You've ignored this film. It will no longer appear as a recommendation. View ignored films.
You've decided to remember The Fall of the Roman Empire for later. You can see all your remembered films here.
Summary: Action-packed look at the beginnings of the fall of the Roman Empire. Here is the glory, the greed and grandeur that was Rome. Here is the story of personal lust for power, and the shattering effects of that power's loss. Here is the tale of the plight of a people living on the brink of a political abyss.
Filled with grand scenes and massive set pieces, "The Fall..." is laced with much of the polish and sheen expected from these type of Golden Age epics. That said, although the scale is admirable, this is a largly souless affair. The three hours drag awfully at times. A movie to watch once and enjoy, but no more than that.
"Put bluntly, the difference between El Cid and Fall is the difference between faith in a concept of heroism that can transcend even death." - Fernando F. Croce
Excellent, robust epic with a fine cast; unfortunately Loren and Boyd make for bland leads but are more than compensated for by Guinness and Mason (superb as always) and an especially wonderful early performance from Plummer. Occassional slugishness (especially in the first half) is outweighed by an intelligent screenplay, and the sheer muscularity of the production, with some scenes still unequalled in the epic genre for pure spectacle. Rivals BEN HUR for most exciting chariot race sequence!
It is a movie of grand proportions. At the runtime of over 3 hours it consists of a few big scenes, and a very little real emotions between them. What I liked about this movie, that it keeps fair share of focus on politics, not only on love storyline and action scenes. Plummer was very good in this. Due to the lack of heart film gets boring, and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who has no interest in roman history.
Excellent epic for those who love the history of Rome. "Gladiator" was undoubtelly inspired on this as it follows the same story line (minus the gladiator thing, that is). This one is more historically credible.
Candidate for the weakest of the Golden Age of Epics for Hollywood. The casting was passable with Alec Guinness the best of show. The script seemed rough and the budget lower thanks to the spectacular meltdown of Cleopatra a year earlier. The spiritual successor, Gladiator, had a much more succinct story
If you're the type of person whose pulse races when he hears the phrase, "shot in Ultra Panavision by Robert Krasker," then maybe this film's for you. Otherwise, it's rough going. A stiff, bloated epic, typical of the era. Anthony Mann is unable to make it move, though there are highlights (a chariot race, Aurelius' funeral), and the sheer scope of the thing is occasionally breathtaking. Too often I found myself clinging to Christopher Plummer's hammy Commodus as the only sign of life onscreen.
A lot of wonderful spectacle here, and it is certainly better than Gladiator--a film that stole much from it--but it never really comes together. It is worth a look, though, for the memorable homoerotic scene of Boyd and Plummer each drinking from the other's wineskin!
Intelligent scripting, good direction, and fine acting place this far above the usual empty-headed spectacle. Mason and Guinness are superb; several action sequences are outstanding. A winner all the way.