Watch Quo Vadis For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Having just watched the 1951 "Quo Vadis" (as well as "The Robe" and "Demetrius and the Gladiators") I find this version over all excels the 1951 version, although Ustinov in '51 did make a more memorable Nero. Genn and Linda each make a splendid Petronius. The Polish hero and heroine I liked better, and while I think Hollywood '51 did a nice rewrite, the Polish version is truer to the Sienkiewicz novel. With computers the arena scenes of the 2001 version prove superior, though grislier, and the bull scene with Lygia is remarkable, however they brought that off. While the 255 minutes made for two evenings (actually we watched the '51 version over two evenings also), I highly recommend this one. The bigger your screen the better. While the religiosity gets sensitive treatment, it seems less overbearing than it sometimes gets in the Roman vs Christian epics of the early '50s.

MGM Roman epic QUO VADIS? (1951) has remained one of the top movies among epic buffs. However, its popularity is not so much raised by its source novel but rather by its grandeur of colossal spectacle and magnificent performances. Therefore, after more than 50 years, the movie is still highly entertaining. But a thought may arise...the Noble Prize winning novel QUO VADIS? is not only a historical account of the Rome in Nero's cruel reign but, foremost, a truly insightful, human and thought provoking novel by a great Polish novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz, the novel that masterfully develops human struggles within the corrupted world ruled by an artist, a cynic, a debaucher, an arsonist, a "beast." That thought absorbed the late director, a Pole Jerzy Kawalerowicz, who, in 2000, took up a task to adapt QUO VADIS? for the screen again. As I have seen both the movie and the TV series, my comment will apply to both of them and will hopefully result in a detailed analysis.I would like to analyze this movie in two separate aspects: first, its depiction of historical period, its recreation of the first century Rome (epic features including wardrobe, sets, etc) and, second, its faithfulness to the novel.Kawalerowicz's vision of Rome turns out to be much weaker than LeRoy's in 1951 film. It is short of that lavishness, scenes of crowds, magnificent wardrobe and that tension of splendor. The Roman Empire appears to be "closed up" and laconic. Consider, for instance, the burning of Rome which is condensed, hardly shows the event realistically being a glimpse on the seemingly small group of people in panic. Nero does not sing playing his harp while viewing the burning city from his balcony but he sings on an aqueduct in the middle of a sunny day. The palace occurs to be deprived of that grandiosity we found at LeRoy's. These flaws go in pairs with some technical weaknesses. Let me mention, for instance, the famous bullfight where Lygia is tied naked to the bull but Ursus appears to keep control over the animal from the very beginning. The bull barely moves and people's reactions are fake. Therefore, the movie faced strong criticism and, indeed, if we consider QUO VADIS? in terms of its recreation of Rome only, it is a flawed epic.However... The movie is a very faithful adaptation of the novel and catches the gist of what Sienkiewicz wanted to convey. First, this has to do with the characters. The director develops Chilo Chilonides (Jerzy Trela) the character that was almost skipped in the American version. The story of this man who is once ironically called "the king of the state of wickedness" is so psychological that the entire movie about him would suffice for a meaningful story. His character indeed makes one find forgiveness meaningful and conscience universal. Chilo is beautifully portrayed by Jerzy Trela in a magnificent performance. In Nero's court, we have an accurate insight into "Nero's evil spirit" Tigellinus (Krzysztof Majchrzak) who prompts most crimes of the mad emperor. The depiction of Christian characters is also very accurate. What strikes us among Christians is the living example they give to the pagans and thanks to that example, they convert many people. In this respect, I would like to mention the arena scene - this movie really supplies the viewer with the gore of it, the camera goes in between the martyrs and you as an observer are really affected by the depiction. What touched me most is the baby consumed by a lion while the whole crowd is being mute to this tragedy as if it were totally unnoticed. The movie also depicts the arbiter of elegance, Petronius (Boguslaw Linda), as a witness of dying Christians (in accordance with the novel). That is what I like most about 2001 QUO VADIS? It makes use of the themes developed in the novel.As far as the performances are concerned, there is a great acting and a poor acting. The leading cast Pawel Delag as Marcus Vinicius and Malgorzata Mielcarz as Lygia are good though Delag sometimes leaves much to be desired. He, unlike Robert Taylor, does not clearly portray his character's glorious way from the triumph of conquest to the triumph of spirit. He appears to be very sympathetic from the beginning, no proud Roman leader at first and a devoted believer later. Michal Bajor is not very good as Nero but it is not the looks that make his performance flawed but his talk. I liked Boguslaw Linda's portrayal of Petronius and Krzysztof Majchrzak's Tigellinus. Except for the aforementioned Trela, Franciszek Pieczka does a fine job as Apostle Peter, a calm hearted fisherman of Galilee who once left his barge and gave his total self to the Lord.Finally, I would like to add one more feature of the film: its ability to talk to viewers' hearts. Unlike many epics that draw our attention rather to the spectacle, this movie gives us an insight into particular moment of the human history at the dawn of the new faith. It seems to ask a viewer a question of importance: What is it to be a person? Is it possible that one human feasts and laughs watching lustfully the other one dying in horrific pain? Is the world really mute to the moving cry of a little baby consumed by the beast of hatred, political correctness or indifference? "Quo Vadis Domine?" "Whither Goest Thou, Lord?" Peter asked Christ on the way. He heard the answer "To Rome, to be crucified the second time" The memorable question that appears at the end of the movie seems to be the question of many people of our times: "Where are you going, Lord?" people who subtly predict the answer in their hearts: "To the innocent who constantly suffer most"

Filmed in 2001, the latest version of Quo Vadis is finally being released in a region 1 version with English subtitles. I waited SO long for the opportunity to see this film and it does not disappoint. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a "must see," I found it to be very well made on most levels and I recommend it without any reservations.The costumes, sets, and special effects are very realistic and believable and the film makes a sincere attempt to stay true to the historical events and people on whom the story is based.Although the burning of Rome could have been improved upon, the scene of the Christians being torn to pieces by the lions makes up for it. This scene is not over-the-top gruesome, yet remains horrifying to watch. The terror of the Christians is clearly felt,likewise, the scene of Christians being burned alive.While every actor/actress in this film did an admirable job, the part of Petronius (played by the great Boguslaw Linda) is outstanding. In fact, Linda may have been just a little too good. Although the character of Petronius is an integral part of the storyline, the character is still that of a supporting role, however, Linda's portrayal is so powerful that in every scene in which he appears, the attention of the viewer remains riveted on Linda. This can at times make the acting of everyone else seem a little less convincing. Linda does not intentionally upstage, but rather he is so good that he can't help but stand out.This is one one of Boguslaw Linda's best performances and I would love to see him cast in more dramas.Although this film is not preachy, it is about the early days of Christianity and the final scene of the film does leave a Christ centered message.This message can be interpreted several different ways, but to me, the message was that faith in Christ as well as obedience to his teachings is still imperative in the modern world and a necessity in order to achieve salvation. Hence the title of the film, Quo Vadis?; where are you going?

i'd be proud of this movie but i can't. it's rubbish. except of some actors' playing this film is from some kind of another film dimension.boring, ghastly filming and without even one positive mark. keep away of such movies if you want to take care of yourself. i don't like "gladiator" but it's ingenious comparing with the polish "movie". greetings.