Watch The Fall of the Roman Empire For Free

Great Film overall

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

If you're a purist Roman historian, you'll likely find yourself somewhat disappointed. The director deliberately took some historical liberties to flesh out an intense historical human drama. But it's not all that bad. It is interesting. The movie follows historical events of 180 A.D., sort of. There is no historical record that Marcus Aurelius intended a pan-Roman peace as the movie indicated. In fact, Marcus far-reaching ambition was to create two, new Roman provinces after defeating the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmatians. The concept of pan-Roman citizenship became reality in 211-212 A.D. when emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship throughout the empire. In 180 A.D., Marcus was preoccupied with the survival of the Roman empire itself. After 22 years of almost total peace and prosperity throughout the Roman empire under the sage emperor Antoninus Pius, his successors, the co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus found themselves almost immediately beset by attacks on the empire from Parthia in the east and the warlike Germanic Chauci and Chatti tribes. With difficulty both threats were met and neutralized but that was only the beginning. Historians think that westward migratory movements by Gothic tribes in eastern Europe started a chain reaction of Germanic tribes moving west and south west into Roman empire territory. The Marcomanni had always been known to Rome since the time of emperor Trajan. This powerful, large Germanic tribe had, with few exceptions, usually stable relations with Rome. But over 60 years later, population growth affected not only the Marcommani but almost every major Germanic tribe. New lands were needed by everyone. But Europe was now thoroughly settled. Nations could not expand without coming into conflict with another. After one punitive expedition to repel a Germanic invading tribe, Verus died, leaving Marcus to deal with the most serious threat that Rome had faced from foreign invaders in centuries. The Marcommani, Quadi, and Sarmatian tribes poured into the Roman empire and the Romans suffered serious military setbacks and at one time Marcus and his army were surrounded by the Quadi and defeat was near. The fighting was desperate and often hopeless but against all odds, Marcus and his legions prevailed, barely at the price of immense casualties. All three tribes were thoroughly defeated and had to sue for peace. It was at this point the exhausted Marcus, never a robust man, is thought by historians to have died of stomach cancer. There is no historical record that Marcus intended to replace his son Commodus nor is there any record of Marcus' thoughts and conversations to that effect. Historians still thought it odd because Marcus' four emperor predecessors selected their successor and it was not a son or relative. Marcus broke the chain of emperors selecting a qualified man as successor and this bore serious consequences for the empire. Nonetheless, history records that Commodus tried to rule justly and competently in his first six years of rule. Commodus must have listened to Marcus' advisors because he abandoned the plan to create two new Roman provinces from the lands of the defeated Germanic tribes. The realism Commodus faced was that the Roman army was depleted. Two new provinces would require at least three Roman legions apiece for minimum military occupation, manpower that Rome didn't have. Nor did Rome have the financial resources after a dozen years of continual warfare. Rome was financially spent. Given the realities of the situation, Commodus abandoned his father's plans for two, new provinces. Another poster was puzzled that the Roman legionaries carried their swords on their right side as this would make for awkward withdrawal with the right hand. But this is true. Roman legionaries carried their gladius swords on the right side, according to orders. Only the centurions and higher officers could wear their swords on the more convenient left side, which they did. Historians are still not certain as to the reason but it was military regulation for the typical legionnaire to carry his gladius on the right side.

The title refers to the corrupting politics setting the stage for the final collapse of the Roman Empire far in the future. Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness) is the aging Roman Emperor. His closest supporters are the ethical general Gaius Livius (Stephen Boyd) and Greek former slave Timonides (James Mason). Livius is in love with Aurelius' daughter Lucilla (Sophia Loren). Aurelius wants to make Livius his heir instead of his son Commodus (Christopher Plummer). This sets off a series of dark events with consequences that will bring down an empire.Although this is a sword and sandal epic, it has more in common with a Shakespearian play. There are some action battles and big set pieces. The settings are impressive. There are some big scenes with lots of extras. It is however more reliant on an epic of human drama. Some of the acting can be old fashion but that's par for the course. Loren comes off a little stiff while Plummer revels in some broader work. In a way, it fits the Shakespearian feel. This is a nice example of a lesser known Hollywood epic.

This production could have been great, but too many mistakes were made. It has so much going for it. Alec Guiness as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, is brilliant in his role. Also honorable mention to James Mason as Timonides and Christopher Plummer a very under-rated Commodus. As far as acting, that is about it.Also not to be forgotten is the amazing set design and photography, which I think remain unmatched to this day. On the negative side, a fright wigged Stephen Boyd as Livius practically begs the audience to chuckle. Likewise Sophia Loren, sporting about ten pounds of 1960's Italian Vogue make-up, is wasted. She and Boyd are actors that could, if given proper direction, deliver decent performances. That direction was sadly lacking in this movie. At times, when these two are together, the movie feels like a Barbra Cartland Bodice ripper, with hot declarations of love and long simmering stares at one another. The director obviously had no idea WHAT he wanted to do with the movie. Most egregiously, the score was absolutely horrendous. That mishmash of genres and boring symphonic melodies clashed with almost every minute of screen time in which they were utilized. A worse example of a score I cannot imagine.And let us not forget the plot, if it can be described as such. Somehow the meandering, at cross purposes, vague and boring plot managed to stretch 188 minutes into a seeming 188 THOUSAND, waiting in vain for something to actually happen. Nothing really ever does.

The classical epic has a long history in the cinema, dating back at least to Griffith's "Intolerance" of 1916, but it seemed to reach its peak around 1959/60 with those two great examples, Wyler's "Ben-Hur" and Kubrick's "Spartacus". By 1965, however, it was all but dead, although it was briefly revived in the early 2000s, killed off by the financial failure of "Cleopatra", a failure as spectacular as anything in the film itself, following which only one more film in the genre was made. It is perhaps fitting that "The Fall of the Roman Empire" was the film that marked the Fall of the Roman Epic.Like "Gladiator", the first film in the recent brief epic revival, the film deals with the death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and the disastrous reign of his son Commodus. Like "Gladiator" it takes considerable liberties with history, and has as its hero a fictitious general who is also the old Emperor's trusted friend (called Livius here, Maximus in "Gladiator"). The famous historian Will Durant was engaged as historical adviser, but the film's historical inaccuracies suggest that his advice was not always followed and he was reportedly not impressed by the finished product.The film opens with Marcus Aurelius conducting a war against the German tribes on the frontier. The ageing Emperor, however, is in poor health and knows that he has not long to live. He intends to nominate Livius as his successor, fearing that his son Commodus lacks the strength of character to rule the Empire. (In reality, Marcus Aurelius does not appear to have entertained any doubts about his son and named him as his successor). A group of courtiers, however, do not want to see Livius as Emperor, and conspire to have Marcus Aurelius poisoned. Commodus is proclaimed "undoubted Caesar". At first Livius is loyal to the new regime, but as Commodus's character deteriorates and his rule becomes increasingly tyrannical he has to decide where his loyalties lie.This is a film that it starts much better than it finishes. In the first half it promises to be an intelligent and thoughtful movie, much better than the average sword and sandal epic. The visual tone of the opening scenes is very different to that of most epics, with their gleaming marble and brilliant Mediterranean sunshine. These scenes, although actually filmed in the Sierra de Guadarrama near Madrid, are ostensibly set on the Roman Empire's northern frontier in southern Germany, and are set in winter amid snow-covered, pine-clad mountains. In place of marble there are fortifications of stone or wood, and in place of sunlight there is darkness relieved by the flickering of torches and braziers.The dominant character in the early scenes is not Livius but Marcus Aurelius, brilliantly played by Alec Guinness as a wise and humane but fatalistic philosopher-king. He does, however, have his weaknesses, especially his tendency to put political considerations above the good of his family, as when he promises his daughter Lucilla in marriage not to her beloved Livius but to the King of Armenia, hoping to gain political advantage from such an alliance. The other good performances come from James Mason as Aurelius's trusted adviser, the former slave Timonides (later revealed to be a secret Christian) and from Christopher Plummer as Commodus. He plays Commodus not as a basically wicked man- it is made clear that Commodus was not a party to the plot to assassinate his father- but rather as a weak man corrupted by the temptations of power, thus proving correct his father's assessment of his character. The relationship between Commodus and Livius in some ways parallels that between Messala and Ben-Hur; the two are originally firm friends, but later quarrel. The film appeared only a year before what has become Plummer's best-known and career-defining performance in "The Sound of Music", but for my money he is much better here.Unfortunately, the film deteriorates in the second half after Aurelius's death. The plot becomes not only increasingly historically inaccurate but also increasingly complex and difficult to follow. The action is now dominated by the figure of Livius, played by Stephen Boyd, who had played the part of the villainous Messala in "Ben-Hur". Although Boyd had been good in that film, he is much less assured here as the hero, and is rather wooden and lifeless.The film cost around eighteen million dollars to make, a huge sum for the 1960s, although less than half the amount spent on "Cleopatra". It was a costly financial failure at the box-office, partly because of the failure to secure a major star to play Livius. The part was originally written with Charlton Heston, the star of "Ben-Hur", in mind, but he turned it down, as did Kirk Douglas, the star of "Spartacus". If Heston had accepted the role, it would have reunited the producer (Samuel Bronston), director (Anthony Mann) and stars (Heston and Sophia Loren) of "El Cid" from 1961. In the end the role went to Boyd, better known as a supporting actor than as a star in his own right.Box-office success is not always the best guide to a film's artistic merits, and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" is a film with many positive virtues, especially in the first half. nevertheless, despite some distinguished acting contributions and some spectacular action sequences, such as the battle scenes, it falls short of the greatness of the likes of "Spartacus" or "Ben-Hur". 7/10