Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaConstantine joins the Roman army to find his missing childhood friend. Once alerted to his friend's whereabouts, he prepares for an all out war between the East and the West.Constantine joins the Roman army to find his missing childhood friend. Once alerted to his friend's whereabouts, he prepares for an all out war between the East and the West.Constantine joins the Roman army to find his missing childhood friend. Once alerted to his friend's whereabouts, he prepares for an all out war between the East and the West.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
Nicole Cernat
- Katherine
- (as Nicole Madjarov)
Recensioni in evidenza
As a huge fan of historical dramas, both book and movie, I was so looking forward to this movie. I've never written a review on here before but my disappointment with this movie was so intense that I felt it needed airing. This was perhaps the worst acting I have ever seen in my life (55 yrs). The drugged stares into space, the stilted line delivery, the over dramatic acting by lesser actors in bit parts, the choppy scene transitions. The whole thing was tragically sad and I finally, after multiple attempts, shelved it, never to be finished.
It's a great story I would love to see it done properly and given it's due diligence. This just wasn't it.
It's a great story I would love to see it done properly and given it's due diligence. This just wasn't it.
I am a fan of historical fact based drama films. Coming across Katherine of Alexandria and discovering Edward Fox and Peter O'Toole were amongst it's the cast, I was very eager to watch it.
I wasted 108 minutes of my life! Poor (at best) acting and directing, "history" rewritten by the film studio and a general wondering if the whole movie was shot using cheap camcorders.
On the plus side, now I have seen it maybe I am able to steer others away from it. Then maybe my 108 minutes would not seem so futile.
1/10 because IMDb won't let me rate at 0. I will have to watch Lawrence of Arabia now to remind me how great Peter O'Toole was.
I wasted 108 minutes of my life! Poor (at best) acting and directing, "history" rewritten by the film studio and a general wondering if the whole movie was shot using cheap camcorders.
On the plus side, now I have seen it maybe I am able to steer others away from it. Then maybe my 108 minutes would not seem so futile.
1/10 because IMDb won't let me rate at 0. I will have to watch Lawrence of Arabia now to remind me how great Peter O'Toole was.
Within five minutes I had figured out that this film was made by a woman - a vanity project for the star. It screams feminism. The British warriors fighting the Romans in Northern England are all women, their men having been killed. They even have a token confident assertive black woman ship owner - what was she doing on Hadrian's wall? Katherine's writings are distributed by women couriers, and so on. I was expecting the current obligatory lesbian relationship, but might have missed it when I finally gave up pausing it to do something else and switched it off permanently. Apart from being incomprehensible plot wise, the dialog screamed out for dubbing. I had no problem with the written dialog, just - the - way - it - was - delivered. The leading lady who also produced, spoke in a stilted phonetic English that was excruciating to listen to. Dubbing the foreign actors in normal speed would have sped up the film 75%. OK she gets applause for trying, but the audience deserves better. I really thought I was watching a post war Italian sandals and toga epic.
My question, how did the female Mel Gibson get the funding for this vanity project? It was almost as bad, not quite, but almost, as the independent film about St. Theresa of Liseiux. This film did not even deserve to go straight to DVD, it should have gone into the trash can.
My question, how did the female Mel Gibson get the funding for this vanity project? It was almost as bad, not quite, but almost, as the independent film about St. Theresa of Liseiux. This film did not even deserve to go straight to DVD, it should have gone into the trash can.
I have only given it 2 as Edward Fox is as splendid as always. The story jumps all over the place, it is historical nonesense and utterly confusing. Some of the acting is worse than dire and the direction is appalling. Peter o'toole is sadly wasted but even with a better script this would have been a film too many for him.
I can understand why this film was not given wider publicity - it is rubbish and you will be wasting your time watching it.
I can understand why this film was not given wider publicity - it is rubbish and you will be wasting your time watching it.
"Decline of an Empire" (also known as "Katherine of Alexandria") marks the final film for Peter O'Toole. Because of this, I was very anxious to see this film. Now, in hindsight I really regret this. Instead of a last chance to see this wonderful actor, I now remember this as a truly dull and awful film--and O'Toole's legacy deserved better than this. Thankfully, his great films will always overshadow films like "Decline of an Empire". The sooner we forget about it and go on, the better.
The story is about a martyred saint, Katherine of Alexandria, a woman who might have lived during the fourth century. I say might because there seems to be little evidence that she actually existed and her life and martyrdom are based on traditions rather than concrete facts. These traditions, interestingly, began about 500 years after her supposed death--further adding weight to the notion that she is a myth. Still, it could make for a very interesting story--especially as it's set during the waning days of the old Roman Empire. Soon, Christianity would become accepted and no longer persecuted--and this is an incredibly interesting period of change and upheaval. As a retired history teacher and film lover, I wanted to love this film and the plot seemed like it was right up my alley. So why did the film go so wrong?
Like too many recent 'epics', the film was obviously made on a micro- budget. This could work in some cases, but seeing scenes where a dozen or so men constitute a major Roman battle is laughable. This can also be said of scenes involving cities like Rome and Alexandria--places consisting of a tiny handful of actors instead of thriving metropolises. There is nothing epic about this...it's just sad and cheap. The dialog is also ponderous beyond belief. So much of it seemed to make little sense and my attention span waned throughout the movie. Much of it just boggled my mind at how dull and silly it sounded coming out of real live people. Additionally, it sure sounded as if many of the characters in the film were performed by actors who didn't understand English and were merely delivering their lines phonetically. Too often, bizarre accents and odd annunciations derailed important scenes and left the viewer confused and bored. This combined with the dull dialog mentioned above really made the film difficult to enjoy.
The film also kept referring to Egyptians as 'Arabs'. Egyptians might speak a variation on Arabic today, but in the 4th century, when this film is set, the Egyptians had not yet been conquered by the Arabs (which happened several hundred years later) and ethnically they were North Africans. No ancient Roman would have called Egyptians Arabs. I know that this is the history teacher in me talking once again--but this and other historical inaccuracies guarantee that even history teachers won't like this dull film.
I could probably go on a bit more why I hated this film. Suffice to say it had little of O'Toole or the other fine older actors Edward Fox and Joss Acklund--so there's little for their fans in this movie. Their presence was very limited and they often seemed a bit lost in the film. And, even for nostalgia value, it wasn't even enjoyable. A sadly awful film. And, incidentally, as I watched it, my older daughter kept begging me to turn it off...and she, like me, usually loves things about the ancient world. I am sorry for putting you through this, Sarah.
The story is about a martyred saint, Katherine of Alexandria, a woman who might have lived during the fourth century. I say might because there seems to be little evidence that she actually existed and her life and martyrdom are based on traditions rather than concrete facts. These traditions, interestingly, began about 500 years after her supposed death--further adding weight to the notion that she is a myth. Still, it could make for a very interesting story--especially as it's set during the waning days of the old Roman Empire. Soon, Christianity would become accepted and no longer persecuted--and this is an incredibly interesting period of change and upheaval. As a retired history teacher and film lover, I wanted to love this film and the plot seemed like it was right up my alley. So why did the film go so wrong?
Like too many recent 'epics', the film was obviously made on a micro- budget. This could work in some cases, but seeing scenes where a dozen or so men constitute a major Roman battle is laughable. This can also be said of scenes involving cities like Rome and Alexandria--places consisting of a tiny handful of actors instead of thriving metropolises. There is nothing epic about this...it's just sad and cheap. The dialog is also ponderous beyond belief. So much of it seemed to make little sense and my attention span waned throughout the movie. Much of it just boggled my mind at how dull and silly it sounded coming out of real live people. Additionally, it sure sounded as if many of the characters in the film were performed by actors who didn't understand English and were merely delivering their lines phonetically. Too often, bizarre accents and odd annunciations derailed important scenes and left the viewer confused and bored. This combined with the dull dialog mentioned above really made the film difficult to enjoy.
The film also kept referring to Egyptians as 'Arabs'. Egyptians might speak a variation on Arabic today, but in the 4th century, when this film is set, the Egyptians had not yet been conquered by the Arabs (which happened several hundred years later) and ethnically they were North Africans. No ancient Roman would have called Egyptians Arabs. I know that this is the history teacher in me talking once again--but this and other historical inaccuracies guarantee that even history teachers won't like this dull film.
I could probably go on a bit more why I hated this film. Suffice to say it had little of O'Toole or the other fine older actors Edward Fox and Joss Acklund--so there's little for their fans in this movie. Their presence was very limited and they often seemed a bit lost in the film. And, even for nostalgia value, it wasn't even enjoyable. A sadly awful film. And, incidentally, as I watched it, my older daughter kept begging me to turn it off...and she, like me, usually loves things about the ancient world. I am sorry for putting you through this, Sarah.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizJoss Ackland's final film.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Sven Uslings Bio: 2021 års sämsta filmer Del 2: Plats 10-1 (2022)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Decline of an Empire?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Decline of an Empire
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Paphos, Cipro(Exterior)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 12.000.000 £ (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 50 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Katherine of Alexandria (2014) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi