Quo Vadis (1951)

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.

Fmovies: 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.

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 .

Quo Vadis fmovies. 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. Peter. 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).

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"!

Please! 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.