. All countries. United States.

1. Quo Vadis Film

United Kingdom. Canada.

Australia. Germany. France. Spain. Italy.

Argentina. Austria. Belgium. Brazil. Bulgaria. Chile.

China. Colombia. Czech Republic. Denmark. Finland. Greece.

Holland. Hong Kong. Hungary.

Iceland. Indonesia. Ireland.

Israel. India. Japan. Malaysia.

Mexico. New Zealand. Norway. Philippines. Poland. Portugal. Romania.

Russia. Singapore. South Africa. South Korea. Sweden.

Switzerland. Taiwan. Thailand. Turkey. Ukraine. United Arab Emirates. Quo Vadis Blu-ray ReviewA sweeping Hollywood epic that falls flat.Reviewed by, March 16, 2009Based on the 1895 novel of the same name by Nobel Prize-winning novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz, inspired by an apocryphal account of an exchange between St.

Peter and a post-ascended Christ, and nominated for eight 1951 Academy Awards (including Best Picture, Cinematography, and Music), Quo Vadis is the epitome of early Hollywood spectacle. Of course, MGM (who earned a reputation for helming such lavish films) and director Mervyn LeRoy ( Little Caesar, Gypsy, and Random Harvest, just to name a few) spared no expense to bring their vision of ancient Rome to Technicolor-life. Hiring a star-studded cast, constructing endless sets and soundstages, employing thousands of extras, and commissioning more than 30,000 costumes, LeRoy wanted nothing more than to shock and awe audiences with the sheer scope and magnitude of his production.Sadly, LeRoy's spectacle comes at the expense of a more involving story. Quo Vadis opens amidst the notorious reign of Nero (Peter Ustinov), a Roman emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty whose particularly extravagant and depraved rule brought about the persecution and execution of countless early Christians. But the tale itself focuses on one of Nero's veteran commanders, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), who has the debatable misfortune of falling in love with a religious upstart named Lygia (Deborah Kerr). As Nero succumbs to an increasing lust for power and the envious wiles of his wife (Patricia Laffan), he burns Rome, blames the newly emerging zealots in his empire, and begins sentencing every Christian his forces capture to death in the arena. Arrested and imprisoned for their faith and love, Marcus and Lygia have to face Nero's rage as readily as they embraced their relationship's humble beginnings.Even though I've long been fascinated by the social, geopolitical, and cultural history of the Roman era, Quo Vadis didn't intrigue or engage my interests.

While I knew I would have to endure the verbose deliveries and dated production values of '50s epic cinema, I was surprised to find myself growing so weary of Marcus and Lygia's love story. Maybe Titanic-techies felt the same while sitting through Kate and Leo's insipid Titanic heartstrings, but I longed for something meatier and more intense.

I wanted LeRoy to dig into Nero's brain and show me an aspect of the madman I had never considered - a conflicted soul, a despondent ruler, a slipping mind. Anything other than a greedy opportunist - and, while Ustinov does make the most of every scene, the director continually returns to the dry, plodding romance at the heart of the tale. Don't get me wrong, students of history will find plenty of material to hold their attention, but they'll also have to wade through redundant dialogue, overwrought plot developments, and a wholly contrived third act that shrugs its shoulders and goes for broke.It doesn't help that Quo Vadis clocks in at 171 minutes; at least 55 of which I was glancing at my watch. I'm sure there are cinephiles and historians out there who are more than willing to look past the film's shortcomings, but I'd much rather invest my time in more timeless classics like Warner's Gone with the Wind and Sony's recent release of (both spectacles in their own right that focus on character and story above all else). Even Spartacus, flawed as it is, manages to effectively mingle history with legend and deliver an exciting tale worthy of its stature.

While LeRoy continually reminds viewers of the lush riches and breathtaking cityscapes of Rome, he neglects to infuse his production with any semblance of soul. Average at best and tiresome at worst, Quo Vadis offers more risk than reward and should be approached with caution. Quo Vadis debuts on Blu-ray with a relatively impressive 1080p/VC-1 transfer (framed at 1.33:1) that rights the technical wrongs of Warner's recent DVD release. The film's newly-minted high definition palette is far more natural and attractive than its standard definition counterpart, featuring bold primaries, more realistic skintones, and deeper blacks. Delineation is also improved, showcasing slightly more shadow detail than ever before. Likewise, texture clarity and edge definition are sharper and more refined, leaving the presentation without any significant flaws (aside from the inherent limitations of its now-sixty-year-old source).

Fleeting softness and print damage still pop up from time to time, but artifacting, noise, banding, and crush have been kept to a minimum. Lingering edge enhancement appears as well, but should go somewhat unnoticed by anyone watching the film on a screen smaller than 100 inches. All things considered, it's a polished presentation that doesn't look artificial, overworked, or unfaithful to its roots.Quo Vadis doesn't quite offer the sort of masterful restoration rightfully granted to other notable Warner catalog releases ( and immediately spring to mind), but its video transfer should easily please fans of early '50s cinema and classic productions just the same. Purists like myself will probably appreciate Warner's Dolby Digital Mono presentation of the film's original audio - its crisp dialogue, authentic single-channel sonics, and nostalgic sensibilities are refreshing at times - but lossless junkies will frown at the studio's decision to forgo a 5.1 channel remix. As you might expect, LFE support is non-existent, the rear speakers are silent, and the mono track doesn't produce any sort of soundfield whatsoever.

Moreover, treble tones are often thin and tinny, the film's musical score is continually overshadowed by an overactive soundscape, and low-end thooms are occasionally shrill. On a positive note, I also didn't have any lofty expectations to shatter. The simple fact that I was listening to a mono presentation made it easier to sink into the film without evaluating how faithful the sound designers were to the film. Ultimately, had Warner provided both a lossless audio option and an original mono mix, Quo Vadis fans would have had the best of both worlds. However, I also think it would be disingenuous to criticize the disc's producers for sticking to the film's 1951 aesthetics and LeRoy's production. Despite a truncated selection of special features, the Blu-ray edition of Quo Vadis delivers a lot of information about the history of the film, the involvement of its cast and crew, the film's eventual reception, and its influence over the years. Audio Commentary: Writer and industry historian F.X.

Feeney sits down for an engaging chat in which he discusses the film's production woes, its lengthy development, and its impact on the genre. While he doesn't have enough time to pursue every subject he skims past, Feeney still does a fine job keeping his listeners on board. In the Beginning (SD, 44 minutes): A thorough, albeit complementary, glimpse behind-the-scenes that explains how Quo Vadis was largely responsible for the coming flood of Biblical Epics that would dominate Hollywood for the next ten years. I found myself nitpicking its arguments, but it was a solid documentary nonetheless. Theatrical Trailers (SD, 5 minutes). Seeped in stirring history, based on the exploits of Nero's tyranny, and packed with marvelous Golden Age production values, Quo Vadis is a surprisingly dull 'classic' that probably won't win over many new followers. The Blu-ray edition is an improvement - offering an excellent video transfer and a faithful mono presentation of the film's original audio - but the lack of a lossless 5.1 remix and the presence of an anemic supplemental package will prevent this release from attracting curious masses.

I suggest giving it a rent before considering a purchase.

Ancient Rome never looked so good-especially in the gorgeous MGM technicolor of 1951. Costumes, sets, photography and music are all of a high order-and all of the performances are competent with two outstanding ones by Leo Genn (Petronius) and Peter Ustinov (Nero). Ustinov reminds me of an overbaked Charles Laughton in some of his mad scenes, but he is a convincing weakling as Nero. Leo Genn has some of the wittiest dialogue and handles his lines with professional ease, his eyes flashing with humor as he pretends to agree with Nero on certain points. Robert Taylor is stalwart in the lead giving his usual dependable performance and Deborah Kerr is lovely (if a bit British in manner) as Lygia. All the action and excitement you want from a spectacle-the burning of Rome, Christians in the arena thrown to the lions, the triumphal marches accompanied by Miklos Rozsa's mighty score-and scenes with sentimental and religious overtones (sometimes too extended and talky) -all combine to make the kind of lush spectacle MGM knew would be popular at the box-office. Although discriminating critics found fault with certain factors, it won eight Academy Award nominations with Ustinov and Genn both nominated for supporting roles.

Quo Vadis Film

Grand scale spectacle-but don't expect anything deep. Henryk Sienkiewicz was one of Poland's great historical novelists, and one of the first recipients of the Nobel Prize for literature (1905). It has only been in the last decade or so that translations of other novels by him have appeared in English, but his major work, QUO VADIS?, has been known since it appeared over a century ago. It was a study of the early days of the Christians in Rome, and their first persecution by the Emperor Nero (54 - 68 A.D.) It concentrates on the burning of Rome and the persecution of the Christians (including the death by crucifixion of St. So the background is identical to Cecil B. DeMille's THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.

Inevitably comparisons between the two films, their plots, and the performances of the two Neros (Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov) result. But the two stories are not the same. Sienkiewicz threw in far more of the history of the Rome of that period than the author of the play THE SIGN OF THE CROSS did.

And because of his deeply felt commitment to his faith, Sienkiewicz showed the destruction of Nero's rotten regime and the first triumph of Christianity. THE SIGN OF THE CROSS does not do that - my comment there was that DeMille never made such a pessimistic and tragic film in his career, with all the good people being destroyed and Nero (at that time) triumphant. This does not happen in QUO VADIS, where the corruption and incompetence of the regime finally loses the support of the people (and. Ironically worse. There is also the addition of the leading poet-courtier of the day, Petronius Arbiter. A man of wit and taste, Petronius was one of several figures of literary note in Nero's court, and one of several to meet tragedy by being near that egomaniac. The others were led by Nero's original chief minister Seneca, the stoic philosopher and dramatist.

Seneca's nephew Lucan was also a leading figure in the court. Both men were eventually turned into foes of the regime, especially as Seneca fell from his ministerial position after the murder of Nero's mother Agrippina. Petronius managed to avoid the political conflict that involved the other two, but the Emperor's irrational jealousy helped link the three.

Lucan wrote a savage epic poem against the Imperial family (PHARSALIA) which signaled his rejection of the regime. Lucan joined a conspiracy against Nero led by a Senator named Piso. It was discovered, and Lucan and Seneca implicated.

Both were forced to commit suicide (by opening their veins). Tigellinus, Nero's leading adviser, insinuated that Petronius was involved too (he wasn't). Petronius also committed suicide the same way, but wrote a witty and accurate denunciation to Nero which was given to the Emperor after the writer's death. Petronius' major surviving work, THE SATYRICON, was a wonderful look at the rot at the center of the regime of Nero.

It (by the way) was turned into a film by Fellini in the late 1960s. Leo Genn brought Petronius and his delicate wit and taste out in the film, and merited the Oscar nomination he got for this - his best remembered role (aside from Dr. 'Kick' in THE SNAKE PIT).

Ustinov brings a degree of frailty to Nero - an uncertainty as to the acceptance of his public persona. He flails about between seeking the approval of the artists like Petronius and those who manipulate the tyrant in him (Poppeia and Tigellinus). Despite his vicious evil one sympathizes with him - he is a sick man. And his reconstruction program (he burns down old Rome to create 'Neropolis') is on par to that of another tyrant of more recent vintage, who planned to build a world capital called 'Germania' over Berlin's bones. He too left many bones, but it is hard to consider him at all sympathetic. As spectacle and history QUO VADIS? Is quite rewarding.

It may telescope the events of 64 - 68 A.D. (when Nero committed suicide with assistance), and avoid the three brief Emperors who ruled after Nero within the year (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) before Vespasian came back from the war in Israel to take the throne for a decade - but it does show how Nero's regime collapsed.

DeMille never tackled it. But despite those two omissions the film does do the period pretty well. Robert Taylor is more effective as a military commander / hero than Fredric March had been in SIGN OF THE CROSS. Deborah Kerr is more believable as an early Christian convert. And Finley Currie is wonderful as Simon Peter - who realizes that he must die for the Lord that he once denied. His end is based on a legend that Peter was crucified upside down, supposedly at his request that he did not deserve to be crucified in the same way as the Lord he briefly failed.

Altogether a superior religious - historic epic. At Last one of the great classic Hollywood blockbuster epics of the early fifties has finally found its rightful DVD home with this exceptional two disc release from Warner Home Video. Produced by Sam Zimbalist for MGM in 1951 and expertly directed by Mervin LeRoy 'Quo Vadis' was Hollywood's first wallop in the fight against the onslaught of Television. Available at first, and for many years only on VHS tape, it then began to appear on a plethora of foreign DVDs but with varying quality it must be said. One such unfortunate issue, which originated in Korea, was released without any opening credits whatsoever! I kid you not!

That said - we now thankfully have it in our possession and a superb issue it is! With perfect pristine colour resolution, Robert Surtees' Acadamy Award nominated colour Cinematography comes across with well defined and plush imagery. The various cast members are attired in the most gorgeously coloured costumes.

Particularly dazzling is the golden uniform worn by the picture's star Robert Taylor as he proudly bears himself aboard his golden chariot during his triumphal parade through Rome. Also here is Miklos Rozsa's outstanding Acadamy Award nominated score! His main Roman motif, bold and strong, dominates the scenes in the Forum and in the Arena.

In gentler mode is his beautiful love theme for the scenes with the star-crossed lovers Marcus and Lygia. Then there's the frenetic bacchanal-like Hymn of the Vestal Virgins followed immediately by the robust and heroic Triumphal March. Also heard on this issue - and for the first time since the original roadshow release 56 years ago - is the composer's Overture and Exit music. The great Rozsa would barely eclipse his 'Vadis' music eight years later with his Oscar winning score for 'Ben Hur'. The assembled cast are uniformly excellent except, perhaps, the syrupy and simpering characterization of Deborah Kerr as Lygia.

But Robert Taylor is fine in what is probably his best known role as Nero's legion commander Marcus Vinicus. Outstanding is Leo Genn as Petronious - the sardonic and sarcastic confidante of the tyrannical Emperor Nero. And of course there is the wonderful Peter Ustinov chewing up every bit of scenery there is as the crazed and loony Nero. Both Ustinov and Genn were nominated for Acadamy Awards. The picture is also buoyed by some colourful and elaborate set pieces such as the Vestal Virgins singing and wildly dancing in homage to the goddess Vesta, the spectacular triumphal parade of the Roman legions taking the salute from Nero as it passes the great palace, the exciting chariot chase, the brilliantly staged burning of Rome and the harrowing scenes in the Arena as the lions are released on the hapless hymn-singing Christians. These scenes all come across extremely well on this excellent DVD which comes with a trailer, a splendid 45 minute featurette 'Quo Vadis And The Genesis of the Biblical Epic' and a commentary by one F.X.

Feeney who persists in calling the leading lady's character Leega instead of Lygia and neglects to tell us that the opening narration is spoken by MGM favourite Walter Pidgeon (uncredited). However this is only a minor quibble and does nothing to diminish the greatness of this issue. Bravo Warner Home Video!! It is a great pleasure to see so many comments here that are enthusiastic about 'Quo Vadis'. I just saw it again last night after about 15 years, and I marvelled at what a high quality spectacle it is - better than ever, in fact. In his autobiography, 'Take One', Mervyn LeRoy has some great stories about 'Quo Vadis'. Such as: while filming one of the really big crowd scenes, a voice pipes up from the extras: 'Hey Moy-vin!'

, and it's Jack Benny. And in a scene right out of one of his pictures, when 'Quo Vadis' is screened in San Francisco, and LeRoy is present, the theatre happens to be right near the corner where the big-time director once sold papers as a kid. He revisits the corner after the screening and sheds a few tears. LeRoy was an extra in C.B. DeMille's first 'Ten Commandments', so the desire to deliver something DeMillian was realized at last, and with smashing success. We all agree on Peter Ustinov's ingenious performance, so all I need to add is that in his own autobiography, 'Dear Me', Sir Peter's recollections of the filming are as wonderful as his performance. Whatever his capabilities as an actor, I always thought that Bob Taylor's performance was pretty darn good, and appropriate, too: what high-ranking Roman officer wouldn't be pompous?

In any case, the story is much larger than Marcus' character, and the story comes to dominate the picture. It is indeed a pity that the excellent Rozsa score wasn't handled by the Warners sound department, where it would have been been presented to full effect Much of its impact is squandered by its being kept in the background. I don't think Merv LeRoy had so much to do with this decision, as his alma mater was Warners (try watching 'Anthony Adverse'!) It seems that it was probably MGM policy. With sensitivity, a DVD version could perhaps offer the picture with a 'sweetened' soundtrack. The quality of the camera work by solid professionals Bob Surtees (later MGM's UltraPanavision 70 specialist) and Wm V.

Skall (his work on 'The Silver Chalice' was outstanding) really cannot be overstated. Along with the delights of Sir Peter's performance, I still get choked up when noble Buddy Baer takes on that bull, and when Marina Berti's character displays so much love and devotion to Leo Genn's. Genn is right up there with James Mason in quality, and indeed, Mason may have taken a few pointers from Genn's performance for his own acting in subsequent epics.

Patricia Laffan is decadently sexy without being campy. Trivia: scenes for the burning of Rome were sensibly used in MGM's 'The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao' and 'Atlantis, The Lost Continent' to great effect. It is a credit to Merv LeRoy for allowing great actors like Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn to 'do their thing'. 'Quo Vadis' is a classic: a stunning spectacle, intelligent, good script, fine performances by practically everybody, and it remains long in the memory, and holds up well indeed. A fellow IMDb-er from Poland, defending Henryk Sienkiewicz's monumental, Nobel Prize-winning novel (which I HAVE read, by the way) calls this M-G-M Technicolor spectacle 'CRAP'! The novel is incredibly dense and detailed; possibly a lot truer to what was known in the early part of the twentieth century of the actual events of the time of its plot; with lots of references to the cruelty and luxury of Nero's Rome; frequent mentions of the pervasive nudity under all kinds of circumstances among the Romans of the time; and, given its length, a perhaps more respectful view of the emergence of Christianity at a time when its converts risked their very lives to admit their beliefs.

There is no way that even a multi-part TV mini-(I mean, maxi-)series could come close to approximating the novel's overwhelming complexity. But, as a piece of filmed entertainment, this cinema extravaganza is not at all worthy of being consigned to the proverbial garbage heap.

The cast, yes, including Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr, but, especially the supporting actors (Peter Ustinov, of course; plus Leo Genn, in particular, as well as Patricia Laffan, Marina Berti, Finlay Currie, Felix Aylmer, Rosalie Crutchley, et al.) all take full advantage of a script that had many witty as well as dramatic moments and, for its day, a fairly reverent (though not historically accurate) rendering of Christianity's emergence in a hostile Roman world. In addition its production values have never been surpassed; in fact, they've never been equalled. One understands how beleaguered those of Polish descent often must feel (I, for one, have never been a fan of so-called 'Polish jokes.' ), but let's not set impossible standards for a translation of one of Poland's most memorable literary achievements! This production is an example of Hollywood marshalling some impressive resources, while avoiding more than a modicum of the cliches that can sabotage such a project. It may not honor its source as some might wish, but it's still a quite grand and opulently eye-filling way to enjoy close to three hours. Quo Vadis, based on the late nineteenth century novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, has been filmed many times in many lands for the cinema and for television.

It was done as a Broadway play at the turn of the last century. But this is the version that most people remember and talk about.

It's also the first of the big budget sand and scandal epics that the movies made to try and compete with that little home entertainment machine that was popping up in more and more homes. MGM built the magnificent sets the film was done on and sent Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and the whole cast over to Italy to shoot it. Those sets later popped up in Ben-Hur, The Fall of the Roman Empire and dozens of Italian gladiator films. Supposedly somewhere in the cast of thousands both Elizabeth Taylor and Sophia Loren appeared as extras. Spot them if you can.

Another extra was Lia DiLeo and gossip about her and Robert Taylor led to the break up of the Robert Taylor-Barbara Stanwyck marriage. The story is about Robert Taylor as Marcus Vinicius, Roman soldier and his lust then love for Christian girl Lygia played by Deborah Kerr. Their story is set against the background of the early Christian church in Rome and the persecution of it by the Emperor Nero. Taylor and Kerr are fine in the leads, but in this case the supporting cast really overshadowed the stars. Peter Ustinov as Nero and Leo Genn as Petronius were both nominated for Best Supporting Actor of 1951, but lost to Karl Malden in Streetcar Named Desire. Peter Ustinov got a once in a lifetime part as Nero.

It's the kind of role that one can overact outrageously and still convey all the sinister impulses that this villain possessed. Ustinov was compared with Charles Laughton as Nero in The Sign of the Cross and I wouldn't dare say who was better. My favorite part in this film has always been Leo Genn as Gaius Petronius. He's the only actor in the film who's holding his own with Ustinov. He's a pretty smart guy this Petronius, keeping his place at the court by flattery and guile.

It's a bitter pill for him to swallow when after Nero burns Rome, the Rome he loves and has dedicated his life to. He could have prevented it by taking a righteous stand against the tyrant. But instead he played the cynic once too often and decides what he deems to be the only course of action open to him. Finlay Currie is a strong and hearty, but aged St.

My conception of St. Peter has always been that of Finlay Currie and in his youth that of Howard Keel in The Big Fisherman. Peter's a hands on kind of pastor used to hard work. After all he was a fisherman in his younger days and that certainly is outdoor work. Whether people are confirmed Christians or not will depend on how they take this film.

We all can certainly admire the spectacle and the talent of the players. And nobody questions the atrocities committed by Emperor Nero against the early Christians. But at one point after Taylor realizes his love for Kerr, he makes what I consider a quite reasonable offer to allow her to continue in her faith and he'll even put up whatever kind of chapel on the house grounds for that purpose.

Not so says Kerr, it's going to be all or nothing. That all or nothing attitude today has got a few people upset with organized religion for various reasons. But that's in the distant future from the First Century AD.

I first saw this film as a re-run in 1964-on the big screen. Much is lost, I think, when viewing it on television. Peter Ustinov's portrayal of the emperor Nero raises the bar for anyone else who is ever cast as an unbalanced and corrupt Roman emperor. Certainly, we don't see this style or quality of acting in newer films such as 'Gladiator.'

I focus on the 'Nero' character more than others because Ustinov was truly able to get inside the role, and appeared to stay very focused. Robert Taylor was fine in the movie, but his role could have been handled by nearly any leading man of the time. Ditto for Deborah Kerr. The remaining cast was very, very good. The set designs and costumes were sheer artistry and the score was effective and complimentary. I recommend this to anyone who is interested in spectacles and studying fine acting techniques (i.e., Ustinov's). QUO VADIS?, loosely based on Henryk Sienkiewicz' massive novel, is probably the most all-encompassing early Christian saga to ever appear on screen.

In one film, you have Paul of Tarsus (who, despite his importance to Christianity, has only rarely appeared in film); Simon Peter's last days, complete with his legendary upside-down crucifixion; the significance of the Catacombs, and the blame placed on Christians for the burning of Rome; and, of course, the infamous slaughter of Christians in the Coliseum, at the hands of the Roman Empire's best-known evil Emperor, Nero. At a time when television was making severe inroads into the motion picture industry, QUO VADIS? Provided a massive spectacle that the small screen could not compete against, and the film rose to become the second biggest money-maker MGM had produced, at that point, behind GONE WITH THE WIND. The tale is somewhat reminiscent of De Mille's SIGN OF THE CROSS, and revolves around Roman commander Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor, in the role that would revive his career, and make him the 'King' of 50s period epics), fresh from a successful campaign, who falls for beautiful Christian 'slave' Lygia (the fetching Deborah Kerr).

Much to the sympathetic amusement of his uncle, Roman aristocrat Petronius (worldly Leo Genn), Lygia refuses to accept Vinicius' passes, and when the he becomes more persistent, he gets a bit roughed-up by her bodyguard/protector, brawny Ursus (the legendary Buddy Baer). Thoroughly confused, the soldier finds solace in the decadent court of the boy Emperor, Nero (Peter Ustinov, who is superb, stealing the film), but he feels empty, without Lygia to share in his triumph. Nero, who is, by turns, petulant, cruel, and anxious to be accepted, is being held somewhat in check by Petronius' careful manipulations, but the more radical of his inner circle look for excuses to gain favor, with 'Christian bashing' a sure way to win his heart. The stench of Rome on a hot summer night provides him an inspiration; to burn much of it down, blame the Christians, then rebuild the city to his liking. Ignoring Petronius' protests (which marks the end of his influence, and, ultimately, his life), Nero carries out his plan, then takes many Christians prisoner (including Lygia), promising the irate citizens of Rome the gory spectacle of seeing justice done by lions.

While Vinicius hasn't accepted Christianity, yet, he does recognize injustice, and chooses to die with Lygia rather than live under a lunatic (a theme that would be repeated in THE ROBE). In a take-off of the Cretan Bull myth, Nero stages an elaborate entertainment; dressing the Christian girl in a nearly transparent gown (revealing far more of Ms. Kerr than she probably wished!), and tying her to a post, he releases an enraged giant bull, with only a barehanded Ursus to protect her. Realizing only a miracle can save the woman he loves, Vinicius prays to the Christian God for help.and the epic climactic battle begins.

MGM's first major production filmed in Rome, QUO VADIS? Is a very entertaining film, which, while fast and loose historically, never ceases to impress with it's grandeur. While the 'human' side of the story isn't much (Taylor is, as always, a bit wooden, and Kerr hasn't much of a part to work with), the performance of Ustinov is simply fabulous, and, if you look quickly, you'll see Elizabeth Taylor and Sophia Loren (in her first American film), in unbilled bit parts. This is another 'classic' which deserves to be on DVD.when MGM decides to take that step, add it to your collection; you won't be disappointed! During 63 a.d. A Roman official prefect named Marco Vinicio (Robert Taylor) returns from Gaul wars and goes home Petronius (Leo Genn and enamored the gorgeous slave played by Marina Berti ), adviser of emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov). Vinicio confess him he has fallen in love from Ligia (Deborah Kerr), a virginal and mysterious young whom has known in the Plautus's home (Felix Aylmer and wife Nora Swinburne).

Meantime, the Christians are accused by Nero (Peter Ustinov), along with Poppea (Patricia Laffan) and Tijelinus (Ralph Truman) of burning the ancient Rome. Depraved emperor Nero wants to get rid the Christians followed by Apostle Peter (Finlay Currie) and Paul (Abraham Sofaer) and then orders burn on stakes and use them as meat for hungry lions. Vinicio helped by Ursus (Buddy Baer) risk their lives to save her. This huge epic film gets lots of crowd scenarios, fabulous gowns, dramatic scenes and is realized on a giant scale, spectacular sequences and Christians' bloody martyrdom as lions attack in arena and cruel crucifixions. Originally cast in 1949 with Elizabeth Taylor as Lygia and Gregory Peck as Marcus Vinicius.

But as the production changed hands the following year, the roles were recast with enjoyable Deborah Kerr and robust Robert Taylor. Among the many actresses who tried out for a role in the film: a pre-stardom Audrey Hepburn. Peter Ustinov's overwhelming hammy acting, he gives an immortal and unforgettable performance. Film debut of Bud Spencer, who plays one of the Emperor's guards and as extra appears Sofia Loren and her mother. The film was an epic colossal with big financial success, 32,000 costumes were used in the film; besides, spectacularly and colorfully photographed by Robert Surtees and magnificent musical score by Myklos Rozsa.

The movie was very well directed by Mervyn Leroy. The motion picture is the ultimate version of the classic novel by the Polish Henryk Sienkiewicz. Remade for television by Franco Rossi (1985) and inferior version (2001) by the Polish Jerzy Kawalerowicz. This movie has its virtues, but subtlety is not among them. It opens with a narrator telling us what to think about the story we're about to see, and closes with a hymn sung over the end credits.

In between Peter Ustinov plays Nero, and we know he must be mad because he pouts and rolls his eyes and chews every carpet in sight. Was this performance the inspiration for Jennifer Saunder's Eddy on ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS? Watch Nero's blubbering tantrum after he reads Petronius's letter, and you'll see what I mean. The movie is visually sumptuous and (at least until the last hour or so) pretty entertaining, but every time the script diverges from the novel to engineer 'big' Hollywood moments — Peter orating from the stands of the Colosseum, the climactic palace revolution, etc. — the action descends into melodrama and the acting seems very dated. The film gets preachier as it goes along, which is unfortunate; the filmmakers don't seem confident that the images and situations can speak for themselves, so the message is shouted at the audience: Nero bad, Christians good!

Well, yes, but because the prudish 1950s film-making won't show the Christians actually suffering as they're crucified (they sing hymns and look heavenward), there's no real emotional involvement. We're told what to think, but we're not made to feel anything.

Two other versions, the 2001 Polish television series and the 1985 Italian mini-series — truly profound productions that capture the dark genius of Sienkiewicz's novel (and the terror of Nero's reign)— are both so vastly superior that they can't even be compared to this campy Hollywood extravaganza. The 1st century Roman Empire, the fire of Rome, early Christianity, martyrdom.this historical content was dealt with in many films before and after 1951. Yet, it is LeRoy's QUO VADIS most viewers associate with the infamous period of Roman history, the reign of Nero (A.D. There are, I think, several reasons.

One is, definitely, the source, a Noble Prize winner novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz. The Polish writer, being an acknowledged historian, contained detailed historical facts and a vivid fictitious story in his novel. As a result, QUO VADIS is a universal masterpiece, absolutely worth reading for anyone. But, since the film, though an adaptation of the book, skips many events or even characters, we may treat Mervyn LeRoy's QUO VADIS as a separate Hollywood production. In this respect, the movie is also well known as a gigantic spectacle with great cast, lavish sets, crowds of extras, which constitutes a magnificent journey to ancient Rome, the Rome which was on the verge of becoming 'Neropolis'. Then, a viewer does not have to know the novel and will enjoy the film. THE STORY: If we consider QUO VADIS?

As an entertaining movie only (which is, of course, a limited view), then anyone more acquainted with cinema will find much in common with Cecil B DeMille's great epic THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932). Yet, comparison does not work that well concerning the perspective of QUO VADIS (1951). After deeper analysis of the films, a lot of differences occur. While DeMille's film based on Wilson Barret's play shows early Christianity in Rome, it foremost concentrates on the clash between the new religion and the Roman order being put in danger. LeRoy's movie, since based on Henryk Sienkiewicz's, focuses on the undeniable victory of Christianity. Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) at first finds a new faith meaningless.

He has reasonable arguments from the Roman point of view (what about slaves, conquest, enemy treating, etc). Yet GRADUALLY thanks to love for Lygia (Deborah Kerr) and the courageous faith of the martyrs, he shouts out with confidence 'Christ, give him strength!' The story of Nero and 'the imperial companions' is also much more developed.

Yet, Nero (Peter Ustinov) is not only the one who heads for delicious debauchery but also wishes the crowd to have one throat that could be cut. He is an artist who burns Rome in order to create a song. He is a coward who blames the innocent for his own guilts. He is a cynic who collects tears in a weeping phial after the death of his 'best friend' Petronius (Leo Genn). Finally, he is a lunatic who praises his 'divine ego' and screams at his death seeing no future for Rome without him.

CAST: Anyone who has seen ancient epics must admit that most of them can boast great performances. Nevertheless, I believe that QUO VADIS is one of the top movies in this matter. Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr are a gorgeous couple portraying a Roman leader and a Christian girl. Taylor naturally expresses a change of heart. Kerr appealingly portrays innocence, gentleness and true love. Leo Genn is excellent as Petronius, a man of art and elegance who is fed up with Nero's 'secondary songs and meaningless poems.'

Peter Ustinov gives a fabulous performance as Nero combining all wicked features of his character. I also loved Patricia Laffan as lustful empress Poppaea with her two pet leopards.

There is no milk bath of hers, she does not imitate Ms Colbert but Laffan's Poppaea is foremost a woman of sin, a woman of lust, and a woman of revenge. The Christians, except for a number of extras, are portrayed by very authentic-looking actors: Abraham Sofaer as Paul and Finlay Currie as Peter.not more to say than that they look identical to the old paintings. SPECTACLE: The movie is a visually stunning epic that can be compared in its magnificence to BEN HUR (1959) and even GLADIATOR (2000). There are numerous breathtaking moments: arena scenes, lions, bull fighting, triumph in the streets, and foremost the fire of Rome. We see the real horror within the walls of the burning city. A moment that is also worth consideration is Vinicius hurrying to Rome on a chariot being chased by two other men. When he comes nearer, we see the red sky.

The authenticity is increased by a lovely landscape of Cinecitta Studios near Rome where the film was shot. For the sake of spectacle, I went once to see QUO VADIS on a big screen in cinema and felt as if I watched a new film made with modern techniques. It was a wonderful experience. All in all, I think that QUO VADIS by Mervyn LeRoy is a movie that has stood a test of time. Although it is 55 years old, it is still admired in many places of the world. It's one of these movies that are the treasures of my film gallery.

Not only a colossal spectacle, not only great performances but a very profound historical content at which Henryk Sienkiewicz was best. QUO VADIS DOMINE? Where are you going, Lord? These are the words that Peter asked Christ while leaving Rome. After the answer that Peter heard from his Lord, he turned back. In order to proclaim peace to the martyrs and to be crucified. Yet, where once stood decadent 'Neropolis' now stands the Holy See where people yearly pilgrim to the tombs of the martyrs and where the blessing 'Urbi et Orbi' is goes to all the corners of the world.

Sienkiewicz writes about it in the touching final words of the novel. Yet, LeRoy changes it a bit in the film. A small group of Christians who survived, including Lygia and Marcus, are on a journey. But after a short stop at the place where Peter met Christ, the journey seems to turn into a pilgrimage towards 'the Way, the Truth and the Life'.

This movie helped usher in the age of biblical epics that were produced in the 1950's and 1960's that have not been equalled since. This film also was a first in that it much of the filming was done on location in the famous Cinecetta studios in Rome. The film is unequalled in production values, costumes, sets, musical score, etc. As far as the script is concerned, it is a bit weak, the screenplay not being adapted well from the classic novel about Rome. The only actor to watch in this is Peter Ustinov as the psychotic emperor Nero. Ustinov steals the film from everyone else.

This biblical epic has Peter Ustinov giving the definitive performance of the emperor Nero, in spite of the motion picture code. But then, it seems they were always relaxing that motion picture code back in the 40's and 50's as long as it was for a biblical epic of some kind. In this case, you see - although from a distance - lions carrying the limbs of dismembered Christians upon which they are feeding, along with all of the other insinuations of decadence present under Nero. Robert Taylor, who was normally a rather wooden actor IMHO, did a very good job in this one as a Roman soldier entranced by a Christian girl. If you didn't know better you might think this film was the work of Cecil B. DeMille, but instead the director was Mervyn Le Roy. Le Roy directed some of Warners fast-paced urban early sound films including Alice White's musicals, Gold Diggers of Broadway, Cagney's 'Hard to Handle', Edward G.

Robinson's 'Little Caesar', and 'Three on a Match'. He also directed one of Robert Taylor's other great performances in 1942's 'Johnny Eager', unbelievably not on DVD. In other words, Le Roy directed many crowd-pleasers. This might explain why this film got seven or eight Oscar nominations, but none for the director himself. He just wasn't considered good enough by the Academy to be 'in the club' in spite of this excellent individual achievement. Everyone knows the popular legend. Nero burns Rome to clear the way for the magnificent city he wants to build, but the peasants are revolting - literally.

He then blames the odd and unpopular but quickly growing sect of the Christians for the burning, and begins feeding them to the lions for the amusement of the Romans. However, the Christians face death so bravely that Rome turns on Nero. Well, that's the movie. The facts are much more in argument. In an ancient city such as Rome, accidental fires that destroyed cities were common. In fact Nero did lead a massive relief effort after the fire, and fires just as large broke out in Rome after Nero's death.

Some historians do have the Christians confessing to the crime. The fact is that the people did begin to circulate rumors that Nero was at fault, and he was responsible for blaming th Christians for the fire to save himself.

He ordered to have them thrown to dogs, though, not lions, as in the film. However, one can somewhat overlook all of this historical jumping to conclusions and outright inaccuracy in the name of fine entertainment. Quo Vadis is a good movie, but I personally don't consider it a truly great one. I did find some of the religious aspects over-bearing, some of the script rather stilted(Petronious' philosophical lines excepted) and a little rambling and bloated in the story and pace.

Problems aside, Quo Vadis is a film of visual spectacle and grandeur. You can never go wrong with sweeping cinematography, lavish scope, sets and scenery and colourful costumes and Quo Vadis succeeds in all these areas. Mervyn LeRoy directs excellently, while Miklos Rosza's score is absolutely magnificent. The performances are solid, Robert Taylor does a good job playing it straight and isn't too dull and Deborah Kerr is as ravishing as ever, but it is Leo Genn playing Petronious more than admirably and especially a superb Peter Ustinov as Nero that walk away with the picture.

All in all, a solid film albeit not one without its flaws. 7/10 Bethany Cox. The first of the big Biblical/ancient epics of the 1950s and '60s. Hardly the best, though. It's a film I was quite clearly mixed about - one half of it I found a total bore, the other half I was in love with.

No prizes for guessing how I felt about which. Quo Vadis is, of course, the story of young Christianity during the rule of Emperor Nero in Rome. The Christians meet in secret (with St. Peter and St. Paul) and are mostly harmless at first. Nero is kind of a pretentious dope and fairly harmless, too, until he decides he must set fire to Rome for true artistic inspiration. Afterward, however, the poo hits the fan and he scapegoats Christians to get the heat off of him.

Oh, and there's a love story. Yes, it's the love story that sinks Quo Vadis. Robert Taylor is an army leader who falls for hottie Deborah Kerr. She's a Christian, though, and that eventually leads him to the lion's den (where he finally accepts the religion). Taylor has to be one of the blandest actors of all time and, I hate to say this, Kerr is no better in this film. She sure is beautiful, but one just has to roll their eyes at her utter piety.

Her love for him is ridiculously abrupt. One scene she is spurning him, the next she has always been in love. Oh, if only the film were all about Nero! Peter Ustinov is hammy as Hell, but how else do you play Nero? And no one (whom I've seen) has ever done it better, not even Charles Laughton. He of course was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, as was Leo Genn as Petronius (historically this character was more like Seneca, who is a very minor character here).

Genn is okay, but rather forgettable after Ustinov. The only other performer who deserves mention is Patricia Laffan as Nero's wife, Poppaea. Oh, and Peter and Paul are here, but the film loves to forget they even exist. There's a brief shot of the infamous upside down crucifixion, but it's quickly passed by for more dull romance. Quo Vadis is an epic film made by MGM in Technicolor during the 1950's.The film stars Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr, Leo Genn, Peter Ustinov together with Patricia Laffan, Finlay Currie, Felix Aylmer and Abraham Sofaer.It was adapted from Henryk Sienkiewicz's classic 1896 novel Quo Vadis. The film's story concerns the romance between a beautiful early Christian woman Lygia,played by Deborah Kerr, and the initially agnostic Roman soldier Marcus Vinicius,played by Robert Taylor.The love story is laid against the larger intrigues of the debauched emperor Nero,played excellently by Peter Ustinov, who hopes to gain immortality by destroying Rome with a fire and remaking it in his own image.

Part of Nero's master plan is the elimination of the Christians by sending them to the climactic lion picnics in the arena. The film has a lot of memorable scenes such as the the burning of Rome, the rescue of Lygia from a rampaging bull and the upside-down crucifixion of Simon Peter. What makes this movie special is that it offers a spectacular cast of excellent actors and actresses to match its overwhelming production.For sheer size, opulence and technical razzle-dazzle, it remains a must-see despite of being made way back in 1951. 'Quo Vadis' Is an excellent adaptation of the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz about the vicissitudes experienced by the first Christians in Nero's Rome, which has a correct balance of adventure and romance, with an impressive historical drama setting as the background.

The most fascinating aspect of this movie is the unforgettable performance of Peter Ustinov in the role of Nero, which practically steals the movie, and the great performance of Deborah Kerr which gives a great sense of dignity to the insipid character that she plays. Also, the soundtrack by Miklos Rozsa was simply excellent. 'Quo Vadis' is a big, beautiful love story that deserves more recognition that it gets. It is one of the best historical and adventure films from the 50's. 'Quo Vadis' is fairly well based upon Henryk Sienkiewicz's 1896 novel of the same name about first century Rome. Roman commander of the 14th Legion, Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor), recently victorious in Britannia (unlike the book, where as a tribune he served under general Corbulo against the Parthians), first camps in front of Rome, then leads his legionaries in a triumphal parade in the presence of Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov).

Vinicius, although having positive attributes, is quite irascible and angry. The tribune soon becomes lustful for the attractive Christian hostage, Lygia (Ligia, Deborah Kerr). As Lygia has the bloodlines of royalty and is actually an adopted daughter of a Roman general, she really would not be in a situation like a slave. With some difficulty, Lygia successfully resists the Roman's advances although she is also physically attracted to him. Later the skeptical Marcus even rebukes Christian evangelist and philosopher Paul (Abraham Sofaer) of Tarsus (but not in the novel). But overall, Vinicus, despite his faults and personal struggles, is dedicated and deplores injustice and does not hate ordinary Roman people.

In contrast, his emperor, the unbalanced and petulant Nero, has contempt for the Roman populace. Nero's excesses are encouraged by the sycophant Sicilian Praetorian Prefect, Tigellinus (Ralph Truman), although they are somewhat moderated by the perceptive court flatterer Gaius Petronius (Leo Gunn). Worldly - but not a scoundrel - Petronius is an historical figure who wrote the famous 'Satyricon.' Note the sardonic Petronius' use of wit and double entendre. Petronius is Marcus' uncle who advises his nephew to apply to Nero for a provincial governorship, but Marcus declines. In Nero's court is also the famous historical philosopher Seneca who is already falling from favor, as in the book.

Nero fancies himself to be a great artiste. He has a secret plan to set fire to the 'Eternal City' so that he can have the available land to build his Golden Palace and gardens.

Behind Nero is his lustful wife Poppaea (Patricia Laffan), who knows the double entendre: Emperor Nero (as Marcus Vinicius and his Roman soldiers march by): 'Come closer. They march as they fight: strong, brave, relentless – our unconquerable children. We must take them to our breasts.' Poppaea: (thinking about Marcus Vinicius) 'Yes, my lord!' Nero orders Tigellinus to burn Rome; happily he sings while playing the lute (or lyre). Marcus bravely helps to save many people. An unforeseen consequence is that the Roman mob becomes outraged and turns against the emperor.

Heartless Poppaea's solution? Just blame the Christians (two rabbis proposed this action in the book). So the Christians are rounded up and jailed (including the now-softening Marcus), and will be lions' lunch.

How can Marcus find a way to save them, especially Lygia? Will Roman general Galba, head of the Roman legions in the north, now take the lead to end Nero's madness? Some nice scenes include a primitive Christian (Catholic) mass conducted in the Roman Catacombs by the Apostle Peter himself (in the book a cemetery was the setting). Later we witness his crucifixion (upside-down at his request) after he marries Marcus and Lygia (symbolic of the eventual Christian triumph).

There is a fight in the Colosseum between giant Ursus (Buddy Baer) and a Cretan bull (in the book, a now-extinct aurochs ). We also learn about the origins of the phrase 'Quo vadis Domine?'

('Where are you going, Lord?' The answer is that the Lord was going to Rome to be crucified a second time. But of course He was summoning Peter to his destiny; decades earlier the apostle had denied Christ thrice in Jerusalem. No more running!

It was time to set an example that will eventually transform the entire Roman Empire! Rome, 'The Eternal City,' has a new destiny. The movie does provide a good summary of what caused Nero's regime to collapse. And when his plans backfire and nearly everyone turns against him, it is death or flight. As Rome had conquered the Western World, there were not too many hiding places available. Nero, sick (insane?), is pitiful in death. HISTORICAL FACT: Despite Nero's murderous ways, the first part of his reign was successful as he left much control to competent advisers like Seneca.

Around 62 AD he changed, and turned against his best advisers and the Christians. In the movie, the setting is already 64 AD, and the events of the next four years are compressed into one. Nero's reign did usher in the FIRST persecution (LOCAL) of the Christians. And a male slave (of Greek origin), not a female, helped him to commit suicide. There are many speaking parts, but only a few major ones will be mentioned here.

Peter Ustinov, a scene-stealer, may have played his greatest role as the unpredictable and later beleaguered emperor. Leo Gunn is also great.

Petronius may be a worldly flatterer, but he also exudes sympathy and pathos, especially when he is resigned to his fate. Both men received Academy Award nominations for Best Supporting Actor, although they did not win. Robert Taylor, although stilted, convinces as a cynically pagan Roman officer.

Deborah Kerr, even if a bit too old, plays a believable Christian girl courageous in her faith. Her blue gown appears almost transparent when she is in the arena; it is quite revealing. In fact many martyrs were indeed stripped of much clothing before execution. Finlay Currie (Peter), Patricia Laffan (Poppaea), and Marina Berti (Eunice) all shine.

See if you can spot Sophia Loren (Lygia's slave girl) and Elizabeth Taylor (Christian prisoner in the arena). Production values are extremely high: cinematography, camera-work, lavish sets, authentic-looking costumes, true cast of thousands, spectacular Miklos Rozsa music score, and on-location filming at Cinecitta in Rome! 'Quo Vadis' is better than 'Spartacus' (1960), and 'Gladiator' (2000), and certainly more historically factual.

The public responded well to MGM's QV; at the time only GWTW (1939) made more money. They just don't make 'em like this anymore. As someone else wrote, they don't make them like this any more. An all-enveloping spectacle with a brilliant performance from Peter Ustinov as the madman, Emperor Nero. The local TV network just aired a newly mastered print and the colour is fabulous. Deborah Kerr never looked lovelier or Finlay Currie more awesome. The costuming is memorable as well.The best scene is of the crowd entering Nero's temple, filmed from above.

Thousands of extras streaming in from all sides like ants flowing over a corpse. Truly memorable! It's 64 A.D., and Nero's Rome is amass with slaves, eunuchs, secret Christians, two Apostles, Peter Ustinov as the fey, half-mad Emperor, and Robert Taylor as Commander Marcus, back from defeating the British and in love with Christian Deborah Kerr. Neither Taylor nor Kerr is appropriate for this period, however they do look great in the ornate costumes and-this being first and foremost a costume-spectacular-both stars are nearly successful.

Leo Genn exudes a quiet, calculating masculinity as Petronius, Nero's favorite Council, though Ustinov himself runs hot and cold as the self-proclaimed god who sang as Rome burned (it's a part written for over-playing, though sharp editing may have eliminated the excesses). With all the screaming and rushing about, Finlay Currie's homily as Peter stands out as a truly stirring moment (aided by the beautiful art direction in vivid colors). There's plenty of confusion in the script, starting about the time Kerr's father the General attempts to explain his adopted daughter's heritage, all the way through to the big arena sequence with lions and Christians ('It's monstrous for them to die smiling!' Nero exclaims. 'It's inhuman!'

The film racked up seven Academy Award nominations, and is reputed to have 'saved' M-G-M, but today looks overstated, over-dressed, over-everything. It seems to have been designed solely to bowl us over with sensationalist prestige. Still, at 171 minutes, one does begin to yawn. from. This is one of these epic pieces Hollywood used to be so fond of.

We are talking mad emperors and Christian-eating lions here. Peter Ustinov gets it right and plays it tongue-in-cheek as you have to when you want to avoid sounding pompous or ridiculous. Films like this mostly impress through sets and costumes and this is no exception - Ustinov's performance remains the only one of note. Robert Taylor plays the Christian convert straight, and his conversion is neither striking (he is not sleazy enough before) nor particularly convincing.

Deborah Kerr seemed to have confused antiquity with Victorian England, at least the latter would have been a more fitting period for the character she brought across. All in all, I was firmly rooting for Nero and the lions. This is the sort of movie one thinks of when one hears the words 'Hollywood epic'. Gorgeous sets, costumes, hairdos, massive crowd scenes, and a chariot race - this movie has everything. Including some good writing and acting - Peter Ustinov is a terrific Nero, and actually plays the role instead of converting the character into a reflection of himself. Leo Genn is a clever, courteous Petronius, blandly flattering the tyrant until he is finally outmanoeuvered by his enemies, and then elegantly taking his own life in the Roman manner. The religious theme is well treated, the threatened Christians being shown in a respectful and not overly sentimental light, even when being martyred.

The film suffers somewhat from a rather anachronistic concern with the rights of man, and a typically American anti-slavery theme, which would not have had any place in first century Rome, but these are not major flaws. The love story between Marcus and Lygia is secondary to the big spectacular scenes, such as the triumphant entry of the legions into Rome, the burning of the city, and the Colosseum scenes. A good old-fashioned 'movie' movie, the sort they don't make anymore.