blueyes15074

24 May 2012

Quo Vadis - Excellent movie for families request for copy of it

I saw this movie as a child with my mother and younger brother in 1952.I would like to see it again. Where can I get a copy of it? Is itavailable in stores? Is it in video or DVD form? Will a remake of itcome out? It should be re-released for the public to see again as ithas some good Christian values in it. Are any of the actors oractresses in it still alive?Please let me know where it is available as soon as possible. My motherwould also like to see it again before she goes totally blind.I can be reached at 952-423-5047 or blueyes15074@yahoo.com I hope tohear from someone ASAP. Thank you.Jim Hulton Apple Valley, MN 55124

24 May 2012

a tremendous film., and disturbing

this is, IMO, the best of all of the christian epics. including "ben hur" and "the ten commandments." it's magnificent in scope and in detail, and more human and passionate than it's competitors.but this film is not for children. the scenes at the end, with the lions, are among the most terrifying in movie history. death is scary enough, and execution terrifying, and this adds an extraordinary element to it.as a society, we once exposed children to too much violendce. we've learned since then, and i think it is important to turn this dvd off near the end if children are watching.

22 May 2012

ohmygod.

This review is from: Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition) (DVD) Why do so many of the reviews I read here, write of this movie as if it were a church sermon? What is this extraordinary concentration on religion in so many areas. I feel these people would find a sermon in a shopping list!It's a MOVIE for God's sake [sorry about that], and as a movie I have always had a fondness for it. Silly though it may be, it's a lot of entertaining fun. I can't wait for the release.. I've been waiting for it for years. I remember sneaking along to see it in short pants, somehow I got in, even though I was far to young to do so.At the time I think I was thrilled with epic movies. The scale of this one is huge, they didn't need digital effects to get their ideas on screen, just imagination.The cast is splendid, Ustinov totally over the top, childish yes, but convincingly vicious, Robert Taylor, as wooden as ever, seems to work in the style context of the movie. Leo Genn,always underestimated, is as ellegant as he should be. And Debbie Kerr is all class.Get a copy of this, and indulge yourself in a truly wonderful example of what Hollywood could do best at this time. I for one can't wait.John Corcoran.Scarborough,NSW.Australia.

smithy-8

22 May 2012

Taylor and Kerr Tops in Biblical Flick

During the 1950's, Hollywood made many biblical movies. "Quo Vadis?" isoneof the better biblical movies. Robert Taylor made several action packedmovies; this is his best. Mr. Taylor plays a Roman general and DeborahKerrportrays a Christian lady that he falls in love with. They made a lovelycouple. Too bad they never made another movie together; for instance, amodern drama.The story is a fantasy based on real times after Christ died. PeterUstinovgives a great performance as a frightening Nero. The supporting cast,headed by Leo Genn, is terrific.

19 May 2012

Relatively Weak Epic

When a 600 page book is condensed to a movie, it's exprected that some of the nuances of the book would be lost. Unfortunately, it was changed to such a degree from the book that it almost changed the meaning the book tried to convey entirely. Vinicius was a full convert by the end of the book, and at the end of the movie it seemed he still only converted in order to get the girl. As far as the actual production, there were some lavish scenes as are expected from the old epics, but nowhere on the range of what was found in such religious dramas as King of Kings and Ben-Hur where there were larger than life characters that perfectly complemented the larger than life scenes.Quo Vadis is not without its good points, and the final climax is done fantastically, and the madness of Nero really shines through at key moments.

19 May 2012

Rome Burns, Nero Fiddles, Christianity Rises

This 1951 epic movie caught me completely off guard. I knew what to expect of the acting, melodramtic theatre. However, I didn't expect the story to be so historically fulfilling. This movie is set in a period of history that sees the mad roman emperor Nero, living the life of a powerful Caesar. He's not the brightest of leaders, so he surrounds himself with advisors who are influential in all his decisions, both good and bad. He comes acrsoss as a fool, and like any fool in power, Nero doesn't disappoint. He burns, he blames and he throws to the lions those who threaten his role as Caesar. The easily influenced Nero dangerously wields his power like a child playing with fire. You know that sooner or later he'll burn himself. It is rumored early in the movie that Nero had his mother and wife murdered. The citizens of Rome seem to be in a love/hate relationship with their leader.This is an enjoyable movie with plenty of action. The moving faith of early Christianity is well represented here by Peter and Paul. Love plays a leading role in this movie, however it is the love of Christians for their Lord and Savior that upstages the loves of men and women. It was definitely a time well spent watching this movie.

19 May 2012

The greatest Epic of them all.

This is just a wonderful movie. Well filmed and very well acted. For me the movie is worth its price for Peter Ustinov alone. He is simply wonderful. Evil, cowardly, and completely deadly, he steals the show as Nero. The entire movie is very well done, music, sets, acting, all come together in one of the best epics. It is interesting in that there is a great deal of comedy also, not to mention some delightful sarcasm. The story of the Roman General (Robert Taylor) and his love for a slave girl (Deborah Kerr) is the main theme, but it is closely tied in with the begining of Christianity. All of this takes place in Nero's Rome. I have the VHS, and Laser disc versions, I cannot wait for the DVD to be released. Do see this movie, you will not regret it.

Neil Doyle

18 May 2012

Lives up to your expectations...Leo Genn and Peter Ustinov steal the acting honors...

Ancient Rome never looked so good--especially in the gorgeous MGMtechnicolor of 1951. Costumes, sets, photography and music are all of a highorder--and all of the performances are competent with two outstanding onesby Leo Genn (Petronius) and Peter Ustinov (Nero). Ustinov reminds me of anoverbaked Charles Laughton in some of his mad scenes, but he is a convincingweakling as Nero. Leo Genn has some of the wittiest dialogue and handles hislines with professional ease, his eyes flashing with humor as he pretends toagree with Nero on certain points. Robert Taylor is stalwart in the leadgiving his usual dependable performance and Deborah Kerr is lovely (if a bitBritish in manner) as Lygia. All the action and excitement you want from a spectacle--the burning ofRome, Christians in the arena thrown to the lions, the triumphal marchesaccompanied by Miklos Rozsa's mighty score--and scenes with sentimental andreligious overtones (sometimes too extended and talky)--all combine to make the kind of lush spectacle MGM knew would be popularat the box-office. Although discriminating critics found fault with certainfactors, it won eight Academy Award nominations with Ustinov and Genn bothnominated for supporting roles.Grand scale spectacle--but don't expect anything deep.

17 May 2012

Boring and terrible actors

This review is from: Quo Vadis [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) first of all the quality of the Blu-ray was HORRIBLE. The picture and sound were like watching it on regular tv, not even as good as a DVD. I just watched this instead of when I bought it otherwise I would return it. The story was boring, the acting was terrible especially by the main actor, he was terrible in this kind of film. I have always seen him in westerns where he fit in just right, but to me stands out like a sore thumb in this movie, he doesn't have the ump that is normally shown in these type of films. I am a very big fan of any roman picture, not this one though, its going from my collection.

Thomas Pfaff

17 May 2012

Sequel to film from 1932 as well as 1924

One thing you won't find anywhere I looked is that Quo Vadis was doneas a movie called "The Sign of the Cross" by Cecil DeMille in 1932. Whyhe changed the name I have no idea. Perhaps he changed the story enoughto merit a name change. DeMille also had something called a BUDGET toworry about. The 1950s version had a big budget no doubt.Anyway the 1950s version is a good film. The 1932 version is worthseeing as a compliment to this one. Both versions were recently playedon a TV channel I watched. The 1950s version fits more into thegeneration of that time, with Christian beliefs being openlypopularized in America. How we have changed. The 1932 version is morelike a drama but also has the same basic messages as the later film. Ijust found the earlier film more tender [but just as meaningful]. Thereare no lions or violence as opposed to Quo Vadis 1950 which is violent.I really noticed how much more loquatious the 1950s version is. It isLONG and probably doesn't need to be so. Granted, Quo Vadis 1950 was ahigh-budget film with lots of perky special effects. I could take it orleave that.

just ask

16 May 2012

Excellent

All i have to say is that Peter Ustinov did a great job as Nero. He truly gave a real face to a crazed emperor.

nammage

16 May 2012

Not What I Expected...

I was hoping to watch Quo Vadis? at the time of viewing it solely for thereason that I thought it was a foreign film, I was incorrect.For the time this film was made or the time the book was written back in1902, I can't wrong its view, for that is what it is - a view. Whether basedon fact (as I am sure it is) or fiction (which I find there is plentyof).It is shown, straight away (to me at least) that one religion and one God iscorrect and any other (other being the Romans') is incorrect and evil. Thatthe other conquers and just shows bloodshed and force and the other showsabsolute peace and love, which is a fallacy.And the reason why is because both are Conquerers, both have shown, even inthe time that this is supposed to have happened, both have shownbloodshed.I always feel, and it will never change, is that when any Country makes afilm on another they should use the 'accents' of those Countries. They are'actors', which to me is a requirement of: Acting!The positive in this film only to me stems from the slight type of hope, andthat is basically it. Hope for who - I really do not know. (tho I am suremost would say for the Christians and all the rest - to hell withthem!).The negative I Feel is the propaganda of one religion upon another religion- maybe politics even play a part.I will have to read the book to know if the portrayal in the movies arejust, most times they are not. The 1912 version of Quo Vadis? I hear isworth watching, but, I feel it will be pretty hard to obtain acopy.Quality of the Technicolor is good, the sound is good as well. But, the'acting' and 'entertainment' in my opinion is minimal.Overall I give this film a 6 out of 10.

15 May 2012

Very watchable

Quo Vadis is the love story of the arrogant Roman general Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) who falls in love with a Christian girl, Lygia (Deborah Kerr) against the backdrop of Nero's tyrannical reign in Rome. The movie, based on Henryk Sienkwicz (sp?)'s novel of the same name, does detract a bit from the book. There are fewer characters, a less convoluted plot, and less depth to some of the characters, but that's more or less expected - as it is, this is a long film. I am a die-hard Robert Taylor fanatic, so obviously seeing him in this is a bonus. His obviously American accent's a little jarring when compared with the rest of the cast, but he looks wonderful and his depiction of Marcus - initially proud, arrogant, and almost brutal in his sense of patrician superiority, later transitioning into the loving, sensitive but yet not milquetoasty husband of Lygia - is understated but good. Deborah Kerr is a little irritatingly sweet and ever-patient; but the most brilliant performance is that of Peter Ustinov as the insane Nero - he actually made by flesh creep!Slightly dated special effects (the chariot run to Rome; Ursus's bullfight; Rome burning), but not bad enough to severely affect viewing. Highly recommended.

15 May 2012

Quo Vadis

This review is from: Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition) (DVD) I first saw Quo Vadis when it came out in the early 1950s. It was a sensation then and continues to be so today. The cast are all excellent, and Peter Ustinov as Nero is the best ever actor to play the part. Although the film was made before wide screen, cinemascope, or any of the newer techniques, it is the story that is so well developed that pleases. Apart from the history, the film has a strong cast, director, photographer, set designer, and costumer all of whom contribute to a first class movie experience. In other words, "They just don't make them like this anymore".It should be included in any serious movie buff's collection.

David Diamond

12 May 2012

MGM burns Rome

This movie helped usher in the age of biblical epics that were produced inthe 1950's and 1960's that have not been equalled since. This film alsowasa first in that it much of the filming was done on location in the famousCinecetta studios in Rome. The film is unequalled in production values,costumes, sets, musical score, etc. As far as the script is concerned, itisa bit weak, the screenplay not being adapted well from the classic novelabout Rome. The only actor to watch in this is Peter Ustinov as thepsychotic emperor Nero. Ustinov steals the film from everyoneelse.

steven-222

11 May 2012

Dont Expect Subtlety

This movie has its virtues, but subtlety is not among them. It openswith a narrator telling us what to think about the story we're about tosee, and closes with a hymn sung over the end credits. In between PeterUstinov plays Nero, and we know he must be mad because he pouts androlls his eyes and chews every carpet in sight. Was this performancethe inspiration for Jennifer Saunder's Eddy on ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS?Watch Nero's blubbering tantrum after he reads Petronius's letter, andyou'll see what I mean.The movie is visually sumptuous and (at least until the last hour orso) pretty entertaining, but every time the script diverges from thenovel to engineer "big" Hollywood moments — Peter orating from thestands of the Colosseum, the climactic palace revolution, etc. — theaction descends into melodrama and the acting seems very dated. Thefilm gets preachier as it goes along, which is unfortunate; thefilmmakers don't seem confident that the images and situations canspeak for themselves, so the message is shouted at the audience: Nerobad, Christians good! Well, yes, but because the prudish 1950sfilm-making won't show the Christians actually suffering as they'recrucified (they sing hymns and look heavenward), there's no realemotional involvement. We're told what to think, but we're not made tofeel anything.Two other versions, the 2001 Polish television series and the 1985Italian mini-series — truly profound productions that capture the darkgenius of Sienkiewicz's novel (and the terror of Nero's reign)— areboth so vastly superior that they can't even be compared to this campyHollywood extravaganza.

10 May 2012

Big disappointment

This review is from: Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition) (DVD) I have been waiting for "Quo Vadis " on DVD for years to complete the " Ben Hur" , " King of Kings " trilogy. Considereing the stunningpresentation of "King of Kings " I was sure "Quo Vadis was going to be on an equal par especially since it was remastered in an ultraresolution.What a disappointment. Image appeared flat and the technicolor was pale and lackluster. A far cry from the "King of Kings" presentation.I hope the blu ray disc due out for Easter is an improvement.

09 May 2012

MGM AT ITS BEST

This review is from: Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition) (DVD) GREAT PLOT, TECHNICOLOR PHOTOGRAPHY, AND CAST ROUND OUT THIS METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER CLASSIC. PETER USTINOV ALL BUT STEALS THE SHOW. DEBORAH KERR IS, AS ALWAYS, BREATHTAKING...AND ROBERT TAYLOR IS, OH WELL, ROBERT TAYLOR. ENJOYABLE!

08 May 2012

Remarkable film!

The wide display of great stages and wonderful recreations of the Ancient Roman Empire are depicted in this overwhelming super production of the fifties . And since the film focuses on the love affair between a Roman Soldier Robert Taylor and a Male Christian Deborah Kerr , the jewel of the crown acting was shared for two supporting actors Leo Genn and Peter Ustinov . They made the difference and for that reason both were nominated for Best Supporting actor that year , though the Oscar went to Karl malden hands for A streetcar named Desire . Nominated also for Best film and Best Musical score , Photograph , Set up , Decoration and Dress Wardrobe . And despite the fact the film didn't win any Academy Award the time has preserved to this film a honorable place among the Best films about this painful period of the story .The destruction of Rome and the cynicism of Ustinov is simply a tour de force experience .

07 May 2012

You should see Quo Vadis!

This review is from: Quo Vadis (Two-Disc Special Edition) (DVD) I obtained this because I wanted to see the first Biblical epic, and I was really impressed with the acting and with the sets, and most of all the story. I thought that the conflict between Robert Taylor as the Roman Marcus Vinicius and Deborah Kerr as the Christian Lygia was captivating, as she slowly turns him around from his beliefs. I like it that the sets and grandeur did not ever distract from the character development, and it was fascinating to me to see how historical and fictional events were mixed in the story, especially with the inclusion of the Apostles Paul and Peter and the way the fire of Rome starts. In fact, Nero did not necessarily cause the fire in Rome and organized relief efforts afterward, but he did blame the Christians; in Quo Vadis, Poppaea, Nero's sinister wife, persuades him to blame the Christians out of spite that Marcus Vinicius loves Lygia instead of her. I really enjoyed the documentary and audiocommentary on this, as well. There are really only 3 things I wish were different on the movie:1. Mainly, Marcus Vinicius's conversion is rather humanistic. He prays to Christ near the end for help, and recognizes that Christians know how to die bravely and that Christianity brings peace and stability to the world through its message of love for one's enemies, but there is no indication of a special personal yielding to God. The audiocommentary talked about John Huston's (who was going to be the director, and who actually had no use for religion) idea of Marcus's conversion, which I think I'd have liked better: As he's trying to rescue Lygia from the fire in Rome, he makes a promise to God to become a Christian if He spares Lygia and gains understanding of the faith after he's rescued her.2. Finlay Currie as the Apostle Peter definitely has the passion and holy aura, especially with his long white beard, but he did seem unrealistic because of his Scottish accent. At the same time, it's not supposed to be entirely authentic, and part of the appeal of a movie that takes place long ago is that you feel like you're entering another world, which is enjoyable whether it's realistic or not.3. Marcus's uncle Petronius (who really was in Nero's court and lost favor) commits suicide and justifies himself by noting the Christians say death leads to a better life, and I think there should have been some kind of a condemnation of his suicide subtly presented in the movie. Movies send moral messages, and I wish Petronius had not been shown so favorably all the way through, because then his suicide would not elicit a sympathetic reaction from the viewer. I was hoping there could be an obvious contrast between his choice of suicide and the Christians' choice of martyrdom that would show martyrdom, the more painful kind of death, as being preferable because God is honored by that and not by suicide. Even a line or two of dialogue about that from one of the main characters (like Marcus, Petronius's nephew) after they'd hear of Petronius's death would have been satisfactory.However, to most viewers, having a strongly Christian statement is not as important as it is to me, and I found absolutely nothing offensive about Quo Vadis; I just wish it had gone farther in its affirmation of Christianity. Aside from that minor disappointment, I enjoyed the movie very much and enjoyed the special features equally well, and even though Nero is deranged, you can't help but enjoy him because Peter Ustinov is such a comedic actor! I thought the acting on the movie was really exemplary.