2.5/4  The Fall Of The Roman Empire Quick Review
if you've seen Gladiator, you'll find this movie very familiar. If you haven't seen Gladiator, what's wrong with you? Go watch it. Right now!

5/5 Review of 3-disc limited edition set for "Roman Empire"
  by Annie Van Auken (Planet Earth)
The box that holds the Miriam Collection three-DVD limited collector's edition of Anthony Mann's epic FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (1964) is an extremely well-constucted heavy paper type (similar to greeting card cases, but sturdier). Its cover has a textured matte finish in an ecru shade that's decorated with an embossed actor composite. The film's title appears above this picture in gold colored bas-relief letters.

Stored inside is a 32 page booklet, a repro of the movie's original souvenir program which measures roughly 5" × 8" that is packed with full-color half page, full page and double page movie stills, plus cast details and commentary.


For those who enjoy DVD extras, here's what you get:
DISC ONE--
* Feature commentary with Bill Bronston (son of producer Samuel Bronston) and Mel Martin (biographer of Samuel Bronston)
* Rome in Madrid: 1964 promotional film
* Original theatrical trailer
* Filmographies
* Still gallery

DISC TWO--
* The rise and fall of an epic production: the making of the film
* The rise and fall of an empire: an historical look at the real Roman Empire
* Hollywood vs. history: an historical analysis
* Dimitri Tiomkin: Scoring the Roman Empire

DISC THREE--
* A collection of historic films about ancient Rome, all shot on the film's sets!

Oh yah... did I mention that the uncut motion picture is also included?
Well it is, in a clean widescreen transfer with stereophonic sound.
This is one terrific collectible!

4/5 The Fall of the Roman Empire
  by G. D. Williams (USA)
Before Gladiator, there was The Fall of the Roman Empire. Both films covered the same time period of 180-192 AD. Most of the characters are the same. The protagonist in both films is fictional.

The 1964 film is stunning in its Spanish cinematography. The massive sets are impressive. The script is well written with dialogue that would stimulate the thinker. Dimitri Tiomkin would win the Golden Globe for the musical score, but not the Oscar. Anthony Mann's direction is superb for the most part.

Alex Guinness, later of Star Wars fame, brilliantly portrays Marcus Aurelius. His one desire is for "golden centuries of peace" and "a family of equal nations".

Sophia Loren plays the daughter, Lucilla. Her love for her father and Livius are the two opposite sides of reality which brings her internal conflict.

James Mason is outstanding as Timonides, a Greek Christian and friend to both Marcus and Livius. His best scene is between him and Ballomar, the leader of the northern barbarians. It is a true test of his faith.

Commodus is given vibrant life by Christopher Plummer. Unlike the Gladiator character, this Commodus is not only reckless but thrives on combat. He is no coward, but he is a bit mad.

Much criticism has been heaped on Stephen Boyd's Gaius Metellus Livius. He had a difficult task. Both Charlton Heston and Kirk Douglas had turned down the role. Unfortunately, he does come across lifeless. There is no chemistry between Livius and Lucilla. He is just too restrained in his acting which has to be partly attributed to Mann's direction.

Unfortunately, the film was a financial failure at a cost of over 18 million. The only Oscar nomination was for the musical score.

When this film premièred in March 1964, the nation was still suffering the loss of John Kennedy. The top films of 1964 included Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, The Pink Panther, Goldfinger, Father Goose, etc. Definitely, musicals and comedies were the fare that people wanted. Something as serious as the Fall of the Roman Empire was perhaps too realistic of current events in the real world.

To a number of people, the title was misleading. However, in its defense, it is true that after the death of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Empire began a steep decline. Will Durant of THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION series was the historical consultant.

For me this is a great addition to my historical series. The price is reasonable for such a film.

5/5 return to the "Jim movie" days
  by J. Letchworth
The DVD arrived much quicker than I expected. It was also in excellent shape. I can now have "Jim movie" Sundays again. Thanks for such prompt shipping and I will definitely be ordering more in the future.

5/5 Roman Empire Great!!
  by J. Alder (Las Vegas)
This movie was fantastic. The acting was phenomenal and the scenes were beautiful. The DVD quality was great.

2/5 D.O.A.
  by Wayne A. (Belfast, Northern Ireland)
I tried hard to like this flick, but eventually concluded that Rome was depicted best as either a stupendous Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza, or a savvy drawing-room drama on the order of "I, Claudius." There's a strange unpleasant tension and imbalance throughout: a script that doesn't quite flow, actors that seem not fully engaged (even Mason and Guinness merely appear professional rather than riveting, and the leads are second-rate and two-dimensional), scenic designers who are striving for visual bling and never quite getting there, and so on. Even the gratuitous chariot action sequence, touted as the equal of Ben Hur's, feels more like something from a Romanized "Dukes of Hazard" or "Streets of San Francisco."

The first half of the film takes place place at a Roman fort at the northern frontier. We see a lot of this fort in long shot, way too much of it in fact, and from the same angles, as if the producer had spent a good hunk of change on this one location and wanted to make the most of it, but the property owners would only give them a few square yards to set up cameras. The effect is theatrical and subsequently claustrophobic--Rome seems twenty miles away (or just behind the curtain), and when the Legion boldly marches out from the fort to battle with the Germanic tribes, the enemy appears to be encamped about 50 yards into the forest. Later in the film, twenty miles down the road, back in Rome, we have another set consisting of a tight grouping of about five grand Roman edifices, again seen from the same recurrent angles. Overall, there is no sense whatsoever that Rome (or this movie) extends anywhere beyond five blocks, or that the Empire was any bigger than Rhode Island.

This is just bad, or at minimum, uninspired, directing and it's what keeps this film (along with the director's equally clumsy "El Cid") forever at the periphery of epic blockbusters. It's an 'A' movie with 'B' movie chops, except a good 'B' director knows how to get the maximum from minimal materials and this director manages to make even Imperial Rome seem lifeless, the story of its fall uneventful, and a great-to-fair cast bland.

It would make a good double feature paired with Richard Burton's stunningly uninteresting "Alexander the Great."