This film would seem to have almost everything going for it: lavish production, a fine cast, and an excellent director. Why, then, are there considerable stretches while watching the beautifully rendered goings-on here when one's mind drifts to thoughts of other epics and one's eye wanders to what the extras are doing in some of the scenes? The answer is that "almost everything" did not include an involving script. There are many intelligently written scenes, and some scenes where there is even a dramatic spark or two. But on the whole there is a certain desultory aspect to the film. The love interest at what passes for the dramatic center of the film is hazy and unengaging, the machinations of the Roman court don't really grip the interest, barbarians are given their due in what amounts to a film-within-a-film, and then there's James Mason, who serves as something of a Greek chorus and delivers long speeches about CIVILIZATION as a way of underlining the film's seriousness. Can anybody who has written a review of this for IMDb claim that they really cared about what was going on among the characters?
That having been said, this film is one of those guilty pleasures to be indulged in from time to time, where one can watch the profusion of sets and the parade of costumes, and be thrilled by the action sequences. To say nothing of watching Christopher Plummer be slyly twisted as Commodus--he's much more amusing than Joaquin Phoenix playing the same emperor in "Gladiator."
All-in-all, a ramble in ancient Rome that cries out for more cohesion.
That having been said, this film is one of those guilty pleasures to be indulged in from time to time, where one can watch the profusion of sets and the parade of costumes, and be thrilled by the action sequences. To say nothing of watching Christopher Plummer be slyly twisted as Commodus--he's much more amusing than Joaquin Phoenix playing the same emperor in "Gladiator."
All-in-all, a ramble in ancient Rome that cries out for more cohesion.