Jeffrey Young If you're a purist Roman historian, you'll likely find yourself somewhat disappointed. The director deliberately took some historical liberties to flesh out an intense historical human drama. But it's not all that bad. It is interesting. The movie follows historical events of 180 A.D., sort of. There is no historical record that Marcus Aurelius intended a pan-Roman peace as the movie indicated. In fact, Marcus far-reaching ambition was to create two, new Roman provinces after defeating the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmatians. The concept of pan-Roman citizenship became reality in 211-212 A.D. when emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship throughout the empire. In 180 A.D., Marcus was preoccupied with the survival of the Roman empire itself. After 22 years of almost total peace and prosperity throughout the Roman empire under the sage emperor Antoninus Pius, his successors, the co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus found themselves almost immediately beset by attacks on the empire from Parthia in the east and the warlike Germanic Chauci and Chatti tribes. With difficulty both threats were met and neutralized but that was only the beginning. Historians think that westward migratory movements by Gothic tribes in eastern Europe started a chain reaction of Germanic tribes moving west and south west into Roman empire territory. The Marcomanni had always been known to Rome since the time of emperor Trajan. This powerful, large Germanic tribe had, with few exceptions, usually stable relations with Rome. But over 60 years later, population growth affected not only the Marcommani but almost every major Germanic tribe. New lands were needed by everyone. But Europe was now thoroughly settled. Nations could not expand without coming into conflict with another. After one punitive expedition to repel a Germanic invading tribe, Verus died, leaving Marcus to deal with the most serious threat that Rome had faced from foreign invaders in centuries. The Marcommani, Quadi, and Sarmatian tribes poured into the Roman empire and the Romans suffered serious military setbacks and at one time Marcus and his army were surrounded by the Quadi and defeat was near. The fighting was desperate and often hopeless but against all odds, Marcus and his legions prevailed, barely at the price of immense casualties. All three tribes were thoroughly defeated and had to sue for peace. It was at this point the exhausted Marcus, never a robust man, is thought by historians to have died of stomach cancer. There is no historical record that Marcus intended to replace his son Commodus nor is there any record of Marcus' thoughts and conversations to that effect. Historians still thought it odd because Marcus' four emperor predecessors selected their successor and it was not a son or relative. Marcus broke the chain of emperors selecting a qualified man as successor and this bore serious consequences for the empire. Nonetheless, history records that Commodus tried to rule justly and competently in his first six years of rule. Commodus must have listened to Marcus' advisors because he abandoned the plan to create two new Roman provinces from the lands of the defeated Germanic tribes. The realism Commodus faced was that the Roman army was depleted. Two new provinces would require at least three Roman legions apiece for minimum military occupation, manpower that Rome didn't have. Nor did Rome have the financial resources after a dozen years of continual warfare. Rome was financially spent. Given the realities of the situation, Commodus abandoned his father's plans for two, new provinces. Another poster was puzzled that the Roman legionaries carried their swords on their right side as this would make for awkward withdrawal with the right hand. But this is true. Roman legionaries carried their gladius swords on the right side, according to orders. Only the centurions and higher officers could wear their swords on the more convenient left side, which they did. Historians are still not certain as to the reason but it was military regulation for the typical legionnaire to carry his gladius on the right side.

tamarenne This production could have been great, but too many mistakes were made. It has so much going for it. Alec Guiness as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, is brilliant in his role. Also honorable mention to James Mason as Timonides and Christopher Plummer a very under-rated Commodus. As far as acting, that is about it.Also not to be forgotten is the amazing set design and photography, which I think remain unmatched to this day. On the negative side, a fright wigged Stephen Boyd as Livius practically begs the audience to chuckle. Likewise Sophia Loren, sporting about ten pounds of 1960's Italian Vogue make-up, is wasted. She and Boyd are actors that could, if given proper direction, deliver decent performances. That direction was sadly lacking in this movie. At times, when these two are together, the movie feels like a Barbra Cartland Bodice ripper, with hot declarations of love and long simmering stares at one another. The director obviously had no idea WHAT he wanted to do with the movie. Most egregiously, the score was absolutely horrendous. That mishmash of genres and boring symphonic melodies clashed with almost every minute of screen time in which they were utilized. A worse example of a score I cannot imagine.And let us not forget the plot, if it can be described as such. Somehow the meandering, at cross purposes, vague and boring plot managed to stretch 188 minutes into a seeming 188 THOUSAND, waiting in vain for something to actually happen. Nothing really ever does.

thinker1691 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. ****

tieman64 "The Americans have always depicted the West in extremely romantic terms - with the horse that runs to his master's whistle. They have never treated the West seriously, just as we have never treated ancient Rome seriously. Perhaps the most serious debate on the subject was made by Kubrick in the film "Spartacus"; the other films have always been cardboard fables. It was this superficiality that struck and interested me." – Sergio Leone I wouldn't call Kubrick's "Spartacus" a "serious debate" (Kubrick disowned the film precisely because it lacks complexity), but there is a sense that epics of yesteryear, despite their flaws, nevertheless possess an intelligence which modern epics lack. Think, for example, Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia", Ray's "55 Days in Peking", Houston's "The Man Who Would be King", Kubrick's "Spartacus" and even lesser films like "Viva Zapata", "Ben Hur" and "El Cid". Not to mention those unconventional epics by guys like Visconti, Welles, Leone, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Jancso: "Ran", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Satyricon", "Chimes at Midnight", "Red and White", "Kagemusha", "The Leopard", "Duck You Sucker" etc.Are there any epics today that match this stuff. "Troy"? "Alexander"? "Kingdom of Heaven"? "Gladiator"? "Lord of the Rings"? "The Last Samurai"? "Avatar"? I don't think so. Despite advances in technology and photography, these films are content to latch onto epically stupid and derivative screenplays.Anthony Mann's "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is at times a clunky film, but it nevertheless possess a certain substance which modern fare (and imitative stuff like "Gladiator") lacks. The film opens with Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his slave Timonides philosophising about pleasure and pain, Aurelius eventually confessing that he had a childhood anxiety in which he feared that the sun might never rise. This tone – the feeling that all life exists on that thin boundary between day and night, between existence and non-existence – permeates the entire film.We're then introduced to several other characters. There's Lucilla (Sophia Loren), the melancholy daughter of the Emperor, who both idolises her father and hates her mother's constant schemes, plots and infidelities. She also hates the fact that she has to, for political reasons, marry the King of Armenia in order to secure an ally on Rome's eastern front. Much scheming then follows, in which cunning politicians attempt to kill the Emperor and replace him with his more malleable son, Commodus.Commodus is a gladiator loving lug, who indulges in combat and games of war. He knocks skulls and fights barbarians, but is also the friend of Livius, the man whom the Emperor has chosen as his successor. After the Emperor is assassinated, a mild feud thus develops between Livius and Commodus. The politicians want Commodus to take the throne and he eventually does, Livius too kind and humble to stand in his way.Unlike Joaquin Phoenix's version of the same character in Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", Commodus is not an incestuous creep, but an illegitimate child with patricidal fantasies and delusions of grandeur. Narcissistic and tormented, he cuts Rome's ties with all its starving colonies and begins to promote his own imperial grandeur. Rome then becomes a sort of extension of Commodus' inferiority complex, an unconscious manifestation of his own psyche, which inflates and inflates and then comes crashing down, fatalistically crumbling, the illusion no longer supportable.We then launches into several subplots which attempt to describe the historical causes of the empire's collapse: rampant corruption, over expansion, civilisational clashes, inequality, trade problems, the collapse of civic responsibility etc. These issues aren't handled in anything but the most basic ways, but unless one adopts a far more abstract tone, perhaps they can't be handled otherwise.The film then delineates the admittance of a barbarian tribe into the folds of Rome. The barbarians are presented to the senate and arguments made for them to be granted land and citizenship. Livius and Timonides argue that Rome must "change" and be "flexible", that it should cease "conquering" and allow tribes to "freely join" and "trade", whilst Commodus and his cronies argue in favour for continuing Rome's ruthless hegemony.Nevertheless, the barbarians are given their own slice of land, and a sort of relaxed, multicultural Rome begins to form. Commodus detests this, however, and casually orders the massacre of Rome's barbarian citizens. Anthony Mann directed this picture, so of course when the violence comes, its a bit more hard hitting and realistically clumsy than other films of the era.The film ends with Commodus testing his divinity against Livius in a duel. Like the final battle in "Gladiator", they fight to the death, Commodus dying in Livius' arms and Rome's pomp and pageantry along with it.7.5/10 – Though one of the better "sword-and-sandal" epics, this film really highlights the limitations of its genre. Despite its daringly downbeat screenplay (the whole film oozes disillusionment), the fetishizing of the film's huge sets is annoying, the acting is stiff, the production mechanical and the music intrusive. Comparisons to "Spartacus" and "Gladiator" are apt, though "Spartacus" (1960) is far more affecting, going for broad emotions, less politics and more sweep, whilst "Gladiator" is primarily a revenge tale. Incidentally, it was David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" (which introduced an aesthetic which suddenly made Hollywood epics feel clunky), the rise of "bloodier epics" ("Zulu" (1964), Italian epics, "Bonnie and Clyde" etc) and the twin box office failures of Mann's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" and Ray's "55 Days at Peking", that pretty much marked the end of these big, Hollywood productions.Worth one viewing. Makes a good companion piece to "Ben Hur", "Spartacus", "55 Days at Peking" and "Lawrence of Arabia". Most of the other epics of the era – "Cleopatra", "The 300 Spartans", "The Vikings", "El Cid", "Robe" etc etc – haven't aged too well.