The Fall of the Roman Empire

The movie deals with the great emperor of Rome , Marco Aurelio (Alec Guinness) , of the dynasty of Antoninos , formed by : Nerva , Trajano , Adriano , Antonino Pio , Marco Aurelio and Commodo (Christopher Plummer , though Richard Harris was originally cast and he withdrew because of artistic differences with the director) . After that , there happens several riots and coups d'etat until Diocleciano , who imposed peace and order with the Tetrarchy . Being dead Marco Aurelio , succeeded his son Commodo , a nutty gladiator emperor , he'll take on his sister Drusilla (Sophia Loren) and Livio (Stephen Boyd replaced Charlton Heston and he blamed the massive commercial failure for ruining his career) . They'll have to fight against German barbarians (commanded by John Ireland) and Persians (ruled by Omar Shariff).

In the picture there are struggles , epic events , a love history and being very interesting , in spite of the fact that the runtime is overlong : about three hours . Budgeted at about $20 million , this was Paramount's biggest flop of 1964 , its failure cost producer Samuel Bronston his Spanish production facility . Cast and support are frankly well . As Alec Guinness as a stoic and thoughtful philosopher emperor craving the ¨Pax Romana¨ (Latin for the "Peace in Rome¨) is top-notch . Christopher Plummer's interpretation as the nut-head son is first-rate , he was 33 at the time of filming , although his character Commodus became Emperor at the age of 19 ; while other main actors as Stephen Boyd and Sophia Loren are a bit wooden . James Mason as Marco Aurelio's broody and good adviser is excellent . This lavishly financed film was originally intended to be made after El Cid and to reunite Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren . The set for the Forum Romanum was actually being built when Heston rejected the script but expressed an interest in '55 Days at Peking' instead . Samuel Bronston immediately ordered that the work on the Forum be stopped and the landscaping and foundation work be adapted for the Peking set . After filming , the Peking set was torn down and replaced by the Forum , if you look carefully , both sets share a very similar topography . Colosanti and John Moore production design is breathtaking . Battles staged by Yakima Canutt are incredible and impressive . Scenarios are overwhelming : the Roman Forum , Roman Capitol , the temples...the sets are spellbound . Colorful cinematography by the great cameraman Robert Krasker is awesome , similar to Dimitri Tiomkin's fascinating and romantic musical score . Anthony Mann's direction in his last film is spectacular and outstanding . The motion picture didn't achieve success at the box office , it was a real flop and collapsed Samuel Bronston's empire . Rating : Above average . Well worth Watching . Very Good .

The inspiration and source material for GLADIATOR in case you hadn't noticed. This particular historical romp coming very late in the epic cycle in the 60's was a masterpiece of script, direction and set construction. You may have thought the Colosseum in GLADIATOR was impressive - digitised though it was, but compare it to the jaw-dropping scenes in Commodus' Rome - and they BUILT those! Ridley Scott used LESS than 50 people in his Colosseum scenes - every ONE of the thousands of Roman citizens you see, are there! To film this today with the same realism would cost $600-800,000 perhaps one billion plus!

Other scenes, such as the funeral of Aurelius are simply spinal-tap if you have the slightest understanding of what you are seeing. Most people didn't - leaving the theater (even in the 60's) feeling they'd just sat through a history seminar rather than an entertaining movie. I suppose it comes down to WHAT exactly "entertains" you? Master director Martin Scorcese (an extremely literate man himself) singled this movie out as one to study for those interested in the history of American Film...I wonder why?

Curiously the role of Marcus Aurelius was the highlight (acting wise) of both THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and GLADIATOR. Sir Alec Guinness gave us a totally masterful and benevolent emperor here in just the same way that the late Richard Harris dominated GLADIATOR during his on-screen moments. The film was one to LISTEN to, to reflect on...not too munch popcorn and watch the big men fly! James Mason as Timonides, gave one of his most enduring and touching roles....he was actually injured during that scene with the lance and was unable to film for a few days.

Comments that Boyd was "wooden" and Plummer "over the top," irritate me also. Livius was a noble man of integrity - that's how Boyd portrayed him, these weren't times for off-the-cuff humor. Similarly, evidence exists that Commodus himself was not the "thinking man's choice" of emperor - cruel, vengeful and way left-field of normal! Plummer brought all this out rather well I thought. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me OR Anthony Mann I suppose, what YOU thought about it! Sophia Loren? Not your average "legally blonde" Romanic bimbo either. The epitome of poise and elegance...way too "wooden" for the new millennium!

I believe the FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is right up there with BEN HUR and Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS. Most any intelligent and perceptive person would agree! I would happily have watched it for 280 minutes!

I love historical Drama, I love classic, epic Cinema. This film provides it all. Makes a great companion film to Gladiator. It is also worth noting the difference between the 2 flicks is that No CGI is inherently better IMHO. 😷enjoy.

I saw another reviewer remark that he regretted the fact that films like this are not made today. In today's dollars the salaries of all the name actors who appeared in The Fall of the Roman Empire might retire the debt of some third world country. Then again, I think that was part of the message this film was trying to convey.

All roads lead to Rome was certainly a popular saying way back in the day. The legions by 180 have conquered a big chunk of Europe and a lot of Asia Minor, but it's becoming too big to police. Emperor Marcus Aurelius has it in mind that there must be a better way of securing peace than having a big Roman military industrial complex on the empire payroll. Answer, make the outlying provinces all Roman citizens and equalize the distribution of economic goods. Back then all those Roman roads gradually became one way streets.

Unfortunately some folks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, do in Marcus. He's succeeded by his son Commodus and the film is the story of Commodus who has a more traditional political view and those who want to bring about the ideal world that Marcus Aurelius envisioned.

In a role that cried out for either Kirk Douglas or Charlton Heston, we got Stephen Boyd instead. Boyd in a blonde dye job, just doesn't come across well as the hero Livius. He's so much better as villains in films like The Bravados, Ben-Hur, and Shalako.

But Commodus may very well have been Christopher Plummer's finest performance on screen. The film is not the real story of Commodus's reign, but Plummer does capture the heart and soul of the emperor who ran things from 180 to 192.

Holding up the view of a free and equal world are a couple of classic performances by Alec Guinness as Marcus Aurelius and James Mason as the Greek slave Timonides who counsels Marcus in his changing world view.

And any film is worth watching with Sophia Loren's pulchritude on prominent display.

I'm no expert in ancient history, but this may have been the first time that someone like Marcus Aurelius took a global view of things other than what I can plunder out of my conquests. What's not told in this story is that Christianity is invisible here. Marcus didn't like them at all, thought they were way too exclusive in THEIR view of things.

Nevertheless The Fall of the Roman Empire and the issues it raises from the ancient world are still being thrashed out today. Hoperfully it will all be resolved in the future.

It's particularly interesting to compare this movie with Gladiator (2000), as both take the same historical event as a starting point. While the fight scenes are more exciting in Gladiator, and while Gladiator is probably the superior film overall, this film does have three distinct advantages.

First of all, the armies and crowds are better here - it's real people and not computer generated icons. Some of the marching scenes were a bit lengthy for my tastes, but the soldiers, the horses, the armor, the swords and spears, all of it, were very authentic and impressive. Second, as the armies look more realistic, so do the sets. We do not see the coliseum in this film, but we do see the palaces, pools, forts and throne rooms. Very exciting. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this film has superior acting. Christopher Plummer is probably the best thing here - his Commodus is at once more dastardly and more likeable than that of Gladiator; again, this means more realistic. James Mason is also in top form, here; for once, he does not play a slippery philanderer.

There is something flawed about this film that I can't quite put my finger on. It does not reach the heights of other 50s and 60s epics such as The Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur. Still, it is a dramatic and at times moving film. It does convey the gravity (some might say tragedy) of the Empire's fall and the pax romana that never was.