La caída del imperio romano

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".

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.

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.

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!

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