Katherine of Alexandria

Anyone who gets a film made should be commended, this, unfortunately, is where the compliments end.

The main fault in the film lies in the script. There is no narrative, the writer/director has essentially cobbled together a bunch of scenes in the hope that they will connect with each other with no real threat or drive for the characters. It is understandable why actors such as the late Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox would be attracted to such a piece, if they were given free reign they'd be munching at the scenery like a rabbit on a lettuce leaf. Yet, they're not. These actors are restrained and make for a dull viewing experience. Seeing actors of this calibre being given the opportunity letting rip is always a pleasure, the fact that they are not is a wasted opportunity.

Nicole Keniheart may look the part, but as a unifying presence for the whole story, she fails. There is nothing of interest to her, and the fate that falls on her doesn't have the emotional wallop that the Director was hoping for as we simply don't care for her. She has no character and as such we never truly connect with her. More could have been made of Katherine's affect on Rome and how she changed the lives of others as such it just feels as if her "followers" blindly accept that she is the second coming and go along with her.

On the whole the film is flat and the greatest crime of all: dull. Ridley Scott's latest film "Exodus" suffered from a similar problem, yet at least it had spectacle. Granted this is on a lower budget, but there was potential to do so much with the material but fails miserably. We don't care for the characters, we aren't drawn into the story and the script is risible. There is a great story to be told about this woman and the last days of the Roman Empire, but this is not that film.

On the plus side, it's in focus.

In my opinion I think that there is some unintentional misleading by the movie moguls. I bought the DVD and found out for myself that this movie is clearly the story of Katherine of Alexandria and not an 'Epic battle'. I have heard from friends in Germany and the UK and the focus there is where it should be, on the life story of Katherine. I didn't take this as a religious story, I don't claim to be a religious expert and therefore cannot comment on any 'inaccuracies'. I just wanted to watch a movie, hopefully enjoy it--which I did--and see Peter O'Toole's last performance.

A big story on a small budget always gets my attention. For anyone wanting Hollywood hype and glamor, this educational story is probably not for you.

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.

We now know who killed Peter O'Toole. It was Michael Redwood. Assault with a dead film. Inept at best, ham handed writing, lines delivered as if actors were zombies, and Mr. Redwood's claim to fame: music, so over the top as to give the listener instant diabetes. Plan 9 from Outer Space is better than this. Many cite Kineheart as the sole standout in this cast. They are wrong. Vacuous....maybe this is a zombie picture. Maybe Redwood is ahead of his time...Zombies From Rome...dunno. All I know is that I want my money back so I can buy a lobotomy and excise this dreck from my brain. I laugh at those in regard to this film who warn away the end spoilers...the end of this film is a blessing. It's only spoiled in its playing.

"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.