Rating: 
Summary: Best film Oscar for GLADIATOR? No kidding.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: CAN'T REVIEW WHAT U DID'NT SEE.
Review: NO REVIEW. DID NOT REVCEIVE PURCHASE. DO NOT ORDER FROM THIS MAN.
DOES NOT DELIVER AS PROMISED. ANTHONY DIPRETA
Rating:
Summary: This is the predecessor to gladiator
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: The Biggest Film Set in Film History-Ever (until recently).
Review: Re Aleaton3's comments on this film not being historically accurate and the size of the sets used. The Roman Forum set built for this film at Las Matas in Spain (just outside Madrid) was THE BIGGEST OUTDOORS or EXTERIOR FILM SET (as opposed to an INDOORS or INTERIOR FILM SET) in FILM HISTORY up until 2003 when TROY apparently claimed the title (TROY having been filmed in 2003). Refer to every edition of the Guinness Book of Records from 1965 up to 2003 to verify this. It was unique in that it was 3 dimensional (i.e. the buildings WERE 4 SIDED and HAD ROOFS-THERE WERE NO FRONTAL FACADES WITH JUST SOME SCAFFOLDING AT THE BACK AS IN NORMAL SETS. I DON'T THINK THE BUILDINGS HAD ANY INTERIORS. THE SET WAS ALSO VERY ACCURATE ARCHITECTURALLY) and THIS SET WAS DEMOLISHED SOON AFTER FILMING. I know this for sure because I visited this exact location in 1977 and was advised of this (apparently producer SAMUEL BRONSTON didn't want the magnificence of his set being used for any lesser, cheaper productions although the few remaing parts of the set that had not already been demolished were used soon after in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"-see the absolute last title card at the end of that particular film). Incidentally this exact same site ONE YEAR EARLIER had been the location for THE CITY OF PEKING in the same producer's "55 DAYS AT PEKING". That particular set was also demolished soon after filming. As for the historical inaccuracies it is true that emporor MARCUS AURELIUS never OFFICIALLY nominated anyone other than his son COMMODUS as his heir and that COMMODUS DID NOT DIE IN A DUEL TO THE DEATH BUT WAS STRANGLED BY A WRESTLER AFTER BEING DRUGGED. Also THE AUCTIONING-OFF of THE ROMAN EMPIRE at the end of this film DID NOT TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMMODUS DIED BUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER! However the scriptwriters used the "'INVENT AND DESTROY" method of storytelling so beloved to Hollywood. In this theory history cannot absolutely say that there was no character such as LIVIUS (STEPHEN BOYD) or MAXIMUS (RUSSELL CROWE), that emperor MARCUS AURELIUS (ALEC GUINNESS or RICHARD HARRIS) did not secretly annoint him as his heir or that he was not intimately involved with LUCILLA (SOPHIA LOREN or CONNIE NIELSEN)) the daughter of MARCUS AURELIUS (unbeknownst to the scholars and historians of that time). Having INVENTED A PLAUSIBLE THEORY IT MUST BE DESTROYED BY THE FILM''S END SO THAT HISTORY REMAINS REALTIVELY UNDISTURBED. So LIVIUS (this film) or MAXIMUS (GLADIATOR) never actually disturbs history by becoming caesar. Unfortunately either LIVIUS or MAXIMUS killing COMMODUS (CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER or JOAQUIN PHOENIX) in a duel to the death in the Roman Forum or the Colisseum DOES CONTRADICT HISTORY DIRECTLY and EXCEEDS THE LIMITS of the "INVENT AND DESTROY" THEORY. But THIS SEQUENCE IN EACH FILM DOES MAKE GREAT CINEMA and LOOKS VERY SPECTACULAR which is what these types of films are all about.. So for the sake of ENTERTAINING AND OVERWHELMING A MASS AUDIENCE (rather than an audience of historians only ) with VERY SPECTACULAR, ENTERTAINING and HIGHLY DRAMATIC STORIES I think the OCCASIONAL LAPSE in ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL ACCURACY and the OCCASIONAL INTERWEAVING of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS INTO HISTORY is ACCEPTABLE. Most people would not have any idea about ancient roman history had they not seen this film, GLADIATOR or indeed BEN HUR (history contains no refernce whatsoever to anyone called JUDAH BEN HUR either). An exactly historically accurate movie would probably be very boring and interesting only to history professors. The important thing here is that the spriit and atmosphere of the historical period is captured and conveyed to the audience and that the story itself is interesting enough to a mass audience in the first place so as to justify the enormous expenses involved (these productions being so costly). And on these criteria both The FALL of the ROMAN EMPIRE and GLADIATOR (and indeed BEN HUR) more than succeed. If the same extremely high quality of these productions (story-wise) can be maintained then more productions of this sort will be made (given the excellence of MOST computer-generated special effects nowadays the technical excellence of these previous productions should be equalled if not surpassed).
Rating:
Summary: Greatest movie.
Review: Simply a greatest movie with Roman background. The greatest actors and actress even made the movie more spectacular. Young people will follow to love the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: History vs Hollywood
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: History vs Hollywood
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: History vs Hollywood
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Before there was "Gladiator"
Review: 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".
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time just buy Gladiator
Review: This film brought about the demise of Roman epics in hollywood.After the success of movies such as Ben-Hur, this movie was made inhopes of latching on to other's success. A horrible failure..do no buythis movie
| 
