An overstuffed turkey, if there ever was one. The enthusiastic Maltin comments (intelligent "scripting"? fine acting?) shows that he is not paying enough to the flacks who write under his name.
The movie prompted me to do a bit of historical research and, although true in broad outline, there are several egregious errors and fabrications. The character of Livius, as far as I can see, is a complete fiction. He was created, evidently, to provide a needed foil for Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son, but assassinated in a palace plot. Commodus actually sought to draw back from his father's territorially expansive policies, contrary to what the film indicates, although he did display the megalomaniacal tendencies shown here. The open bidding for the throne took place not at the death of Commodus, but of his installed successor, Pertinax. And although this film takes place about 180 A.D., the actual disintegration of the western empire didn't take place until over 200 years later (though the narration makes clear that these events were the beginning of a long process of decline).
As far as the acting, the great Guinness basically phones in his part, and Mason isn't much better. Sophia Loren seems to be sleepwalking. Stephen Boyd is adequate. The only bright spot is Christopher Plummer, who steals the show with his curiously engaging performance of a Commodus on the borderline of dementia.
As for direction, the movie just doesn't hang together, in no small part due to the impossible task of making a coherent movie out of such sweeping historical issues. There are too many short scenes that don't cohere, and the situation is not helped by a leaden script that - contrary to what "Maltin" says - is turgid and so loaded with trite cliches as to make one groan. An overreliance on tight closeup shots also detracts from sweep and grandeur. The great Dmitri Tiomkin here produces a score that does not, as a score should, underlie and point up the action; it draws attention to itself and too often seems out of character with what is happening onscreen. (See, e.g. The Guns of Navarone for a better indication of his talents). Some of the fur-trimmed costume accoutrements worn by the leads in the northern climes are ridiculously anachronistic.
The best part of the flick, to me, were the evocatively atmospheric imperial encampment set in the northern climes, and the chariot "race", an obvious ripoff from the Ben-Hur of five years previous (was this a nostalgia trip on the part of Stephen Boyd, who lost the previous one?). These, however, do not sustain three hours of viewing. This sword-and-sandal epic fares poorly against competitors as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and even The Egyptian.
The movie prompted me to do a bit of historical research and, although true in broad outline, there are several egregious errors and fabrications. The character of Livius, as far as I can see, is a complete fiction. He was created, evidently, to provide a needed foil for Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son, but assassinated in a palace plot. Commodus actually sought to draw back from his father's territorially expansive policies, contrary to what the film indicates, although he did display the megalomaniacal tendencies shown here. The open bidding for the throne took place not at the death of Commodus, but of his installed successor, Pertinax. And although this film takes place about 180 A.D., the actual disintegration of the western empire didn't take place until over 200 years later (though the narration makes clear that these events were the beginning of a long process of decline).
As far as the acting, the great Guinness basically phones in his part, and Mason isn't much better. Sophia Loren seems to be sleepwalking. Stephen Boyd is adequate. The only bright spot is Christopher Plummer, who steals the show with his curiously engaging performance of a Commodus on the borderline of dementia.
As for direction, the movie just doesn't hang together, in no small part due to the impossible task of making a coherent movie out of such sweeping historical issues. There are too many short scenes that don't cohere, and the situation is not helped by a leaden script that - contrary to what "Maltin" says - is turgid and so loaded with trite cliches as to make one groan. An overreliance on tight closeup shots also detracts from sweep and grandeur. The great Dmitri Tiomkin here produces a score that does not, as a score should, underlie and point up the action; it draws attention to itself and too often seems out of character with what is happening onscreen. (See, e.g. The Guns of Navarone for a better indication of his talents). Some of the fur-trimmed costume accoutrements worn by the leads in the northern climes are ridiculously anachronistic.
The best part of the flick, to me, were the evocatively atmospheric imperial encampment set in the northern climes, and the chariot "race", an obvious ripoff from the Ben-Hur of five years previous (was this a nostalgia trip on the part of Stephen Boyd, who lost the previous one?). These, however, do not sustain three hours of viewing. This sword-and-sandal epic fares poorly against competitors as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and even The Egyptian.