A.D.

In the tradition of the Robe, Quo Vadis, and Jesus of Nazareth, this film is more than just a religious movie but a historical account of the Roman Empire. It goes in greater detail than any thing I've seen before about the time period. I've seen it only once and that was when I was ten years old. It left such a good impression on me that I still remember it fifteen years later.

I plead with the people who own this, PUT IT OUT ON DVD please, and Thank You.

The team Anthony Burgess/Vincenzo Labella has after tremendous movies like "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Moses the Lawgiver" once again surpassed itself by retelling the story about the birth of christianity in such a fascinating and powerful way. Nothing compares to the profound "road to Emmaus-scene" which conveys the new hope in Christs resurrection in a very moving way. Dennis Quilley played Peter in accordance with Luke's descripion of him in the book of the acts. But the greatest performance was undoubtetly Philip Sayer as Paul who especially knew how to portray the change that took place in his character on the road to Damascus. Watching him in his role was seeing a vivid portrayal of what it means and takes to change from Saul to Paul. Nobody knows what Paul acctually looked like but everytime I hear the name Paul or think about this great apostle the image of Philip Sayer as Paul popes up in my mind - an astounding performance! The roman emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero were depicted in a very impressive way. They even had some similarity with the real emperors busts which are still preserved. Apart from the wonderful spititual message this movie conveys it is as some other viewers already observed very accurate with historical details like f. e. Claudius who hid himself behind the curtain before he was hailed as Romes new emperor or Calebs mentioning of Pilates massacre among the samaritans that made him lose his position. Scenes like these were in absolute accordance with the historical records of the roman age. (A little flaw: baptisms were performed by immersion at that time) Not only the acting but also the music was first class! It couldn't have been better. I also wonder why this movie isn't available on DVD or at least on VHS.

To whom it may concern: Release it on DVD!

A.D. has to be one of the most breathtaking attempts to create a film based on the events surrounding the early Roman Empire's encounter with the then-nascent sect of Christianity. Unfortunately, the attempt is bloated and collapses under the weight of its own pretensions. Many in the incredible ensemble casts give terrific performances, not the least of which are Ava Gardner, Anthony Andrews, James Mason, and Paul Freeman. However, there is an equal number giving uninsipired performances, particularly among the fictional main characters.

The dialogue verges between passable and ludicrously embarrassing. That some great actors had to deliver ham-fisted lines is somewhat of a travesty. It also becomes overwhelmingly preachy and sentimental at times, so don't look for an objective view of the historical period.

The best thing going for A.D. is the production values, which are top-notch. Moreso than any movie up until that point, it conveyed a real sense of what it was like to live in that time period. But that and the few inspired performances aren't enough to save this from being a missed opportunity.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

"Soon the night will come, and we shall be questioned of LOVE..." (the most memorable quote from the movie).

When I watched the miniseries ANNO DOMINI, it made me think that I watch the continuation of Jesus of Nazareth (1977). This has its basis in the fact that the screenplay of Anthony Burgess appears in Jesus of Nazareth too, as well as the photography by Ennio Guarnieri. Other crew are also the same, except for the director, of course. What else makes it strikingly similar to Zeffirelli's colorful depiction of Christ's life is the convention, the music (very touching), the way Jews are showed. And I like it. It is really a true depiction of the situation of the first Nazarenes, or later called Christians. Some scenes showing the spread of Christian faith are really touching!

The historical plot is, however, a background. What comes into view are the fictitious characters, mostly Jews and a Roman, who, in the long run, convert to Christianity. One of them is a Roman soldier, Valerius (Neil Dickson) who falls in love with a Jewish girl, Sarah (Amanda Pays). He experiences the insane reign of Caligula (John McEnery) and sees the decadence and moral downfall of the Roman Empire. When he meets Paul of Tarsus, his life is never the same... I was particularly moved by the scene near the end when he says that while holding the body of a little girl killed on arena, he knew he had been holding Jesus crucified. As a result, the movie is not only another mini series about the 1st century, but leads to profound religious reflections.

The Roman story, however, is poorly presented. It is faithful to history but it too much imitates the style of a classical BBC series I CLAUDIUS (1976) (most viewers remember an excellent acting of Derek Jacobi). Here, in A.D. it is not that interesting! Maybe, the role of Nero (Anthony Andrews) - but that's one of the very few good portrayals of Romans. Ava Gardner as Nero's mother gives a memorable performance, but not her finest one, James Mason is not bad as Tiberius (his last role), and John McEnery is good as insane Caligula (but I like John Hurt in I CLAUDIUS more). The arena moments are haunting and historically exaggerated. Children, worn as sheep, go to arena to be bitten by wild dogs.

/When Caleb wants to rescue them he says to the guard: "Leave them in peace! These are children!" The Roman's reaction is: "Children? These are Christians"!/

I also don't know what led the producers present Poppaea, Nero's wife, as such a gentle, good woman.

Nevertheless, the cast of the movie are very good - lots of great stars (another similarity to Zeffirelli's movie), like already mentioned Ava Gardner, James Mason, John Mc Enery, Anthony Andrews and lots of others. They are a real treasure of this film and make it more valuable.

I love Philip Sayer's portrayal of Paul. He is the best Paul ever. His eyes, his face expression are wonderful!!! In fact, I can't imagine a better choice for Paul of Tarsus. The scene of Saul's (later Paul's) conversion is visually stunning and very moving. "Saul, why do you persecute me?"... Denis Quiley's portrayal of Peter is also worth considering, but not that memorable.

In sum, I would put it like that: ANNO DOMINI is worth watching due to its story, its cast and its touching content combined with lovely music. The Christian plot is done very well; however, don't pay too much attention to the Roman plot if you saw I CLAUDIUS (1976) before. 7/10

I saw A.D. a few years ago on television. It was the only series/film about the Roman empire I saw, in which the Forum Romanum was rebuild realisticly. Although it is very difficult (not to say impossible) to revive the past, I would say that the cast and crew of A.D. managed to recreate the first decades of the Roman Empire in a realistic and believable way. If one wants to learn more of the history of this period, A.D. provides a good history lesson.

I liked also the way in which the several stories are set. Not only do we get a view of the lives of the first Roman emperors and the deciples in Israel, the series also follows the lives of a few common people in these times. The mixture of these stories (although this is fictious) is very good.

I find A.D. a very good series. It is a pity that there are no reruns of the series. I understand A.D. is on VHS, but I did not find it yet (Maybe someone can help me with this). Hopefully one day it will be released on DVD. I am looking forward to that.