Someone once said that Raymond Chandler inherited the mantle of Dahiell Hammet and dyed it a deeper shade of crimson; the remark was, of course, intended as a compliment to Chandler's talent, ability, and skill. To reverse the compliment I would say that Stephen Boyd inherited the solid mahogany of Edmund Purdom and added a few knotholes of his own. To hand him what is virtually the lead role of a multi-million dollar spectacle is on a par with handing Tiny Tim the leading role in the biopic of Paul Robeson. Not that this oven-ready turkey needs much help in stinking up the screen. Ironically in terms of historical accuracy it tests high, probably something like 80% but where it falls down is in the thesping department with Christopher Plummer leading from the front and flaunting his Gold Medal from the Charles Laughton Academy of York Hams, with a distinguished group - Guiness, Mason, Porter, Sharif et al slugging it out for Silver and Bronze. To say dire is praise indeed.

This documents the fall of an empire built on power, ambition, money, showmanship, rival dynasties that could leverage thousands in the field of action: Old Hollywood. Falls of this sort, the film announces, are not an instantaneous event of course but a process of decline with many contributing factors. Hollywood was falling for some time and would continue to for several more years until new blood was allowed in.But this revealingly documents several of the reasons behind the fall. In the Old Hollywood vein of DW Griffith and Cecil DeMille, the human being casts no shadow, is allowed no inner dimension or private space, life is a public display of heroism, its machinations are clear and unambiguous, love is announced, ambition is announced, ordinary humans are only given room to writhe as part of a collective backdrop.It's clear why this picture was beginning to crumble. By '64 the Beatles had taken hold, preparing the ground where a new collectivity would be the focus of life and discovery and not the backdrop to gestures. The first televised images of Earth from space had been broadcast, further undermining the notion of fixed stage. The new French philosophies were beginning to rail against any single truth in the historical narrative.So here we have Rome in an extravagant scale, a cast of thousands clashing in the battlefield or the streets, heroes or villains gesticulating conflict, all to prop something that is absolutely lifeless.Interesting is how the film itself responds to the broader perceived change sweeping it. It sees a desire for change and openness, underscored by a Christian subplot where an emancipated slave happily feeds thousands of every race in what would in a few years be understood as counterculture metaphor (the rally is quashed by Roman police). The tyrant all through the film props a culture of superficial image, spectacle, power, violence, the same exact things the filmmakers hinged the whole appeal on: chariot races, marches and counter- marches, lavish decor, the final duel.So here is a grandiose cinematic parade about its own lack of a softer humanity. It wasn't Lean who revolutionized this particular stage in Lawrence, though we had desert space for contemplation and a more dynamic capture. It was Leone, that master semiotician, trained on exactly this sort of Roman spectacle.The film ends with the tyrant dead and senators haggling with the military commander over the price of the vacant throne, foreshadowing the corporate empire of New Hollywood.

Far from awful, this Samuel Bronston produced epic features some great direction by Anthony Mann and some terrific acting by an unlikely cast. Marcus Aurelius dies and, knowing that leaving Rome to loony son Commodus is a bad idea, names Livius (Stephen Boyd) his heir. Livius insists that Commodus take command and thus begins the fall of the empire. The film moves quickly and it's apparent fairly fast that Commodus, played by the unbelievable Christopher Plummer, is a madman. Boyd is actually quite good and has some real chemistry with Sophia Loren (playing the daughter of Marcus Aurelius). Plummer steals the film with his wicked performance. There is perhaps one too many characters to keep track of, but for a 1960s epic, this is a standout. James Mason, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland and Alec Guinness co-star. Featuring one of Dimitri Tiomkin least bombastic music scores and stunning cinematography by Robert Krasker.

I have been watching a lot of old epics about the Ancient Rome and Greece, the Bible, etc. lately. Those from the 1950:s and 1960:s are generally very good, so when I saw the great cast in "The Fall of the Roman Empire" I expected it to be a wonderful movie... But it was a disappointment.That is: it is very beautiful, I give it that. You could take lots of stills from all over the movie and make beautiful posters from them!. The photo is beautiful, the lovers are beautiful, and the props, costumes, armor, sets, interior decoration etc. are splendid and lavish. But still... it fails to capture one's interest. To put it plainly: it is boring.First, I think it is much too long. Half the length would have been enough. I think the subject-matter was also a problem. If one compares with the master-piece "Cleopatra" from 1963, everybody (almost) already "knew" Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, and Anthony. The audience already knew something about them, and had an interest in them. But few people, who are not especially interested in history, would have heard of Commodius. And his general, Livius, who is supposed to be the hero, is probably an entirely fictional character.Also, there is too little space for Livius to be heroic, and also too little love, I think. Too few love scenes combined with Loren and Boyd not really having the love chemistry between them. They are both cold, distant and wooden.Even if you watch these epic movies because you are interested in history, as in this case the ancient Rome, and want to learn a little from them and become more educated - the main thing is still the entertainment. And for that, you want love and heroism and characters that you can really get to know and love and identify with... which is what mostly fails in this movie.Christopher Plummer is awfully good as the weak and evil Commodius, though! Although of course it does not help much, as he is the villain. It is incredible that he could play the extremely masculine, handsome and heroic Captain von Trapp so perfectly only the year later! I mean, in this movie Plummer was not even handsome, and he even seemed slender and not very masculine at all. To be able to change that much for a part must be the mark of a great actor!