The Fall Of The Roman Empire (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition) (The Miriam Collection) Reviews

• Best film Oscar for GLADIATOR? No kidding.

  
  By A2WAJWFB6ZPEGW on 2001-03-27
  Martin Scorsese once said about THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE that it has the beauty of a lost art. True, Hollywood can never film a film of this grandiose scale (nowadays CGI would replace those hundred of extras, but CGI can never be as good as the real thing) that deals with profound themes, usually considered to be "commercially unnatractive". Still, if cinema is an art form (and the Oscar people pretentiously call themselves Academy of Motion Picture "ART" and Science), then they should sometime try to make a film like that, or at least honour them when they are made, instead of praizing such well-crafted nonsense like GLADIATOR. Hollywood has forgotten its rich history and heritage. What a shame.

  THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is an intense, powerful drama about corruption of power. Anthony Mann's meticulous, sharp-edged, and in this case extremely cold-blooded direction powerfully points out how the Roman Empire, at the height of its power and glory, started its degradation and eventually will fall apart. That might happen to any kind of powerful society --history has proven so-- , that when a society gets too much power, the power itself becomes the motivation for corruption and destruction. This film is not a shalow fascistic glorification of power that GLADIATOR is, but an inteligent, profound and ultimately tragic analysis of human behavior.

  Not to say that it is not visually atractive. Mann was always a creator of powerful, eloquent imagery. Simply, he doesn't waiste pictorial beauty as Ridley Scott did in GLADIATOR (or even more in HANNIBAl, for that matters). He is one of those great masters who knows how to amplify a good story with powerful imagery, to show the story even more than telling it with dialogues. So instead of filling a whole picture with post-card-like images, he punctuates strong dramatic monent withe powerful shots--no waste.

  The film was shot in Ultra Panavision 70, which is an VisitaVision camera with an anamorphic lens attached to it. It was probably the most versitile system among those large format (65mm) system of the 60's. With amazing image clarity, yet one could move the camera almost as freely as in regular 35mm. When somebody like Anthony MANN was gievn such a camera, the result is astonishing (another, arguably better example is EL CID).

  The irony is that, to portray the corruption of power, one has to show the power itself--in this case a huge number of extras dressed as roman soldiers, The film was hot in spain, and all those extras was furnished by general Franco's fascistic military regime. Franco loved movies, but apparently never realised that the film he helped making was a critical metaphore of what he was, the "ideology" that he stood (or he pretended he did) for.

  A flawed film, perhaps, but a striking, beautiful piece of filmmaking.
  
  

• Sweep, Spectacle, and Sophia Loren!

  
  By A31I3HXMD5H1EL on 2008-02-23
  1964's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" was the last of Samuel Bronston's 'epic trilogy', three remarkable films ("Empire", "El Cid", and "55 Days in Peking"), that stand alone in their sheer opulence and spectacle. Sadly, "Empire" would fail at the box office, forcing Bronston to shut down much of his Madrid studio, but he was justifiably proud of the film, nonetheless; it tackled a seemingly impossible subject (the collapse of Imperial Rome) on a grand scale, with intelligence and a surprising compassion. The time frame of the film (the era of Caesars Marcus Aurelius and Commodus) would, in fact, prove so richly dramatic that Ridley Scott would return to it in "Gladiator", which, in many ways copies "Empire" (and would win the 'Best Picture' Oscar, to boot!)
  
  The back story of "Empire" is every bit as remarkable as "El Cid"; this had been a pet project of Bronston's for years, and with the backing of the Spanish government, and brilliant director Anthony Mann on board, he planned it as the follow-up to "El Cid", creating massive sets of both Rome and northern Europe, in Madrid, and locations throughout Spain.
  
  Bronston felt a major male superstar would be needed for the production to 'work', and courted Charlton Heston, so memorable as "El Cid". But Heston felt the story paralleled much of "Ben Hur", and when he was informed that Sophia Loren (who he had not enjoyed working with, in "El Cid") would again be his leading lady, he turned the role down. Bronston, anxious to retain his services, then showed him the script of "55 Days in Peking" (which wouldn't involve Loren), and he expressed interest. Bronston, amazingly, tore down ALL the "Empire" sets, and built 'Peking', to accommodate Heston! "Empire" would be put on hold until "55 Days" was completed.
  
  The delay would result in greater financial difficulties (as the Peking film wasn't the critical and commercial hit "El Cid" had been), as well as other problems. The original choice as Commodus, Richard Harris, did not get along with director Mann, and would be replaced by Christopher Plummer (Harris would eventually portray Marcus Aurelius, in "Gladiator"). Replacing Heston as the lead would be Stephen Boyd (after Kirk Douglas turned down the role). While a very competent actor, Boyd lacked the charisma and star power to attract audiences. The production hit snags in a number of areas, further draining the strained budget. Ultimately, it would have needed to be a blockbuster to recoup the costs...and, sadly, it wasn't.
  
  Still, the film is a joy, in many ways; Alec Guinness, as Aurelius, and James Mason, as a Greek philosopher/ex-slave, are both superb; Sophia Loren is breathtakingly beautiful; Plummer is every bit as good as Commodus as Joaquin Phoenix would be, a generation, later; the battles and Rome sequences are visually stunning; and Dimitri Tiomkin's dazzling score is one of his best.
  
  "Fall of the Roman Empire" has truly grown in stature, over the years, and the Miriam Collection edition, with restored picture and sound, commentaries, and wonderful special features, promises to be a 'must own' for every film buff!
  
  

• Before there was Gladiator ...

  
  By A3GD9BKIUT3I89 on 2008-02-13
  At long last the epic FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is becoming available in the aftermath of the release of EL CID. This was the movie that destroyed Samuel Bronston's studio. Much of the story would later be the basis of GLADIATOR. A terrific cast: Stephen Boyd as Livius, Sophia Loren (was there ever a more beautiful star?) as Lucilla, Christopher Plummer (in a wonderful over the top performance) as Comodus and Sir Alec Guinness as Marcus Arilias. To this add John Ireland, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, James Mason and Mel Ferrer. Colossal sets and set piece battles with thousands of extras that today could only be done by CGI, this is an epic in every sense. A failure at the box office in it's time. The author, John Logan, of the GLADITOR screenplay says he was unaware of this movie when he was hired by Ridley Scott. Perhaps, the stories both use the same chapter in history and real persons. Both have Comodus die in hand to hand combat with the protagonist. Neither is true but never let a little thing like the truth ruin an entertaining film. This appears to be the old roadshow edition with intro and exit music. Films like this, so prevalent in the 1950's until the early 1960's are now a thing of the past. A pity, in their day they really were spectacles in the best sense. Highly enjoyable fare!
  
  

• Better than Ridley's Scott's "Gladiator"...

  
  By A5UGX57EV695M on 2008-03-12
  Released one year after "Cleopatra," Anthony Mann's "Fall of the Roman Empire" (1964) is not a great film, but is noteworthy for the quality of the production, the assemblege of a splendid cast, and the fact it truly signified the end of an era in filmmaking.
  
  The film was remade, sort of, as "Gladiator" by Ridley Scott, but it is Mann's film that is far superior cinematically. What is immediately striking about "Fall" is the number of historically accurate sets (over 20 in all) depicting the Roman capital at the time of emperor Marcus Aurelius and Commodus all handcrafted by scores or set designers and craftsmen in Spain long before computer animation was ever heard of.
  
  While critics at the time scoffed at the fact that a film could compress Gibbon's opus into a film over 188 minutes, Mann does succeed in capturing really the "beginning of the end" by depicting the frustrations of a philosophical emperor's (Marcus Aurelius) 20-year reign now in its twilight, filled with small but bitter barbarian battles and frontier wars, who leaves behind a spoiled and twisted son (Commodus) who squanders such ideals and leaves the empire in chaos.
  
  Spending much of his $16 million budgeted for the film on sets (an enormous amount of money circa 1964), we see a vision of Mann's Rome (and the Roman Forum), not only architectually accurate but of tremendous breadth and scope. The Temple of Vesta, the Curia, the Arch of Titus, The Temple of Jupiter, are all rendered with tremendous authenticity. Certainly, a Rome even Nero would be reluctant to burn!
  
  Interior sets are also equally impressive decorated with garlands, frescoes, pools, and columns modelled on the Pompeian style. Like the sets, the costume design, cinematography courtesy of Dimitri Tiomkin, and even the stuntwork (overseen by Yakima Canutt), are all first class. Even noted historian, Will Durant, author of the nine volume opus, "The Story of Civilization," was both a consultant and advisor for the film.
  
  All in all, the film authentically captures all the grandeur and decadance that was Rome, so why only four stars? Perhaps the problem lies with the two leads Livius (Stephen Boyd) and Drusilla (Sophia Loren) with a love story that fails to convice and somewhat drags the principal story down. However, they manage to do what they can with these rather bland roles.
  
  James Mason (Timonides) and Alec Guinness (Marcus Aurelius)are both impressive in their respective roles, and Christopher Plummer, plays a Commodus a bit too refined to be that sinister and half-mad, but it all seems to work apparently well in this film. The final scenes are a subtle reminder that great empires do not fall to outside foreign influences before they first fall from within.
  
  
  
  

• The Fall Of The Roman Empire..1964....Buyer Beware

  
  By ATQMJVULYVC54 on 2008-03-12
  This is the EDITED version FFolks
  
  About 10 year ago A.M.C., before they Flushed themselves down the toilet, showed 2 versions of this movie, one was 179 minutes and a FoolScreen and the other was The Original 188 minute and 2.76:1 version, too which i recorded and still have.
  
  The Original Uncut Movie is 3 Hrs and 8 Min or 188 Minutes
  
  This DVD Version is (according to the Product Details) 179 Minutes..10 Minutes shorter than Original Theatrical Version
  
  
  Also This DVD has been (Modified and Formatted), It was Originaly Presented in an Aspect Ratio of 2.76:1
  This DVD version is Presented in an Aspect Ratio of only 2.35:1, which means that it has been Blown Up, So some things will be missing.
  
  So for this DVD release you will be missing Part of the picture and 10 minutes of the Film.
  
  
• On of the greatest Epics ever made..
  By A2ADRMX5D9QBQL on 2008-02-18
  This movie filmed in Ultra Panavision 70, cost over $20,000,000 to produce in 1963 which would be equivalent to 200 million if produced today and you see every penny of it on the big screen. It stars some of the greatest actors of all time which includes Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland, Omar Sharif, and Mel Ferrer. The music is incredible; it was nominated for an Academy Award and Golden Globe (Won) for best original score. This movie was long overdue on DVD including the remaining Bronston Epic- 55 Days at Peking which is due out in July. Experts say, the only reason this film did not recoup its losses in the theater, is by 1964 movie audiences had grown tired of the Roman Epics as it followed great movies such as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra, etc, so they considered it a timing issue rather than the quality of the motion picture. I highly recommend this 3 hour adventure (185 min. including Overture, Intermission and Exit music) , enjoy the film.
  
  
• Feast for the eyes and a great story line too!
  By A2ZFBUZUVOQVPT on 2008-02-27
  If you enjoyed Gladiator with Russell Crow you will undoubtedly enjoy this film for the simple fact that the story line is the same.
  
  Story Line: Decadence of Rome after the death of Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness); the fall from grace of Rome's greatest general (Stephen Boyd); romance between the general and the emperor's daughter (Sophia Loren); and the struggle for power between the general and Commodus, (Christopher Plummer).
  
  There is a lot more attention to detail in Fall of the Roman Empire with more plot twists and character development than Gladiator, although slower in pace. By no means is the story slow or uninteresting, just more drama and less video action - for the mature adult who appreciates plot development before the action begins.
  
  This film was made with the same mindset as films like Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and Ten Commandments, meaning; huge budgets, a massive sets, cast of thousands and costume designs that surpasses any film of its time. Along with all this you get one of the finest casts ever assembled. There are no computer generated images in this film so the thousands and thousands of extras you see in this film are real!
  
  See this film on the largest TV screen you can get your hands on and get ready to be impressed.
  
  MORE INFORMATION ON THE DVD:
  
  The Fall of the Roman Empire is also available on a three-disc Limited Collector's Edition, including exclusive bonus materials such as commentary by the producer's son Bill Bronston and film expert Mel Martin, a reproduction of the original 1964 souvenir program, a behind-the-scenes look at the real fall of the Roman Empire and much more.
  
  Special Features:
  
  * Reproduction of original souvenir program (Collector's Edition only)
  * Six color production stills (Collector's Edition only)
  * Feature commentary by the producer's son Bill Bronston and film expert Mel Martin
  * Rome in Madrid featurette
  * Fall of the "Real" Roman Empire featurette
  * Making of Fall Of The Roman Empire featurette
  * Hollywood vs. History featurette
  * Encyclopedia Britannica on the Roman Empire -- 5 featurettes (Collector's Edition only)
  * Original theatrical trailer
  
  
  
• Where is the DVD version ??
  By A3JCIKIZKXH8CS on 2001-04-17
  As with El Cid, I was anticipating the release of "Fall of.." on a remastered and widescreen DVD release during April of this year. Now the release of this movie has been postponed or withdrawn, with no explanation. I have seen a DVD version of this movie being sold on EBay. It seems to have been pressed in the Far East and is being sold as a new DVD in a sealed package. The one star rating is for the poor quality VHS pan & scan version being sold. Note: AMC cable has run a pretty good widescreen version of this film and one that I have recorded, but I am waiting for a DVD version.
  
  
• Yes, on many levels this is the original "Gladiator" film
  By A2NJO6YE954DBH on 2003-04-30
  Interest in this 1964 film from director Anthony Mann was revived by the Oscar winning success of "Gladiator." Not only does "The Fall of the Roman Empire" has some of the same characters, primarily the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodos, but there is also a Roman general who was a better son to the Emperor than his own flesh and blood. There is even a gladiator fight; but there is also a chariot race and actor Stephen Boyd, so you might end up being reminded of "Ben-Hur" as well. Judged by the standard of "history," this is clearly the more accurate film, for what little that is worth by Hollywood standards. After all, at the end of this three-hour film you find out that this is really just the BEGINNING of the Fall of the Roman Empire...

  After two centuries of bloody rule by the Caesars, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guiness) wants to return the Roman Empire to the idealized state of the Republic. But while the Emperor valued virtue, his son Commodus (Christopher Plummer) is a bad seed. Consequently, the Aurelius takes the unprecedented step of naming his successor to be the General Livius (Stephen Boyd), commander of the Northern legions, who agrees with the Emperor's vision for the future of the Empire. Commodus makes this all moot by having a slave (Mel Ferrer) murder the Emperor. Once he is in charge, Commodus exiles Livius to the frontiers of Germania and sells off his own sister, the woman the general loves, Lucilla (Sophia Loren), to the King of Armenia (Omar Sharif) to cement an alliance (and, one suspects, to add insult to injury for Livius).

  Despite all the relationship issues "The Fall of the Roman Empire" consistently goes with spectacle over story during its three hour run. Guiness has the best performance in the film and he gets killed off early on. Boyd is not a dynamic enough actor to make the part of Livius more interesting, but his nature reticence works for his character, at least in the first half of the film. Loren is given very little but to stand that and look lovely and emotionally distraught over the latest turn of affairs. James Mason has a couple of really nice speeches to deliver as Timonides, the advisor to Auerlius. Plummer provides a really edgy performances as the mentally unstable Commodus; the question is simply whether you think he goes over the top or not.

  However, whatever limitations of the story or uneven performances by the principles, the production design and action pieces are well above average. Certainly worth one look for fans of Roman Empire films, but it is not likely to become a favorite. There are those who think this film holds the record for most extras in a movie and while that might have been true at the time "The Fall of the Roman Empire" was made, Sir Richard Attenborough had 3,000,000 extras for the funeral scene in "Gandhi" in 1980. I have no clue what computer generated film now holds the record, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" until the final film in the Trilogy comes out. Oh, and if you want a final link between this film and "Gladiator," actor Richard Harris, who played Marcus Aurelius in that film was originally signed to play Commodos in this one. I wonder why they did not ask Christopher Plummer?
  
  

• History vs Hollywood
  By A2SHF3F8N7HGS3 on 2004-05-13
  The screenwriter of "Gladiator" claims not to have seen "The Fall of the Roman Empire" before writing the Ridley Scott film. That's odd since both films are bookended exactly the same way. Both open with Emperor Marcus Aurelius deciding that his son Commodus should not be emperor (a decision that leads to his murder). Both end with the fight between Commodus and the army commander within the shields of the Pretorian Guards. As a matter of fact, neither of these events are historically accurate.

  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.
  
  

• Fall of the Roman Empire: An Epic Before Its Time
  By A4Y233WXK7DQ3 on 2000-07-03
  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.
  
  
• One of the greatest Epics ever made..
  By A2ADRMX5D9QBQL on 2008-02-18
  This movie filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 cost over $20,000,000 to produce in 1963 which would be equivalent to 200 million if produced today and you see every penny of it on the big screen. It stars some of the greatest actors of all time which includes Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland, Omar Sharif, and Mel Ferrer. The music is incredible; it was nominated for an Academy Award and Golden Globe (Won) for best original score. This movie was long overdue on DVD including the remaining Bronston Epic- 55 Days at Peking which is due out in July. Experts say, the only reason this film did not recoup its losses in the theater, is by 1964 movie audiences had grown tired of the Roman Epics as it followed great movies such as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra, etc, so they considered it a timing issue rather than the quality of the motion picture. I highly recommend this 3 hour adventure (185 min. including Overture, Intermission and Exit music) , enjoy the film.
  
  
• Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
  By A61EZQI51CCPB on 2001-03-03
  Fans of the blockbuster hit GLADIATOR will find this film somewhat familiar as it deals with the same factual characters and events. Sophia Loren and Stephen Boyd provide attractive window-dressing as the starcrossed lovers, but the real stars are Alec Guiness, James Mason and especially Christopher Plummer whose portrayal of the evil emperor Commodous rivals the Oscar caliber work of Joaquin Phoenix in the more recent epic. Lush 70mm photography on massive sets should make this an exceptional title to add to your classics library on DVD.
  
  
• The Best Roman Epic with the Biggest Film Sets in Film History!
  By A1LJN7XCR0MJF9 on 2004-05-22
  This is a truly great & magnificent historical film epic noted mainly for its magnificent sets,costumes,cinematography & for being heavily criticised (especially in USA) for the performances of most of its actors & its overall sluggish plot. The film was an ENORMOUS FLOP in USA (Paramount's biggest flop of 1964 and one of their biggest ever) but a BIG SUCCESS in EUROPE (especially U.K. as the Rank Organisation of Great Britain had a substantial financial investment in the movie) & other parts of the world. It ruined its producer's (Samuel Bronston) Spanish film empire mainly due to the disastrous USA release (as expensive movie epics made in 1960's made most of their profits in USA market and most of Bronston's financial backers were from USA). It has been dubbed the film that caused the fall of the roman epic (though the 1963 Cleopatra with Liz Taylor also has to wear some of the blame for this).
  
  Trying to reproduce another huge Ben Hur-style mega hit producer Samuel Bronston wanted Charlton Heston to reteam with Sophia Loren (as 3 years earlier EL CID had been a HUGE hit) but Heston, initially having agreed to do the film, eventually opted out even while the film's forum sets had just started construction (presumably because HESTON didn't want to make another Ben Hur. There's also a very strong rumour that Sophia Loren & Charlton Heston privately hated each other whilst working on EL CID). Heston liked the plot of "55 Days at Peking" better & upon learning that Sophia Loren would NOT be his leading lady in the Peking film quickly opted for "55 Days at Peking". Bronston, ever so willing to accomodate "EL CID" Heston & hopefully achieve the same blockbuster success as EL CID with the Peking film immediately ordered the preliminary work for the forum set for "Fall" to be torn down and work to begin on the Peking city set for "55 Days at Peking" to replace it.
  
  Kirk Douglas (of Spartacus fame) was reportedly next asked to do the Livius role after Heston's refusal but declined so Stephen Boyd (again from Ben Hur) was hired as the male lead actor. The original plan was for Heston & Loren to receive $750,000 each for their roles (as in EL CID). But Stephen Boyd worked cheaper at $500,000 than Heston did at $750,000 and Sophia Loren's salary increased from $750,000 to $1 million (Loren was the second actress after Liz Taylor in 1963's Cleopatra to get a $1 million fee--she got $250,000 extra from Heston's fee and Boyd got $250,000 less than Heston--so Sophia received a $USA 1 million total fee being twice as much as Stephen Boyd's fee. Which is why she did the role as $USA 1 million in 1963 was the equivalent of approx. $USA 10 million now. Boyd most probably took the lower salary & second billing to Sophia Loren as he'd scored a coup by managing to replace Charlton Heston as the lead male star in a roman epic instead of him doing another supporting character to Heston (as Messala in Ben Hur). Also his previous film (the MGM musical "Jumbo" with Doris Day) was a flop. Making another film like the recent, hugely successful Ben Hur must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Also Bronston's recent "King of Kings" for MGM (another roman-themed biblical epic and MGM's semi-sequel to Ben Hur) had been a reasonable box office success so there was every reason to believe in 1963, when "FALL" was filmed, that another roman epic that would be "bigger than Ben Hur" would be extremely successful. Interestingly Stephen Boyd was cast as Marc Anthony opposite Liz Taylor's Cleopatra (with Peter Finch as Julius Caesar) in the first version of "Cleopatra" filmed in London in 1961 but this production was abandoned due to Liz Taylor's near terminal illness in 1961. So Boyd WAS highly regarded as a leading actor at the time.
  
  Drawing heavily upon Ben Hur meant a chariot race & Fall has an exciting one in a forest (with Boyd changing roles from Ben Hur bad guy to the good guy charioteer this time). There's also the Ben Hur boyhood friends becoming adult enemies plot influence & Fall was filmed in the same 70mm format (Camera 65/Ultra Panavision) as Ben Hur (Bronston's other epics were all filmed in 35mm Super Technirama and then blown up to 70mm). As well, the stunts and action scenes were mostly directed by Yakima Canutt of Ben Hur chariot race fame but Andrew Marton, also of Ben Hur chariot race fame, was called in late in the production to direct the barbarians in the forest battle sequence near the film's beginning.
  
  Alas, Fall was made 3-4 years too late (as historical epics were out of vogue in 1964 & thereafter until Gladiator in 2000) but had it been made a year after Ben Hur in 1960 it may well have succeeded. Some people claim that Liz Taylor's Cleopatra a year earlier in 1963 ruined the market for historical epics with its hugely overblown advertising campaign (absolutely necessary as Cleopatra's budget had doubled, then tripled, then quadrupled and is STILL the MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE EVER MADE after adjusting for inflation) and its extremely long & tedious 4 hour plus running time ruining any appreciation of its more spectacular sequences. Thus "Fall" the following year (1964) was an obvious target (mainly by USA critics) for allegations of deja-vu & the familiar old style Roman epic plot criticisms (eg. huge cast of thousands in gigantic sets, another mad emperor, everybody spotlessly attired in the latest ancient roman fashions whilst living in seemingly newly-built houses and roaming around brand-spanking new temples & palaces with no hint of a "lived-in" look and stars fighting each other with not a hair out of place even in battle scenes). Movie audiences in 1963/64 were much more receptive to James Bond-type spy films, lavish musicals like My Fair Lady & Mary Poppins plus zany English pop groups like the Beatles nonsense style films (Hard Day's Night & Help) as well as english comedies (like The Pink Panther series with Peter Sellers) & english culture (Tom Jones etc). Also the so-called "sexual revolution" began about 1963 onwards. A total change of style in audience appreciation seemed to occur in 1963-1964.
  
  However where Fall differs from Ben Hur is in its secular (ie. non-religious) plot, its magnificent sets & costumes (outdoing any of its predecessors including Ben Hur--these sets were all actual 3 dimensional buildings with roofs which allowed better & more intricate camera angles--not just facades or frontages with scaffolding at the back) and its extensive use of spectacular outdoor locations (much more so than Ben Hur) such as the forests/snow country sequences near the film's beginning & the desert battle of the 4 armies sequence in the middle of the film (this sequence used more than 10,000 extras portraying the soldiers--most of them from General Franco's Spanish army). Integrating his characters into very spectacular locations was one of the main features of director Anthony Mann's style.
  
  Fall has an interesting plot for some viewers that's historically accurate to a point & then diverges into a Hollywood "invent & destroy" scripting technique just as Gladiator did. This is where fictional characters are interwoven with historical characters (to "heighten" the drama) & history is "interpreted" (i.e. distorted) but by film's end these fictional characters are either killed off or fade into the background so as not to disturb historical fact too much. No-one can absolutely say that people like these fictional characters did not exist but also there is no historical evidence to prove their existence. Thus fictional characters are invented (to heighten the drama) and then eventually removed or fade into the background. Fall's plot moves gracefully through its storyline (unlike Gladiator's more rapid plot development) given that the era in which it was made (late 1950's to mid 1960's) called for an "epic" running time (3 hours plus) to match its epic size. This is probably why Gladiator is much more popular with younger audiences. Some people (usually younger viewers) think Fall far too slow & others (usually older viewers) appreciate the gradual pace of its story. Some people criticise the sudden action set pieces (eg. the chariot race) interrupting the intellectual aspects of the plot while others criticise the lack of enough action sequences and too much talk. As someone has said "the curate's egg", good in parts. In trying to please everybody the film-makers may have pleased far fewer viewers than expected.
  
  Most if not all Hollywood made or financed epics are historically inaccurate & have many invented scenes as in the 1960 version of Spartacus where the last 30 minutes was a scriptwriter's invention (the real Spartacus is believed to have died during the final battle so there was probably no "I am Spartacus" defiance from his surviving troops or fight to the death/crucifixion outside the gates of Rome for Spartacus & Antoninus-played by Kirk Douglas & Tony Curtis respectively). Fall also has a few historical inaccuracies (as does Gladiator which seemed to borrow most of these historical inaccuracies from Fall's plot) of which the final duel to the death is the most blatant inaccuracy. However sometimes these scenes are so exciting and indeed moving one wishes that this is the way history should have been. Sometimes it is the feel & spirit of the era depicted that is more important than strict historical accuracy. These are extremely expensive films to produce so must appeal to a huge general audience to recoup their costs. Going for total historical accuracy over an exciting, interesting plot may only gain you an audience of history professors & their students rather than a huge, general audience. However GROSS breaches of historical accuracy or GROSS diversions from the source material (as the elimination of the gods in "Troy") are very annoying.
  
  By the way the forum set in this film which was the biggest of several sets built for the film (demolished soon after filming even though some remaining parts of other sets were used in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" a year later in 1965---these remaining parts of other smaller sets were apparently muddied up to look lived-in) still holds the record for the biggest "purpose-built" exterior film set. The forum set was not used for any other films (like "AD", "Augustus" or "Rome") and was demolished soon after filming. Apparently producer Samuel Bronston did not want any future, lesser production to use his magnificent forum set so he unwisely had it demolished. Imagine the revenue to be derived even today from such sets in a movie theme park. The sets for the city of Troy in 2004's "Troy" (which are bigger in area than FALL's forum set) embellished an existing 16th century fortress in Malta so were not "purpose-built" (i.e. built from scratch especially for the production).
  
  A sadly underrated & magnificent achievement in historical film epics & everyone involved with the film should feel justly proud of their involvement with this film and the excellence of their achievement. This film is much more appreciated now than when it was first released.
  
  Finally, where is the USA DVD version of this film & El Cid? They would both be simply magnificent in either blueray or high definition disc versions. I am sure that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of eager film fans (rather than just a few die-hard fans of either film) would buy such a high quality DVD.
  
  
• The last of the truly great ancient epics.....
  By A5UGX57EV695M on 2006-07-12
  Released one year after "Cleopatra," Anthony Mann's "Fall of the Roman Empire" (1964) is not a great film, but is noteworthy for the quality of the production, the assemblege of a splendid cast, and the fact it truly signified the end of an era in filmmaking.
  
  The film was remade, sort of, as "Gladiator" by Ridley Scott, but it is Mann's film that is far superior cinematically. What is immediately striking about "Fall" is the number of historically accurate sets (over 20 in all) depicting the Roman capital at the time of emperor Marcus Aurelius and Commodus all handcrafted by scores or set designers and craftsmen in Spain long before computer animation was ever heard of.
  
  While critics at the time scoffed at the fact that a film could compress Gibbon's opus into a film over 188 minutes, Mann does succeed in capturing really the "beginning of the end" by depicting the frustrations of a philosophical emperor's (Marcus Aurelius) 20-year reign now in its twilight, filled with small but bitter barbarian battles and frontier wars, who leaves behind a spoiled and twisted son (Commodus) who squanders such ideals and leaves the empire in chaos.
  
  Spending much of his $16 million budgeted for the film on sets (an enormous amount of money circa 1964), we see a vision of Mann's Rome (and the Roman Forum), not only architectually accurate but of tremendous breadth and scope. The Temple of Vesta, the Curia, the Arch of Titus, The Temple of Jupiter, are all rendered with tremendous authenticity. Certainly, a Rome even Nero would be reluctant to burn!
  
  Interior sets are also equally impressive decorated with garlands, frescoes, pools, and columns modelled on the Pompeian style. Like the sets, the costume design, cinematography courtesy of Dimitri Tiomkin, and even the stuntwork (overseen by Yakima Canutt), are all first class. Even noted historian, Will Durant, author of the nine volume opus, "The Story of Civilization," was both a consultant and advisor for the film.
  
  All in all, the film authentically captures all the grandeur and decadance that was Rome, so why only four stars? Perhaps the problem lies with the two leads Livius (Stephen Boyd) and Drusilla (Sophia Loren) with a love story that fails to convice and somewhat drags the principal story down. However, they manage to do what they can with these rather bland roles.
  
  James Mason (Timonides) and Alec Guinness (Marcus Aurelius)are both impressive in their respective roles, and Christopher Plummer, plays a Commodus a bit too refined to be that sinister and half-mad, but it all seems to work apparently well in this film. The final scenes are a subtle reminder that great empires do not fall to outside foreign influences before they first fall from within.
  
  A film like this deserves to have a re-release in a special edition DVD complete with interviews, outtakes, and commentaries.
  
  
  
  
• Widescreen fans please note...
  By AXEBOQK77A6VD on 2004-04-23
  ...you can obtain a fairly high quality widescreen DVD edition of this film from Amazon France's marketplace sellers. You can choose to watch in English, the only drawback being that the accompanying French subtitles can't be erased. However, when you see the price, even with postage, you won't want to complain!
  
  
• the ultimate epic extravaganza
  By AQ8DU6XVA3USJ on 2005-03-06
  From the lovely murals of the opening titles to the mano a mano combat in the finale, this film has my rapt attention for all of its 188 minutes, and is one of my favorite and most watched films; the stellar cast is superb, and the extraordinary recreation of the center of ancient Rome fantastic, especially for those of us who have walked through the ruins of the Capitoline Hill.
  Filmed in Spain, Anthony Mann's direction is meticulous, Robert Krasker's cinematography breathtaking, and the Dimitri Tiomkin score enhances every scene.
  
  The big name international cast:
  Christopher Plummer is riveting as Commodus; he is unhinged and cruel, and yet with a certain devilish charm that makes his portrayal believable. His is the pivotal role in the film, and it is Plummer at his finest.
  Stephen Boyd is excellent as Livius, the heroic element of the story, and his part is the antithesis of his Messala in Ben Hur, and in the wheel crushing chariot race in the first part of the film, he is the one driving the white horses.
  James Mason can do no wrong in my eyes, and he is fabulous as Timonides the humanitarian philosopher.
  Sophia Loren is gorgeous in a sensitive performance as Lucilla, Marcus Aurellius's daughter and Livius' love.
  Other notable performances are from Alec Guiness as Marcus Aurelius, Anthony Qualye as Verulus, and Mel Ferrer as the blind and cunning Cleander. Omar Shariff has a small (pre-Dr. Zhivago) part as Sohamus the Armenian king.
  
  Like an historical novel, there are elements that have been changed and shifted to be condensed into a film, but there is much here that is authentic; the battle scenes are spectacular, and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" was one of the last films made to include the thousands of extras, and the vast sweep of epic story-telling, and was at the time the most expensive set (destroyed after filming so that other, smaller budget films would not use it) ever made.
  Comparisons and similarities will endlessly be made to Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", and there is the coincidence that Richard Harris, who was originally slated to play Commodus, but left the cast after altercations with director Mann, was to play his father Marcus Aurelius in "Gladiator".
  It astounds me that the only Oscar nomination this film received was Best Original Score, losing to "Mary Poppins", and in a musical sweep, most other awards going to "My Fair Lady".
  The film ends with a quote from Will Durant: "A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it has destroyed itself from within".
  
  
  
• Big Budget Epic - Collector's Edition
  By A2ZFBUZUVOQVPT on 2008-04-16
  NOTE: THIS IS THE COLLECTOR'S EDITION OF THE SAME FILM COSTING $10.00 LESS.
  You should also note that there has been a number of blogs on the internet that suggest 30 minutes of lost film of the movie have been discovered. Whether or not this Collector's Edition will include that footage is unknown. It is highly doubtful that the lost footage is included in this edition as the running time indicated on the DVD is exactly the same as the standard version. Nevertheless, the film does not need additional footage to change my rating of this film. 5-Stars.
  
  If you enjoyed Gladiator with Russell Crow you will undoubtedly enjoy this film for the simple fact that the story line is the same.
  
  Story Line: Decadence of Rome after the death of Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness); the fall from grace of Rome's greatest general (Stephen Boyd); romance between the general and the emperor's daughter (Sophia Loren); and the struggle for power between the general and Commodus, (Christopher Plummer).
  
  There is a lot more attention to detail in Fall of the Roman Empire with more plot twists and character development than Gladiator, although slower in pace. By no means is the story slow or uninteresting, just more drama and less video action - for the mature adult who appreciates plot development before the action begins.
  
  This film was made with the same mindset as films like Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and Ten Commandments, meaning; huge budgets, a massive sets, cast of thousands and costume designs that surpasses any film of its time. Along with all this you get one of the finest casts ever assembled. There are no computer generated images in this film so the thousands and thousands of extras you see in this film are real!
  
  See this film on the largest TV screen you can get your hands on and get ready to be impressed.
  
  MORE INFORMATION ON THE DVD:
  
  The Fall of the Roman Empire is also available on a three-disc Limited Collector's Edition, including exclusive bonus materials such as commentary by the producer's son Bill Bronston and film expert Mel Martin, a reproduction of the original 1964 souvenir program, a behind-the-scenes look at the real fall of the Roman Empire and much more.
  
  Special Features:
  
  * Reproduction of original souvenir program (Collector's Edition only)
  * Six color production stills (Collector's Edition only)
  * Feature commentary by the producer's son Bill Bronston and film expert Mel Martin
  * Rome in Madrid featurette
  * Fall of the "Real" Roman Empire featurette
  * Making of Fall Of The Roman Empire featurette
  * Hollywood vs. History featurette
  * Encyclopedia Britannica on the Roman Empire -- 5 featurettes (Collector's Edition only)
  * Original theatrical trailer
  
  
• Superb Epic of Ancient Rome and its decline
  By A2TOU0N8XE68W4 on 2002-12-02
  "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is one of the very best of the 1960's lavish epics detailing various historical periods. Filled with eye popping historically accurate costumes, spellbinding sets (The Roman Forum was the largest set built up till that time) heavy doses of corruption and intrigue and believable performances combined with intelligent writing, this film has it all and indeed is a winner all the way.

  The film makes a real attempt not to stray too far from historical fact and focuses on the beginnings of the fall of Rome after 150 years of dominating the known world. The story opens with the last troubled period of the reign of Marcus Aurelius the benevolent philosopher Emperor who spent most of his reign reluctantly fighting on the frontiers of the empire against invading barbarians, through to the succession of his son the corrupt and insane Emperor Commodus. Woven into the fictional dialogue and personal situations is a great deal of historical detail which is authentic and illustrates the research and care that went into the preparation of this production.

  Movie making during the early 1960's was a time rich in many historical epics and what distinguishes "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is its wonderful performances set against this sprawling historical canvas of the decay of the mighty power of Rome. First and foremost the late Alec Guinness shines in a superb performance as Marcus Aurelius. Being a student of Roman History I was amazed at how closely he actually is made to look like the emperor and his performance is one of the towering achievements of the film. He is at times a strong leader, a trifle world weary and concerned about his place in history. It is one of Guinness's finest performances. The main focus of the story is the love affair between Lucilla (Sophia Loren, never more beautiful than here) and the upright Livius (Stephen Boyd) and their continued conflict with the new Emperor Commodus (Christopher Plummer). While Lucilla is the heroine of the piece here in actual history she was a seasoned intriger who was executed by her brother Commodus two years into his reign for plotting his death. This historical inaccuracy aside all three are excellent in their roles, in particular Plummer who really steals the scenes he is in as the corrupt, power mad Emperor and is far and way the best performer so far to play Commodus (the more recent "Gladiator" included). He is everything one has come to expect from a Roman ruler, mad, vicious, lavish in appearances and manner. It really is an attention grabbing performance and paved the way for his very different but equally famous role of the following year in "The Sound Of Music". Seasoned performers like James Mason, Anthony Quayle and Omar Sharif (pre "Dr. Zhivago") round out the excellent cast.

  "Roman Empire" benefits from some of the very best visuals lavished on a film at this time. First and foremost the recreation of the Roman Forum would have to go down as one of the truly great sets in motion picture history. Long before computers did all the work this set was actually built to life size and is amazingly accurate in its layout and design. The battle scenes that take place on the empire's frontier near modern day Vienna are exciting and well staged and are some of the best of their kind ever undertaken. The film benefits from all the extensive location shooting that took place including the battle scenes supposedly taking place in Persia that were actually shot in Spain. Ably directed by Anthony Mann who had a similiar epic in the classic "El Cid" he keeps the action moving along at a good pace and allows the romantic subplot to weave into the story at appropiate times. Combined with Dimitri Tiomkin's sublime musical score it is a beautiful production to sit through and even its long running time (Almost 3hours) doesn't detract from it.

  For lovers of Hollywood epic productions and students of Roman history "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is an excellent piece of entertainment from back in the grand old days of film making when no expense was considered too much to achieve a truly great effect on screen. Certainly this film is one of the best of its kind and I highly recommend it as an exciting and colourful insight into the grandeur that was Rome.
  
  

• A GIANT YAWN
  By A3E03DOMMQORYI on 2008-02-22
  I saw this film on the giant 70mm screen when it was first released.It was one of the most tedious experiences I had encountered in a cinema at the time.The passing years,and a recent viewing,have not improved the film's standing with me.
  
  
• Is the Limited Collector set worth the extra $$$ ?
  By A2KWG1J285Z4QA on 2008-05-01
  This review is from; The Fall Of The Roman Empire (Two-Disc Limited Collector's Edition) (The Miriam Collection)
  
  FIRST OF ALL, THE LIMITED, COLLECTOR'S EDITION ACTUALLY HAS THREE DISCS!
  
  I have been waiting for the new DVD set of "The Fall of the Roman Empire" for a long time ever since I had to put up with the less-than-satisfactory, inexpensive import DVD (which I fed to the lions!) that was the only available DVD of this film prior to the Miriam release. It's a spectacular film about the Roman Empire, but what really makes this film remarkable is the sheer scope about how it was filmed back then. Besides the grade-A cast of stars, it was the magnificent sets, lavish costumes and thousands of extras that contributed to the epic's stature. In the modern age of computer generated graphics and special effects, it's always refreshing to look at classic films that had to do things the "old-fashioned" way.
  
  I like this movie, but the dilemma that came up when I purchased the Miriam DVD set was which one do I buy? After considering the two disc set, I bought the limited collector set with the extra goodies. There was only a $10 difference from the store I bought it from, so it was up to me to see if the difference was worth it. Hard to complain for a measly ten bucks but here it goes. Keep in mind both sets have two identical DVD's but the limited collector set differs in the following;
  
  First of all the limited collector set is packaged in a decent, but modest-sized, cardboard box. The same size box if you own any other Miriam titles such as "El Cid". Thankfully, not an oversized box like the "Bladerunner" briefcase or the "Battlestar Galactica" cylon-head box (which are cool by the way, but awkward). Inside the box are a nice set of six production stills which look like mini lobby cards. The booklet is described as a reproduction of the 1964 program. Its 32 pages are filled with mostly color and some b&w photographs. Text about the film's production are on only about five or six pages so the whole book is pretty much a picture book. The DVD's are packaged in the same, snap-plastic DVD case as the two disc set, but the third disc exclusive to this set is packaged inside. A double disc swinging tray is inserted to hold all three discs. There are three discs even though the DVD's outer-case insert indicates two discs (but the outer box indicates three discs, confusing eh?).
  
  The third disc primarily contains short films produced by the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1964 about the history of Rome. Specifically about 1) Life in Ancient Rome (13 minutes), 2) Julius Caesar: Rise of the Roman Empire (21 minutes) and 3) Claudius: boy of Ancient Rome (16 minutes). There are two brief introductions by the director, Bill Deneen (in modern day) and a vintage introduction (from 1964). Both intros are about three minutes each. The short films are educational in nature and they are filmed on the incredible "Fall of the Roman Empire" sets. None of the feature film actors are in these film shorts. The actors portrayed have some "wooden" performances, but the "mini" films have interesting content complete with informative narration and limited, actor dialogue. Although the acting in these mini films are so so which wasn't the intent of these educational minis, the sets are still wonderful to look at. You have to give Encyclopedia Britannica credit for being able to take advantage of all the props and sets to accomodate their educational and informative tasks in 1964. Overall the Britannica mini-films look like the type of films you might have slept through when you were in high school, but as an adult now they are very interesting to me. Certainly all of the films are short enough to see in a one, short viewing. In fact, I recommend that the third disc is viewed prior to watching the feature film.
  
  In conclusion I recommend the collector set only if you are willing to learn a little more about Rome besides the nice documentaries and behind-the-scenes already included in the two-disc set. It was purely a stroke of genius for the Encyclopedia Britannica to have the incredible resources provided to them by the "Fall of the Roman Empire" film crew at their disposal in 1964. I think it is disappointing that the viewing time on the third disc is only about an hour long, but the mini films are interesting for some of the historical facts dramatized in an educational format that you or others (maybe your kids?) can enjoy again and again in just a short viewing. The physical extras are nice to look at and then stash away, but the third disc has some invaluable information for those that are curious and want some more insights about one of the most fascinating empires of all time.
  
  
  
• The Fall of the Roman Empire
  By A7Y6AVS576M03 on 2000-08-13
  This is one of the greatest and underrated film epics of all time. To match the visuals of this spectacle it has one of the most intelligent scripts containing depth and wit far beyond anything seen for this genre. The cinematography is just splendid and dramatically progresses the story (after all, film is a visual medium). The action sequences are remarkably moving and impressively staged. Dimitri Tiomkin's score is rich and evocative for a yearning of Rome's once greatness and its inevitable future. The cast and their performances are equal to its superlative production values includes: Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Christopher Plumber, Anthony Quail, John Ireland, Mel Ferrer, Omar Sharif and Andrew Keri. Guinness and Mason demonstrate their profundity for outstanding acting abilities. (I was taken aback when I saw "Gladiator" recently and found that it was a retelling, albeit a different story, of this epic).
  
  
• Before there was "Gladiator"
  By A1928PHI4RBCQ9 on 2001-02-23
  The title of this film is a bit of a misnomer; the Roman Empire didn't fall for about another three hundred years after the events depicted in this film took place. However, after the reign of the emperor Commodus (portrayed in this flick by Christopher Plummer), the empire never was quite as powerful as it had been while the Aurelian emperors ruled. A familiarity with Roman history would be very helpful to understand the events depicted in this movie. Fans of "Ben Hur" might find it a little difficult to accept Stephen Boyd in his role of "good guy" Livius. Overall, if you like historical films with big budget backdrops and pretentious action scenes, you won't be disappointed. If you don't care for these types of films, you'll find it very easy to fall asleep on due to its length. There are a plethora of similarities to this film and the more recent release "Gladiator".
  
  
• The Fall of the Roman Empire
  By A34OXGWAC1XBOY on 2001-11-19
  I have to agree with most of Toshif's DVD review (March 27, 2001) of THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. In terms of the script, acting, and the historical accuracy, it clearly is a better film than GLADIATOR. The latter film clearly borrowed copiously from THE FALL, why was this not acknowledged? Alec Guiness is wonderfully cast as emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. His performance is far better than the rather weak performance of Richard Harris in the same role in GLADIATOR. I would like to touch on another film that seems to owe something to THE FALL. My young son, on seeing Marcus Aurelius making his first appearance exclaimed, "That's Obi-Wan Kenobi!" It is true, even down to the costuming and beard, the resemblance of the two characters played by Alec Guiness is startling. We then looked up the biography of Marcus Aurelius in the World Book Encyclopedia and were informed that the Stoic emperor believed that all mankind was bound together by a "universal force." This cannot possibly be entirely coincidental! Is Guiness' Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi Knight, in the STAR WARS epics a reprise of his portrayal of Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher emperor of Rome?
  
  
• A Most Underrated Film Epic
  By A7Y6AVS576M03 on 2008-04-13
  FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is one of the most underrated film epics of all time. It has a very intelligent script, witty dialogue and an insightful sense of humor (the intellectually amusing banter between Alec Guinness as Marcus Aurelius and James Mason as Timonides is far above that found in biblical type epics). The cast is impressive including Sophia Loren, Anthony Quail, John Ireland, Omar Sharif and Mel Ferrer (probably his best screen performance as the blind and deceitful Cleander). James Mason gives a lesson in histrionics giving yet another brilliant performance unlike anything he had done previously.
  
  Robert Krasker's cinematography especially filmed on the frozen frontier with the ominous forest in the background and snowflakes blustering across the screen are astonishingly atmospheric combined with one of Dimitri Tiomkin's most impressionistic, elegiac and enigmatic scores. Dimitri Tiomkin's score is lush and beautifully haunting throughout. The action sequences are impressively staged. The chariot chase on the frontier road and downhill through the pines between the stoic Stephen Boyd (Livius) and a very flamboyantly psychotic Christopher Plumber (Commodus) is a highlight. Most impressive are the outstanding and unbelievable sets by production designers Veniero Colasanti and John Moore.
  
  Director Anthony Mann has a great ability to use outdoor landscapes to full advantage enhancing the drama. He contrasts the beauty of nature with unscrupulous men's desires to control their environment through manipulation and deceit against other men of greater moral fortitude. The tranquil outdoor settings are the stage for this conflict of good and evil. Unsung and most forgotten is producer Samuel Bronston who gave us great epic films as this. He had a penchant for producing grand epics (EL CID and 55 DAYS AT PEKING) that were not only opulent and stirring but were elevated to higher cinematic and artistic prominence for their intellect and thought provoking scripting and images.
  
  
• This is the predecessor to gladiator
  By on 2001-03-13
  Not as good a movie as Gladiator visually, but ridley scott blatantly got ideas from this, its amazing there hasen't been a lawsuit over it. Sure Marcus vs. Commodus is Anc. Roman history, but he should give credit where its due
  
  
• 1964: always one of the greatest movies!
  By A2O0A01N7QJ6F0 on 2001-05-20
  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
  
  

• CAN'T REVIEW WHAT U DID'NT SEE.
  By A37M1CONE781MJ on 2002-06-03
  NO REVIEW. DID NOT REVCEIVE PURCHASE. DO NOT ORDER FROM THIS MAN.
  DOES NOT DELIVER AS PROMISED.

  ANTHONY DIPRETA
  
  

• The Original Gladiator
  By A1QQPIUXWD4G0Z on 2005-05-25
  Another one of the more decent sword-and-sandal films to come out of the 1960s directed by Michael Mann (El Cid.) The screenplay is quite good ("Gladiator" is essentially the same screenplay) and the sets excellent but the casting and acting is somewhat uneven. Nevertheless, the spectacular sets and costumes along with the top-knotch acting of the more seasoned actors more than makes up for the film's defects.
  
  The story follows Livius (Stephen Boyd) who is loyal to Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness) and lover of Lucilla (the absolutely gorgeous Sophia Loren.) Commodus (Christopher Plummer) resents his father's affections for Livius as well as Lucilla's. Jealous of Livius and fearing that he may take his right to the throne, Commodus seeks to destroy him. Once upon the throne, Commodus becomes a corrupt ruler who takes pleasure in the arena but is fearful of the barbarian hordes coming into Italy. The film also stars James Mason, Omar Sharif, and Eric Porter.
  
  A major feast in this film apart from Sophia Loren who was in her prime was the historical faithfulness and the simply colossal scale of the production. Filmed in Spain, the film left a legacy with a production on an epic scale. They replicated a significant section of the Forum stone for stone as it was under Marcus Aurelius to exact specifications: it still stands there today! One of the major draw backs to the film however is Stephen Boyd in the lead role; not only was he a mediocre actor, but his performance as Livius is no different than that of Massala's in Ben Hur; instead of turning bad, he just remains good. I also couldn't stop thinking of Ben Hur when he was in the chariot race at the beginning of the film. Christopher Plummer is outstanding as Commodus but a little too old for the part. Alec Guiness certainly equals if not surpasses Richard Harris' performance in 'Gladiator.' Although certainly more historically faithful than 'Gladiator' which is more a historical fantasy epic than drama, the film's plot cuts out 270 years of Roman hegemony to reach a climax of barbarian hordes ravaging through Italy and bringing the fall of Rome.
  
  If you liked 'Gladiator' and don't have a bias against older films, you will probably enjoy this film. It has an outstanding production where no expense was too high. The casting and acting is somewhat uneven but that is complemented by the great performances of several seasoned theatrical actors such as Alec Guiness and Christopher Plummer. Although this film is not entirely accurate historically, it's certainly more so than 'Gladiator' or even 'Spartacus.' A good movie to own.
  
  
• Epic whose time has FINALLY come
  By A1RZB051LXMMMX on 2005-08-10
  One of THE great "spectacle" movies....it has it all, including a fanastic re-consruction of the Roman forum. Full scale and three dimensional it is really a marvel of set-design and money well spent. The movie was reviewed poorly in "64" (relase date)but now gets 3 or 4 star ratings, which it deserves !! Alec Guinness gives a truly wonderful performance....Chris Plummer and James Mason not far behind. Of course one has the stalwart hero (Stephen Boyd) and beautiful herione (Sophia Loren) who do the best they can with roles offered. Big battle scenes....beautiful interior sets.... excellent cast...love story....condensed history lesson and then that Forum... enough for ANY history buff to enjoy. So what if it isn't "accurate"? How many movies of any type are ??? Now a few asides....a few years later Alec Guinness professed not to remember making this movie.. Charlton Heston was offered but refused the lead.. movie trailer states "not one not two but 13 great sets including the entire re-construction of the Roman Forum (at the height of its grandur and glory?). Samuel Bronston was to have kept said set as tourist attraction but movie cost some $20,000,000 and made $2,000,000. But before set was torn down, Roman scholors did make visits to it , I did too but in 1971 and by that time it was gone.(a heart breaker!!) I also remember a few words from the Time mag. review..."Bronston's Rome is too new" Foolishly said, I think.
  
  

• El Cid (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition) (The Miriam Collection)
• Taras Bulba
• Kings of the Sun
• Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• Fox Western Classics (Rawhide / The Gunfighter / Garden of Evil)