THE SIGN OF THE CROSS begins with Nero and the burning of Rome and the theme throughout is the martyrdom of Christians willing to die for their faith. Against this is a background of excessive sex and violence.
Overall, it's a disappointment and very similar in structure to QUO VADIS which ended with Nero and the burning of Rome instead of using that as the starting point and handled the whole theme much more fully and effectively with some outstanding performances.
They both have virtually the same plot elements--Christians are persecuted, there's a love story between a Roman officer and a Christian girl, the Christians are depicted as willing to die for their faith, there are scenes of wild parties among Nero's wicked harem, and at the conclusion we have the arena scenes with an over-the-top display of wanton mayhem and violence as beasts are set free to devour the brave Christians.
The big difference is the matter of restraint shown in QUO VADIS, whereas Cecil B. DeMille couldn't resist pulling out all the stops. He even has his Empress Poppaea CLAUDETTE COLBERT bathing in a bath of milk and behaving as wickedly and wantonly as the Empress in QUO VADIS. And unfortunately, for his leads, he has the dull FREDRIC MARCH (eyeliner and all) going through the motions of falling in love with the beautiful but vacuous ELISSA LANDI who never manages to be the least bit convincing as the devout Christian. He photographs her in close-ups so that her golden hair seems to be a halo around her head. March gives a performance as dull as the one he gave as ANTHONY ADVERSE a few years later.
It's all typical DeMille excess and the only thing missing is the gorgeous Technicolor that MGM was able to use for their QUO VADIS.
Wasted as Nero is CHARLES LAUGHTON who has about fifteen minutes of screen time and never has the chance to make a dimensional character out of the role the way Peter Ustinov did in QUO VADIS. What little he does is effective but the film concentrates mainly on March and Landi and they're not up to their assignments for some reason. CLAUDETTE COLBERT makes the most of her earthy role as Empress Poppaea.
The most natural performance in the film belongs to TOMMY CONLON as Stephan, a boy who eventually must face his fate alongside Elissa who gives him inspiration with the usual cliché-ridden dialog given to the Christian martyrs.
Summing up: A dull first hour, it picks up speed during the last hour but is so full of hokey excesses that it's like watching a silent film and you keep waiting for the title cards to appear on cue.
Overall, it's a disappointment and very similar in structure to QUO VADIS which ended with Nero and the burning of Rome instead of using that as the starting point and handled the whole theme much more fully and effectively with some outstanding performances.
They both have virtually the same plot elements--Christians are persecuted, there's a love story between a Roman officer and a Christian girl, the Christians are depicted as willing to die for their faith, there are scenes of wild parties among Nero's wicked harem, and at the conclusion we have the arena scenes with an over-the-top display of wanton mayhem and violence as beasts are set free to devour the brave Christians.
The big difference is the matter of restraint shown in QUO VADIS, whereas Cecil B. DeMille couldn't resist pulling out all the stops. He even has his Empress Poppaea CLAUDETTE COLBERT bathing in a bath of milk and behaving as wickedly and wantonly as the Empress in QUO VADIS. And unfortunately, for his leads, he has the dull FREDRIC MARCH (eyeliner and all) going through the motions of falling in love with the beautiful but vacuous ELISSA LANDI who never manages to be the least bit convincing as the devout Christian. He photographs her in close-ups so that her golden hair seems to be a halo around her head. March gives a performance as dull as the one he gave as ANTHONY ADVERSE a few years later.
It's all typical DeMille excess and the only thing missing is the gorgeous Technicolor that MGM was able to use for their QUO VADIS.
Wasted as Nero is CHARLES LAUGHTON who has about fifteen minutes of screen time and never has the chance to make a dimensional character out of the role the way Peter Ustinov did in QUO VADIS. What little he does is effective but the film concentrates mainly on March and Landi and they're not up to their assignments for some reason. CLAUDETTE COLBERT makes the most of her earthy role as Empress Poppaea.
The most natural performance in the film belongs to TOMMY CONLON as Stephan, a boy who eventually must face his fate alongside Elissa who gives him inspiration with the usual cliché-ridden dialog given to the Christian martyrs.
Summing up: A dull first hour, it picks up speed during the last hour but is so full of hokey excesses that it's like watching a silent film and you keep waiting for the title cards to appear on cue.