Pellum. The last "classic" pellum of the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, which drew a certain line under this genre (to which they will return only in the early noughties). This pellum failed miserably at the box office. And after watching it, I can safely say that it is deserved. To see such a thing is to be a very interested person. And here's my brief opinion for you - An insanely boring pellum with good actors. Despite the emotions, it should be noted in this picture not only the monstrous disadvantages, but also a few advantages, which could not be avoided. And this should end such an important introduction and move on to the interesting one.
So, the pros: 1. Costumes and decorations - everything looks as they say "expensive and rich". Rome, the northern fortress of the empire, tunics, armor, helmets, weapons, shields and so on. These specialists have worked very well. Moreover, this pellum can be used as a didactic guide on the topic of Ancient Rome. The costumes "fit" the actors well, and it really pleases the eye. The scenery is large-scale. Rome gives the impression of being the capital of the civilized world.
2. Music is another element of this pellum that does not cause negative emotions. This is almost epic music written by our former compatriot Dmitry Temkin. I can't say that you will remember it for a long time, but it feels like it was written by a real professional in his field.
So, the cons: 1. The script - it resembles a kindergarten matinee, written by the participants of this action themselves. But the creators touched on such a difficult topic as the reason for the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire - the superpower of that time (in short, the analogue of modern America), but instead of a detailed disclosure of this topic, everything was simplified to the above-mentioned level. There is the "wise" Caesar, there is his treacherous son and faithful commander, who are almost brothers to each other, there is Caesar's beloved daughter, who is not indifferent to the commander, there is an external and internal factor (barbarians, kings of conquered peoples, governors of provinces). If you have watched the picture "Gladiator", then know that Ridley our Scott was inspired by this very boredom when creating his fairy tale (although this does not make "Gladiator" cease to be a masterpiece). It is absolutely uninteresting to follow the main characters. The dialogues are boring. The finale is predictable, but you still have to sit through it (which not every viewer will agree to).
2. Topic - such an interesting topic was taken and actually messed up out of the blue. Do you want to know the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire? There are several of them, for example, the change in the economic formation of Roman society, the contradictions of the Romans and the inhabitants of the conquered peoples, the ambitions of the Caesars (and sometimes their inability to rule), there were no brave and decisive leaders who would take responsibility for themselves (only this was well revealed in the picture), the migration crisis (the great migration of peoples), pride and the arrogance of the Romans themselves, and even the Romans themselves have changed. Of the brave and brave warriors who want to rule the world and are convinced that only Rome is a civilization, and all the others are barbarians who must either be conquered or destroyed. So these very Romans turned into pampered and capricious hedonists, who hundreds of years later were easily defeated by wild barbarians in animal skins. In this picture, only a couple of these reasons were revealed. There are actually more of them, just the above were on the surface. The picture with the disclosure of the topic coped very, very poorly.
3. Battles are boring and uninteresting. Even extras don't save the day. The creators have not heard about tactics and strategy at all. Roman legionnaires don't even use a "turtle". Well, that's too much.
4. Acting - Sophia Loren doesn't really try here (before that I saw her in only one picture "Nine", and there she tried), but here you don't really believe her. Alec Guinness (Obi Wan from the Star Wars trilogy of the eighties) here we play Marcus Aurelius - and he plays him badly, so badly that you wonder how one could play one of the wisest rulers of Rome. Stephen Boyd (Messala from the legendary pellum "Ben-Hur") does not reach the level of Russell Crowe here. He doesn't have the experience and respect of soldiers behind him. He's just not here. Christopher Plummer as Commodus is generally a disappointment. Moreover, Christopher is a good actor, there is no doubt about this in his other paintings, but here he is just a pale spot. Bad acting is bad directing.
5. Timing - not only does the picture not catch on with its characters, it is also monstrously prolonged to the point of indecency. And this is not a case of "Ben-Hur" or "Quo Vadis" in 1951, or "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor, when a long timekeeping allows you to show more events and reveal the background of the characters better. In our picture, three hours serve only to ensure that the viewer gets a good night's sleep while watching the picture with the "keenest interest". There are a lot of dialogues in the picture that lead nowhere. There is no humor, there are few battles, even a chariot race does not save anything. There is little action. Add here the "wooden" acting and flat characters, and in general the fabulousness of everything that is happening - and we get a tragedy for huge money at that time.
It is good that this painting is almost forgotten, because it does not represent a cultural value. As mentioned earlier, this is only a didactic guide to the history of Ancient Rome. This is the maximum for this pellum. Failure and disappointment.
My rating is 5 out of 10, and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!
So, the pros: 1. Costumes and decorations - everything looks as they say "expensive and rich". Rome, the northern fortress of the empire, tunics, armor, helmets, weapons, shields and so on. These specialists have worked very well. Moreover, this pellum can be used as a didactic guide on the topic of Ancient Rome. The costumes "fit" the actors well, and it really pleases the eye. The scenery is large-scale. Rome gives the impression of being the capital of the civilized world.
2. Music is another element of this pellum that does not cause negative emotions. This is almost epic music written by our former compatriot Dmitry Temkin. I can't say that you will remember it for a long time, but it feels like it was written by a real professional in his field.
So, the cons: 1. The script - it resembles a kindergarten matinee, written by the participants of this action themselves. But the creators touched on such a difficult topic as the reason for the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire - the superpower of that time (in short, the analogue of modern America), but instead of a detailed disclosure of this topic, everything was simplified to the above-mentioned level. There is the "wise" Caesar, there is his treacherous son and faithful commander, who are almost brothers to each other, there is Caesar's beloved daughter, who is not indifferent to the commander, there is an external and internal factor (barbarians, kings of conquered peoples, governors of provinces). If you have watched the picture "Gladiator", then know that Ridley our Scott was inspired by this very boredom when creating his fairy tale (although this does not make "Gladiator" cease to be a masterpiece). It is absolutely uninteresting to follow the main characters. The dialogues are boring. The finale is predictable, but you still have to sit through it (which not every viewer will agree to).
2. Topic - such an interesting topic was taken and actually messed up out of the blue. Do you want to know the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire? There are several of them, for example, the change in the economic formation of Roman society, the contradictions of the Romans and the inhabitants of the conquered peoples, the ambitions of the Caesars (and sometimes their inability to rule), there were no brave and decisive leaders who would take responsibility for themselves (only this was well revealed in the picture), the migration crisis (the great migration of peoples), pride and the arrogance of the Romans themselves, and even the Romans themselves have changed. Of the brave and brave warriors who want to rule the world and are convinced that only Rome is a civilization, and all the others are barbarians who must either be conquered or destroyed. So these very Romans turned into pampered and capricious hedonists, who hundreds of years later were easily defeated by wild barbarians in animal skins. In this picture, only a couple of these reasons were revealed. There are actually more of them, just the above were on the surface. The picture with the disclosure of the topic coped very, very poorly.
3. Battles are boring and uninteresting. Even extras don't save the day. The creators have not heard about tactics and strategy at all. Roman legionnaires don't even use a "turtle". Well, that's too much.
4. Acting - Sophia Loren doesn't really try here (before that I saw her in only one picture "Nine", and there she tried), but here you don't really believe her. Alec Guinness (Obi Wan from the Star Wars trilogy of the eighties) here we play Marcus Aurelius - and he plays him badly, so badly that you wonder how one could play one of the wisest rulers of Rome. Stephen Boyd (Messala from the legendary pellum "Ben-Hur") does not reach the level of Russell Crowe here. He doesn't have the experience and respect of soldiers behind him. He's just not here. Christopher Plummer as Commodus is generally a disappointment. Moreover, Christopher is a good actor, there is no doubt about this in his other paintings, but here he is just a pale spot. Bad acting is bad directing.
5. Timing - not only does the picture not catch on with its characters, it is also monstrously prolonged to the point of indecency. And this is not a case of "Ben-Hur" or "Quo Vadis" in 1951, or "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor, when a long timekeeping allows you to show more events and reveal the background of the characters better. In our picture, three hours serve only to ensure that the viewer gets a good night's sleep while watching the picture with the "keenest interest". There are a lot of dialogues in the picture that lead nowhere. There is no humor, there are few battles, even a chariot race does not save anything. There is little action. Add here the "wooden" acting and flat characters, and in general the fabulousness of everything that is happening - and we get a tragedy for huge money at that time.
It is good that this painting is almost forgotten, because it does not represent a cultural value. As mentioned earlier, this is only a didactic guide to the history of Ancient Rome. This is the maximum for this pellum. Failure and disappointment.
My rating is 5 out of 10, and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!