Lee Eisenberg Full disclosure: I've never read the book on which Mervyn LeRoy's Academy Award-nominated "Quo Vadis" is based. I've also heard conflicting stories about the origin of Christianity (namely that the Jesus story has a lot in common with other stories from the region). But whatever the case, it's an impressive movie. I found the most intriguing character to be Nero. He's known as a ruthless, decadent individual, and the movie portrays him as such. Right before the US invaded Iraq, Peter Ustinov got interviewed and said "I don't know whether I played Nero or George W. Bush."It was ironic that Christianity, initially the movement of oppressed peoples, became an instrument of oppression in later centuries. There's always those unintended consequences. But anyway, the movie itself is an epic in the true sense of the word. Admittedly, the movie's so full of itself that one might feel tempted to riff it like on "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But I recommend it.PS: The title means "Where are you going?" in Latin.

HotToastyRag The 1950s produced many, many period piece epics. Most of them weren't very good, which is why the classics we watch every Easter are so revered. But in Technicolor splendor, it's easy to see why Hollywood was so anxious to expose audiences to the grand world of King Arthur, Robin Hood, and other Biblical or Middle Ages stories.Quo Vadis is one of the many, and like its counterparts, it doesn't really stand out from the crowd, despite a very valiant effort. On paper, it's pretty similar to Ben-Hur: it's set and filmed in Rome, has several epic adventurous scenes that include special effects and thousands of extras, and the plot involves cruel Roman rule and the birth of Christianity. There's even a chariot race scene!Although nominated for eight Oscars, Quo Vadis isn't the film most of us remember fondly and watch every April. Why not? Well, no offense to Deborah Kerr, but it's the acting. Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr star in this one, and Robert Taylor is no match for Charlton Heston's emotional range. Peter Ustinov plays the deranged, foppish, silly Emperor Nero, and every time he's on the screen you either want to burst out laughing or leave the room in search of more popcorn. He's just awful, and unfortunately, he has a pretty big part. I can't really think of any reason to sit through this one, unless you're the one person in the world who doesn't absolutely love Ben-Hur. Watch this and then you'll love the other by comparison.

tomsview I guess nostalgia would have to be a big part of my evaluation of a movie that is the earliest one I can remember. I must have been about 5-years old when I saw this in a suburban cinema in Sydney around 1952.Three things imprinted themselves: the slave being trampled as the legions march towards Rome; Ursus throwing Croton down the steps, and most vivid of all, Nero looking through the coloured glass ovals - I was a cheap date in those days.I have seen the movie many times since then, but it always seems like an old friend. Of course these days I am a little more discerning about its strengths and weaknesses.The story is gleaned from Henryk Sienkiewicz's slab of a novel, about an all-conquering Roman General, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), who falls in love with a Christian girl, Lygia (Debora Kerr), set against the backdrop of Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov). It was a great period for an epic; we get massive triumphs - "Remember, you are only a man" - the burning of Rome, and the persecution of the Christians complete with human torches, crucifixions and of course lions - the ancient Romans knew a thing or two about showbiz.Robert Taylor made a very clean-cut, all-Roman kind of guy - he gives the role a suitable touch of arrogance, but his tunics look as though they have just come back from the cleaners, and they didn't spare the Napisan. Taylor seemed to breeze through these types of parts, but there are others who gave the film more gravitas.Deborah Kerr glows in her role, however it's the relationship between Petronius (Leo Genn) and his slave Eunice (Marina Berti) that I find the most touching - he orders her whipped, but not to damage her skin.Then of course there's Peter Ustinov as Nero. Charles Laughton had given Nero a certain piquancy in DeMille's earlier, "The Sign of the Cross", but Ustinov out-lyres him all the way. His Nero is maybe a little one-note; he plays him as a petulant teen possibly dealing with gender issues, but his death scene is pitiable, "Is this then the end of Nero?" There are some great lines in the film, nearly all shared by Petronius and Nero.I think the film is quite spiritual and uplifting when Finlay Currie delivers as Peter. Much of the film's spirituality also comes from Miklos Rozsa's soaring score - conversions are definitely on the cards when a theme such as "The Miracle and Finale" gets the full orchestral treatment.As a movie, "Quo Vadis" is the equivalent in painting to a monumental salon piece by Lawrence Alma-Tadema rather than a more intriguing and challenging work by El Greco or Picasso.However it has its moments with scenes that CGI would find hard to beat, and the Christians in the arena never fail to bring a lump to my throat. And you know what? I still love those coloured glasses.

James Hitchcock "Quo Vadis?", based upon a novel by the Polish writer Henryk Sienkiewicz, might not be the film which launched the epic revival of the fifties and early sixties; that was probably DeMille's "Samson and Delilah" made two years earlier. It was, however, responsible for the popularity of epics dealing with the early history of Christianity and its persecution by the Roman Emperors; others include "The Robe", its sequel "Demetrius and the Gladiators", "The Silver Chalice", "Barabbas" and, of course, "Ben-Hur". The title (Latin for "Where are you going?") refers to an incident in which Saint Peter, fleeing from the persecutions of the Emperor Nero, was persuaded to return to Rome and face martyrdom by a vision of Christ. Although the only source for this non-Biblical story is the apocryphal "Acts of Peter", it has become part of Christian tradition, and is re-enacted in this film, in which both Peter and Nero are important characters. The main story, set against the background of the anti-Christian persecutions and the Great Fire of Rome, deals with the love of Marcus Vinicius, a Roman military commander, and the Christian girl Lygia. (Lygia is named after her native land, corresponding roughly to southern Poland. As it lay a long way outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, it is unlikely a native of the region would have made her way to Rome, but the patriotic Sienkiewicz presumably wanted to make his heroine a fellow-countrywoman). As with most epics, the film often departs radically from historical truth. In the film the fire is started by Nero himself, encouraged by his wife Poppaea, an act which leads directly to his overthrow when the Roman populace realise that he, not the Christians whom he has falsely blamed, was responsible. Nero kills Poppaea shortly before his own suicide. In reality the Great Fire took place in 64 AD, four years before Nero's downfall. Poppaea died of unknown causes in 65; many historians now doubt contemporary reports that Nero was responsible for her death. At the time of his own death Nero was married to Statilia Messalina, who survived him. In reality the philosopher Seneca also died in 65 and the courtier Petronius in 66; here Seneca survives Nero and Petronius dies shortly before him. Lygia is made the adopted daughter of a retired general, Aulus Plautius, a real historical figure here presented as a devout Christian, .although there is no historical evidence for this. (His wife Pomponia was accused of following a "foreign superstition", which may or may not have been Christianity). These discrepancies, however, mostly derive from the original novel and cannot simply be dismissed as "Hollywood goofs". Like any good novelist, Sienkiewicz realised the importance of a good story, and the film-makers were right to follow his example. Any attempt to "correct" his "errors" and to make the film follow history more faithfully would merely have weakened the power of his story. One thing that might strike a modern viewer is a certain note of misogyny running through the film. Poppaea is a venomous shrew and the other main female characters all fall hopelessly in love with men who have mistreated them- Lygia with Marcus, who effectively kidnaps her, the slave-girl Eunice with Petronius, who has had her whipped, and Nero's former mistress Acte remains infatuated with him despite his treatment of her and his obvious villainy. The movie is dominated by the male characters; the only outstanding female contribution comes from Patricia Laffan as the evil Poppaea. Deborah Kerr, makes a weak, milk- and-water Lygia, more plaster saint than Christian heroine. The original intention was to cast the teenage Elizabeth Taylor in the role, and she might well have made Lygia more spirited. Robert Taylor, however, is fine as Marcus. Although officially the hero he is not, in the early part of the film, altogether sympathetic, and Taylor brings out the hardness and arrogance which have been inculcated in him by his pagan upbringing and which gradually soften under the influence of Lygia's Christian beliefs. Other good contributions come from Finlay Currie as Saint Peter and Buddy Baer as Lygia's gigantic bodyguard Ursus. (Coincidentally "Ursus" means "bear" in Latin and "Baer" has the same meaning in German). Leo Genn is also good as Petronius, a man who initially seems like a shameless flatterer of Nero, yet whose flattery hides some sage advice and who proves himself capable of courage when he realises that he can no longer restrain the Emperor's evil nature. I suspect that Peter Ustinov's Nero will divide viewers, even though at the time he was nominated for a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar. (Genn was nominated for the same award). When I first saw the film I disliked his performance, thinking him too comical, effete and unthreatening. Having recently seen it again I have changed my mind; the historical Nero was probably much closer to the camp, childish, petulant, conceited and self-pitying wimp portrayed by Ustinov than to the ranting Hitler-style dictator which is how I had previously envisioned him. Ustinov makes us realise, as Chaplin did in "The Great Dictator", that tyrants can be ridiculous even at their most frightening. The one thing every epic needs to succeed is spectacle, and plenty of it. (One reason "The Silver Chalice" was such a flop is that its producers tried to dispense with this essential ingredient and make an epic on the cheap). And "Quo Vadis" has spectacle in spades. Even more than "Samson and Delilah", it started the trend for film-making on a grand scale which was to culminate in "Spartacus", "Ben-Hur" and "Cleopatra". The scenes of the Great Fire and of the games in the arena are particularly well done. I would not rate it quite as high as what I regard as the "Big Four" epics ("The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus" and "El Cid"), but it is not far behind. 8/10