UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

The Fall of the Roman Empire

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)

March. 26,1964
|
6.7
|
NR
| Drama History War

In the year 180 A.D. Germanic tribes are about to invade the Roman empire from the north. In the midst of this crisis ailing emperor Marcus Aurelius has to make a decission about his successor between his son Commodus, who is obsessed by power, and the loyal general Gaius Livius.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Wordiezett
1964/03/26

So much average

More
Beystiman
1964/03/27

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

More
Sarita Rafferty
1964/03/28

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

More
Darin
1964/03/29

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

More
raymond_chandler
1964/03/30

Movies like "Southland Tales" are so irredeemably bad that re-watching them could lead directly to insanity and loss of life. Movies like "The Fall of the Roman Empire" can be very enjoyable if one gets properly blazed and mocks them endlessly during a second (or third) viewing, MST3K style.Wow, does this film suck. The cast is the most bizarre collection of mismatched acting styles and accents ever assembled. Techniques like filming Alec Guinness talking to Death in voice-over while wandering around his chambers alone, grimacing, fall flat and become downright painful to watch. By contrast, Ingmar Bergman turned a chess match between Death and Max von Sydow into one of the most brilliant films ever made. Sophia Loren gets the same treatment near the end, but her scene actually becomes so surreal that it borders on hallucination, as she pines for Stephen Boyd in voice-over as she wanders through a giant set crammed with extras from the "Matrix II" Rave in Zion.The plot of "Fall" is rooted solidly in historical fact. It is more or less the same as the plot of Ridley Scott's far superior "Gladiator". Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (Guinness, doing what he can and gracefully making an early exit from this disaster) decides to bequeath the Title of Emperor to General Livius (Boyd), instead of his son, Commodus (Christopher Plummer, giving one of the two performances that I thoroughly enjoyed). Commodus and Livius are best buds, as evidenced by the early scene of the pair simultaneously quaffing wine from upraised wine-skins. This scene is the highlight of the entire movie, and qualifies as Gayest Scene Ever in a mainstream movie made before 1965.Boyd is Boyd, and that ain't good. His individual line readings seem adequate, but the sum total is a hollow, good-looking, thoroughly rehearsed nothing. Sophia Loren as Commodus' sister Lucilla gets tossed into the same pit by the script, and John Ireland is reduced to playing the role of barbarian leader Ballomar as a grunting stereotype wearing a series of hilarious wigs.James Mason as adviser to Aurelius and Greek former slave Timonides acquits himself the best of anyone. His natural acting style of stage-bound histrionics fits the film perfectly, and he is given a few showcase scenes. Like Guinness, he ignores the fact that the script of "Fall" is a cliché-ridden joke, and dutifully builds a character of noble grace and moral strength.The script: UGH. The material is inherently dramatic, as Emperor Aurelius attempts to unite the disparate kingdoms of the Roman Empire into a peaceful confederation. Perhaps the screenwriters were too concerned with the history, and not enough with the dialogue. There is little or no subtext, and very few memorable lines. Plummer plays with the words and makes them his own. Boyd rents them and then abandons them.On paper, this should have been a great flick. It features a cast to rival "Spartacus", and a director who has done very good work elsewhere. I blame the script and the cinematography. The battle scenes are terrible, and the general level of the entire enterprise is about the same as the Steve Reeves/Reg Park Hercules sword and sandal epics of this same period. Indeed, I would rate Mario Bava's "Hercules in the Haunted World" as a much better movie. It is cheese also, but cheese delightfully elevated by being served on a platter of bravura cinematic style, with a main course of beefcake.

More
qormi
1964/03/31

This movie had one thing going for it - incredible special effects to depict Roman architecture. The Roman fort in what is now Germany was a masterpiece inside and out. The stone work, the ramp whereby horses and chariots galloped right up to the gate, the log bridge over the gorge....looked very real. I don't know if it was historically accurate or not, but it was very impressive. The Roman temples and various government buildings in the center of Rome were fantastic - what a visual display - it was unmatched in any other toga epic. To this day, such realism has not been achieved again. The same goes for the detailed Roman legions. Now for the bad part - who exactly were the Romans up against - Barbarians or cave men? The Barbarians all had the dumbest wigs and beards. They lumbered around and seemed to fight with sticks. Then, there was the totally inane dialogue, which was more stilted than an oil rig in the Atlantic. Whenever Sophia Loren and Stephen Boyd were together, the lovey-dovey talk with reverent Biblical epic overtones was too funny. Stephen Boyd was a blond, probably so you wouldn't confuse him with Mesalah from Ben Hur. Sophia Loren was caked with oily makeup and seemed to have the same somber facial expression throughout. She seemed like a large, disoriented amphibian. Christopher Lee at least was interesting because he was evil. There were two instances where scenes from Ben Hur were revisited - the scene when Boyd and Lee reunite was very similar to when Messalah and Be Hur rekindled their friendship after many years. The chariot race from Ben Hur was revisited when Boyd and Lee raced off in a chariot "fight", whipping each other and bumping axles along the way. The film "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe borrowed half of "Fall of the Roman Empire". Same scenario where the dying emperor in Germany appoints his general over his son to succeed him. Same psychotic Commodus character. Same duel to the death as gladiators. One more thing - the musical score in Fall of the Roman Empire was very inappropriate. Seemed like the soundtrack for "The Sound of Music" or "My Fair Lady". Really bad.

More
thinker1691
1964/04/01

The history of Rome begins with it's foundations in Roman myths and fell because it no longer believed in it's own future. In this film, the audience is allowed to witness it's slow decay from the top down. The authority which was Rome's diminished it's capacity to rule and no point more so than it's leader, Commodus (Christopher Plummer). Although the empire retained much of it's prestige, it's true force of arms failed to maintain it's ability to govern. In this movie that power dissolves in General Livius (Stephen Boyd) who despite being offered the seat of power, rejects it. As a result, the audience sees through it's pomp, Majesty and star power to see this movie for what it is, a dismal failure. Despite having Steven Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason and Anthony Quayle in it's cast the movie is long on rambling romance and very short on historical drama. Still, there are many good scenes with much appreciated character development. However, in the end, the movie lacks heart but is listed as a Historical Classic. ****

More
TheLittleSongbird
1964/04/02

I love epics, having been brought up on the likes of Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments. As far as epics go, The Fall of the Roman Empire is not among the best, but it is hardly among the worst either. There are several amazing things about it, but also some assets that could've been done much better.Starting with the flaws, The Fall of the Roman Empire is mostly compelling, but feels very stodgy and flat in the last forty minutes or so and in the scenes with Boyd and Loren. This is to do with three things I think. One is that of the cast, Stephen Boyd is the least impressive, most of the time he is very wooden and stiff. Two is that he and Loren have little or no chemistry together. Finally, the writing is intelligent and very well-written on the most part, particularly with the nods to Edward Gibbon, but some scenes feel really contrived and stilted.However, like a lot of epics before, during and since, Fall of the Roman Empire is visually stunning. The Roman settings are wonderfully evocative, the costumes are sumptuous and the cinematic shots are sweeping and really quite exquisite. Dmitri Tiomkin is a favourite of mine when it comes to film composers, Fall of the Roman Empire with its rousing, beautiful and majestic themes is no exception.Excepting Boyd, the cast are fine. For any lack of chemistry with Boyd, Sophia Loren more than makes up for it with her allure and some convincing delivery. Alec Guinness' performance is brief but altogether wonderful, Omar Sharif is every bit as charismatic as he ever was, likewise with Anthony Quayle and Mel Ferrer is appropriately menacing. James Mason is excellent, and while he has some rough spots towards the end, slightly overdoing it, Christopher Plummer is wonderfully slimy.Fall of the Roman Empire is directed by Anthony Mann with his usual finesse, and boasts some skilled chariot action and action sequences. In conclusion, a good interesting movie, but lacks that extra something to make it go the extra mile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

More