The Fall of the Roman Empire

Marcus Aurelius (according the Edward Gibbon and other historians) dealt the Empire a long-term blow when he broke with tradition by choosing his only surviving son, Commodus, to be his successor, rather than following the tradition of chosing the best man for the job and officially adopting him. To the consternation of his legions, Aurelius never chose a military commander over his own son. When you decide to abandon actual history at the very beginning of your story, the rest falls apart.

Secondly, Commodus was murdered by his concubine (who drugged his wine) and a wrestler (who strangled him) in his palace. In fact, it took a few days for everyone in Rome to come to finally believe that he was actually dead. HE WAS NOT KILLED in a single-handed combat with the commander of the army (either Stephen Boyd or Russell Crowe).

Third, there is no historical evidence that a group of barbarians were burned alive in the Roman forum, as this 1964 film depects. The screenwriter seems to have simply lost his grip on any sort of reality and went totally "Hollywood."

Samuel Bronson (the producer) spared no expence to actually build an exact replica of the Roman Forum (rather than do it digitally as in "Gladiator"), so the scenes shot on this set are truly spectacular. The set (built in Spain) was said to have stood intact for some years, even after Samuel Bronson Productions went bacnkrupt (over this very film). I have no idea if it's still standing.

Christopher Plummer is too old to play the actual Commodus, who was only a teenager when he ascended the throne. However, the script actually does justice to the spirit of the historical character of Commodus, and Plummer brings the man to vibrant life. Both Stephen Boyd (as the army commander) and Loren (as Commodus' sister) seem wooden and fail to establish any on- screen chemestry to their love-stared characters, although Loren's legendary beauty is well worth the price of admission.

Alec Guiness, James Mason, Anthony Quayle and Mel Ferrer all do an excellent job with their roles, although Omar Sharif has little to do since his scripted character is only one-dimensional.

Because of its over-all production values, and an appropriate and moving musical score, this becomes a satisfying, eye-popping, "they don't make them like this anymore" epic. It must be seen in the Widescreen format to do it justice.


1964: always one of the greatest movies!   May 19, 2001
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

I first saw THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE in 1964, when it was released for movie theaters. I saw it in Toronto, 4 times, 4 evenings in a row. I was simply appalled by the actorship of some of the greatest to have been seen obn a screen. The story itself respected a great deal what the historians related about the last says of emperor Marcus Aurelius, and the tragic taking-up of power by his mad son, Marcus Aurelius Commodus. Not to mention the grandiose musical score by one of the greatest, Dimitri Tiomkin ( I still have the vinyl LP, and play it regularly, when I want to get in the mood of ancient Rome ).

Yesterday, I viewed " GLADIATOR ". It certainly did ring a bell. Although I enjoyed the Ridley Scott epic, as well as the fine play of actors such as Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, I am sorry to say this most modern production has to be rated quite a few steps below its 1964 predecessor.

Thanks for letting me the chance to express my opinion

Pierre Gauthier


Fall of the Roman Empire: An Epic Before Its Time   July 3, 2000
After watching the excellent "Fall of the Roman Empire," it is perfectly clear where "Gladiator" stole many of its ideas and themes. The great director, Anthony Mann, who made this movie following the immense "El Cid," again works on a vast canvas and what scenes he conjures up! "Gladiator" tries to do this with new digital technology and with lesssor results. Alec Guiness is wonderfully cast as the philosopher-emperor, Marcus Aurelius, and when he's on the screen, ancient historical thought comes alive. Stephen Boyd is fine but just more of a gentle Roman general than his wonderfully evil Messala in "Ben-Hur." Sophia Loren is luminous but for some reason her director(Anthony Mann) gets her to sleep-walk through two epics in a row and have unconvincing tears gather at her tear ducts. Mann knows how to handle great armies and this film is full of wonderfully imagined battles, marches into cities, and pomp and violence. It is a long movie with some slow spots, especially when Guiness dies, but Christopher Plummer as Commodus completely makes me forget Joaquin Phoenix in "Gladiator," for Plummer is a great actor who gives Commodus so many facets and watch his relationship with Boyd and their final fight to the finish and you'll see where the seeds of the ending to "Gladiator" were sown. Are all Germans blonde? In this movie they are all blonde and rather ridiculously portrayed, as if the director was looking for a certain "barbarian" look. If they were that stupid and unsavory, how did they fight to bring down an empire? We get some ideas here how Rome changed. James Mason plays a pupil of Marcus Aurelius and he also is a great actor and his torture scene is strangely moving. Dimitri Tiomkin's music score blares and blares and is good but not up to the standards of say an Alex North or Miklos Rozsa, both masters at bringing history alive through music. There seems like so much potential for a great film here but it is a hit or miss film with some great acting, great photography, sets, and feel for its time, when many forces were swirling about to bring down the Roman Empire from within and from unknown machinations.It is well worth buying and to adding to anyone's video collection, who relish ancient history well told on the screen.