting , in spite of the fact that the runtime is overlong : about three hours . Budgeted at about $20 million , this was Paramount's biggest flop of 1964 , its failure cost producer Samuel Bronston his Spanish production facility . Cast and support are frankly well . As Alec Guinness as a stoic and thoughtful philosopher emperor craving the ¨Pax Romana¨ (Latin for the "Peace in Rome¨) is top-notch . Christopher Plummer's interpretation as the nut-head son is first-rate , he was 33 at the time of filming , although his character Commodus became Emperor at the age of 19 ; while other main actors as Stephen Boyd and Sophia Loren are a bit wooden . James Mason as Marco Aurelio's broody and good adviser is excellent . This lavishly financed film was originally intended to be made after El Cid and to reunite Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren . The set for the Forum Romanum was actually being built when Heston rejected the script but expressed an interest in '55 Days at Peking' instead . Samuel Bronston immediately ordered that the work on the Forum be stopped and the landscaping and foundation work be adapted for the Peking set . After filming , the Peking set was torn down and replaced by the Forum , if you look carefully , both sets share a very similar topography . Colosanti and John Moore production design is breathtaking . Battles staged by Yakima Canutt are incredible and impressive . Scenarios are overwhelming : the Roman Forum , Roman Capitol , the temples...the sets are spellbound . Colorful cinematography by the great cameraman Robert Krasker is awesome , similar to Dimitri Tiomkin's fascinating and romantic musical score . Anthony Mann's direction in his last film is spectacular and outstanding . The motion picture didn't achieve success at the box office , it was a real flop and collapsed Samuel Bronston's empire . Rating : Above average . Well worth Watching . Very Good .

Rambling in Ancient Rome

[vorkapich · 6/10 · 3 February 2007]

This film would seem to have almost everything going for it: lavish production, a fine cast, and an excellent director. Why, then, are there considerable stretches while watching the beautifully rendered goings-on here when one's mind drifts to thoughts of other epics and one's eye wanders to what the extras are doing in some of the scenes? The answer is that "almost everything" did not include an involving script. There are many intelligently written scenes, and some scenes where there is even a dramatic spark or two. But on the whole there is a certain desultory aspect to the film. The love interest at what passes for the dramatic center of the film is hazy and unengaging, the machinations of the Roman court don't really grip the interest, barbarians are given their due in what amounts to a film-within-a-film, and then there's James Mason, who serves as something of a Greek chorus and delivers long speeches about CIVILIZATION as a way of underlining the film's seriousness. Can anybody who has written a review of this for IMDb claim that they really cared about what was going on among the characters?

That having been said, this film is one of those guilty pleasures to be indulged in from time to time, where one can watch the profusion of sets and the parade of costumes, and be thrilled by the action sequences. To say nothing of watching Christopher Plummer be slyly twisted as Commodus--he's much more amusing than Joaquin Phoenix playing the same emperor in "Gladiator."

All-in-all, a ramble in ancient Rome that cries out for more cohesion.

No wonder Rome took so long to fall

[jbergez-1 · 1/10 · 4 August 2002]

In this movie, everything happens in ponderous, pointless slow motion. The movie is like a leaning tower that takes forever to fall. Lots of reaction shots of people looking grave, or possibly, just out of the grave. The screenplay aims for sonorousness but succeeds only in being incredibly trite, not to mention predictable. The acting is wooden, all right, but then so are the lines. Leave it to Hollywood to take a grand theme and make a tedious costume soap opera out of it. See Spartacus instead, or, if you must, Gladiator.

A kind of Film Artistry that modern hollywood cant duplicate

[Chimale1025 · 9/10 · 8 March 2004]

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.

Comparing historical notes

[jeffyoung1 · 7/10 · 20 May 2018]

If you're a purist Roman historian, you'll likely find yourself somewhat disappointed. The director deliberately took some historical liberties to flesh out an intense historical human drama. But it's not all that bad. It is interesting. The movie follows historical events of 180 A.D., sort of. There is no historical record that Marcus Aurelius intended a pan-Roman peace as the movie indicated. In fact, Marcus far-reaching ambition was to create two, new Roman provinces after defeating the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmatians. The concept of pan-Roman citizenship became reality in 211-212 A.D. when emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship throughout the empire. In 180 A.D., Marcus was preoccupied with the survival of the Roman empire itself. After 22 years of almost total peace and prosperity throughout the Roman empire under the sage emperor Antoninus Pius, his successors, the co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus found themselves almost immediately beset by attacks on the empire from Parthia in the east and the warlike Germanic Chauci and Chatti tribes. With difficulty both threats were met and neutralized but that was only the beginning. Historians think that westward migratory movements by Gothic tribes in eastern Europe started a chain reaction of Germanic tribes moving west and south west into Roman empire territory. The Marcomanni had always been known to Rome since the time of emperor Trajan. This powerful, large Germanic tribe had, with few exceptions, usually stable relations with Rome. But over 60 years later, population growth affected not only the Marcommani but almost every major Germanic tribe. New lands were needed by everyone. But Europe was now thoroughly settled. Nations could not expand without coming into conflict with another. After one punitive expedition to repel a Germanic invading tribe, Verus died, leaving Marcus to deal with the most serious threat that Rome had faced from foreign invaders in centuries. The Marcommani, Quadi, and Sarmatian tribes poured into the Roman empire and the Romans suffered serious military setbacks and at one time Marcus and his army were surrounded by the Quadi and defeat was near. The fighting was desperate and often hopeless but against all odds, Marcus and his legions prevailed, barely at the price of immense casualties. All three tribes were thoroughly defeated and had to sue for peace. It was at this point the exhausted Marcus, never a robust man, is thought by historians to have died of stomach cancer. There is no historical record that Marcus intended to replace his son Commodus nor is there any record of Marcus' thoughts and conversations to that effect. Historians still thought it odd because Marcus' four emperor predecessors selected their successor and it was not a son or relative. Marcus broke the chain of emperors selecting a qualified man as successor and this bore serious consequences for the empire. Nonetheless, history records that Commodus tried to rule justly and competently in his first six years of rule. Commodus must have listened to Marcus' advisors because he abandoned the plan to create two new Roman provinces from the lands of the defeated Germanic tribes. The realism Commodus faced was that the Roman army was depleted. Two new provinces would require at least three Roman legions apiece for minimum military occupation, manpower that Rome didn't have. Nor did Rome have the financial resources after a dozen years of continual warfare. Rome was financially spent. Given the realities of the situation, Commodus abandoned his father's plans for two, new provinces. Another poster was puzzled that the Roman legionaries carried their swords on their right side as this would make for awkward withdrawal with the right hand. But this is true. Roman legionaries carried their gladius swords on the right side, according to orders. Only the centurions and higher officers could wear their swords on the more convenient left side, which they did. Historians are still not certain as to the reason but it was military regulation for the typical legionnaire to carry his gladius on the right side.

gobble gobble

[rupie · 4/10 · 25 August 2000]

An overstuffed turkey, if there ever was one. The enthusiastic Maltin comments (intelligent "scripting"? fine acting?) shows that he is not paying enough to the flacks who write under his name.

The movie prompted me to do a bit of historical research and, although true in broad outline, there are several egregious errors and fabrications. The character of Livius, as far as I can see, is a complete fiction. He was created, evidently, to provide a needed foil for Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son, but assassinated in a palace plot. Commodus actually sought to draw back from his father's territorially expansive policies, contrary to what the film indicates, although he did display the megalomaniacal tendencies shown here. The open bidding for the throne took place not at the death of Commodus, but of his installed successor, Pertinax. And although this film takes place about 180 A.D., the actual disintegration of the western empire didn't take place until over 200 years later (though the narration makes clear that these events were the beginning of a long process of decline).

As far as the acting, the great Guinness basically phones in his part, and Mason isn't much better. Sophia Loren seems to be sleepwalking. Stephen Boyd is adequate. The only bright spot is Christopher Plummer, who steals the show with his curiously engaging performance of a Commodus on the borderline of dementia.

As for direction, the movie just doesn't hang together, in no small part due to the impossible task of making a coherent movie out of such sweeping historical issues. There are too many short scenes that don't cohere, and the situation is not helped by a leaden script that - contrary to what "Maltin" says - is turgid and so loaded with trite cliches as to make one groan. An overreliance on tight closeup shots also detracts from sweep and grandeur. The great Dmitri Tiomkin here produces a score that does not, as a score should, underlie and point up the action; it draws attention to itself and too often seems out of character with what is happening onscreen. (See, e.g. The Guns of Navarone for a better indication of his talents). Some of the fur-trimmed costume accoutrements worn by the leads in the northern climes are ridiculously anachronistic.

The best part of the flick, to me, were the evocatively atmospheric imperial encampment set in the northern climes, and the chariot "race", an obvious ripoff from the Ben-Hur of five years previous (was this a nostalgia trip on the part of Stephen Boyd, who lost the previous one?). These, however, do not sustain three hours of viewing. This sword-and-sandal epic fares poorly against competitors as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and even The Egyptian.