The Fall Of The Roman Empire (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition) (The Miriam Collection)

When I first heard of The Fall of the Roman Empire, the film, I was not impressed. First, it did badly in the theaters, was about three hours long, and while it was full of stars I pictured it being something like an ancient Playboy Estate, with lots of feasts and orgies and bloody games. Yet, many modern reviews and essays on the film suggested some real meaning within the scenes. So I finally decided to watch it.
It was wonderful. Dialogue about power, duty, freedom. Battle scenes, yes, but also wonderful, beautiful landscapes, snow swept forests, and Rome. Not a computer generated Rome, but a Rome built in Spain with marble, and gold, and filled with hundreds of extras - many of them tourists.
This is one of the last big toga epics, yes, but not because it was a bad film - it was just before its time. Nobody wanted to hear the messages, the warnings it was trying to deliver. Real life, with the Vietnam Conflict and the death of JFK was depressing enough without having to see it played out AGAIN on the big screen.
But the messages are still there and just as important to us in 2010 as they were in 1964. Maybe even more so. If you want to know more about the true fall of Rome I would suggest The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Three Heritage Press Volumes which does a very good job.
The extras are wonderful but I almost wanted more. A lot of footage was taken at the time of the producation to help sell the film, both to the public and to the backers - you can never have too much money when making a film.
Get it! Watch it! Think over it!

I am glad I purchased this movie, I enjoyed it very much. I had no problem in ordering this from Amazon.com and I am pleased with their handling of shipping and getting my item to me in a timely matter. Thank you

I watch and participate in this Weinstein Company tribute to by father with a profound devotion and amazement. I had the privilege of seeing this movie in the Producer's Viewing Room at the Chamartin Studios in Madrid before it was edited for exibition and was astounded at its elegance and adult line. When it was commercially released I was outraged that the most artistically original and psychological mature pieces had been removed never to be found since. Yet, sitting and watching this massive project on screen one cannot help but be haunted by the prescience of its politics and serendipity with our Bush era experience. We are watching a metaphor of our America with all its growing inhumanity and relentless investment in wars at the edge of its empire at the expense of its epicenter - our social fabric and cultural civility. The other triangulating amazement is to see and know that every detail of this epic was created in tangible reality, every weapon, horse, costume, set decoration, edifice, individual was real...moved on verbal cue...with no special effects, no computer generated imagery, no visual trickery. If you are going to reconstruct the Roman Forum in all its actual splendor, why chisel anywhere else. Then the presence of Anthony Mann's signature "fire" in every important scene, the exquisite geometric design of every frame, like classic tableaus with unerring discipline and artistry that go by in a seamless continuum that every viewer soon takes for granted and hypnotically grows to ignore in the flow of the movie. The achievement of this film, now nearly 50 years old, is all so boggling to me in juxtaposition to where James Cameron takes us visually with "Avatar"in all its electronically created beauty. What dramatically comparable poles of this daunting movie making social art! Critically watching the powerfully remastered Weinstein Collectors DVD set for "Fall of the Roman Empire" and the panoply of special features, stories within stories, that comprises this emperor's journey, sweeps one into visual tides that lift, propel and overwhelm in sheer scope and complexity. It takes great acuity, focus and attention to register the myriad details of production here which are immensely rewarding. Then, add the sound design which couches the whole in an audio vehicle just as complex, in parallel, to the visual miracle. I think that one must decide to watch this 'monster' at the right time when there are no distractions and you are ready to feel and examine its monumental substance. It is one of the greatest examples of human artistry and reach that makes movie making the ultimate art form of all time. William Bronston, MD

Great Movie; I saw it back in 1964 when it first came out. I however like the movie Gadiator (which covers the same period) better.

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!

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.

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.

This movie was fantastic. The acting was phenomenal and the scenes were beautiful. The DVD quality was great.

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."

In the year 180 A.D., the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who led his Roman legions against the Germanic tribes along the Danube frontier, has been at war for 17 years and lived under very difficult conditions...

Now he invited every governor, every consul and every prince in the whole empire for one particular purpose... All responded to his call coming from the deserts of Egypt, from the mountains of Armenia, from the forest of Gaul and the prairies of Spain...

Marcus Aurelius greets them as friends, and tells them that in the whole world, only two small frontiers are still hostile to Rome... One, here in the north which separates the Roman Empire from those who are called barbarians, the other, in the east of Persia... Only on these two borders Rome is finding walls, palisades, forts and hatred... But these are not the frontiers he wants... He wants and needs human frontiers, the vision of a family of nations...

For the great emperor time is short, and there is a decision which he can no longer delay... He has sacrificed the love of his son as Commodus will never be his heir... His wish is that Livius, the commander of the northern army, should succeed him, and he intends to present him to the leaders of the empire openly as his successor... He has hope that the position and responsibilities would make his son grow up as Commodus is interested only in games and gladiators...

Guiness' ailing Marcus Aurelius had hope that his daughter would not have a marriage without love... And he knows better than anyone what a marriage without love can mean... But his fears for the empire are reasonable... The east is where the danger lies...He must make an alliance that will show the whole world what value Rome place on her eastern frontier... An alliance with Armenia...

Boyd's weary Galius Livius saw suddenly his world has become strange... He's not sure where he is... He knows only the ways of war... He would not know how to make allies out of the barbarians... But if he has to choose between being Caesar's heir or Lucilla's love, he chooses her love...

Loren's lovely Lucilla makes it hard for her father to take leave of this life... She knows that her father loves her, but how could her life mean anything without love? It is out of love that she dared so much...

Plummer's slimy Commodus pushes the eastern provinces to rebellion in smashing and destroying everything his father did... He makes it clear to his sister that he refused to give her anymore chances to prop against him...

Mason's genteel Timonides has been a slave, but he's not accustomed to pain...He is a philosopher and he is weak...

Ferrer's treacherous Cleander knows that Caesar will accept fruit from him... He also knows that his blade carries a deadly poison...

Quayle's gladiator Verulus snores, in the moment of truth, a deep family secret...

Sharif's king Sohamus hopes for a lovely part of Rome...

With a cast of thousands, massive battle sequences, exciting chariot races, brutal hand to hand combat, gorgeous scenery, impressive set design, Anthony Mann's motion picture is a long ride of epic proportions not designed only to entertain but to expose how gold and corruption can undermine the biggest empire the world has ever known...

Let me first preface my review by stating that the Fall of the Roman Empire is a wonderful movie. The cinematography and art direction are gorgeous. Sophia Loren is radiant. Stephen Boyd properly heroic, in spite of the bad blond hair dye. Alec Guinness, James Mason and Christopher Plummer are extraordinary.

No, my one star is not for the movie. It's for the limited edition 3 DVD set. The extras included can not justify its $39.95 price tag. The "extra" DVD (included only in this set) is nothing more than a collection of Encyclopedia Britannica movie shorts on Ancient Rome.

Do you remember those old (16mm) movies you watched in grammar school ? That's what they are. Those old movies. There's nothing new.

Also included are 4x6 replicas of the movie placards and program.

Are they interesting ? Yes, they are fun to look at. Are they worth the price of $39.95 ?

NO ! That's why the 3 volume limited edition set is a rip off !!!

If you are interested in this movie (and it is a good one), buy the 2 DVD special edition DVD instead. The limited edition set is a waste of money.

The best of this DVD are the extras. I hoped, by the title, the last moments of the roman empire in the fifth century A.D., but is an interpretation of one of many causes of the collapse of the empire, the begining of fool emperors at the end of the second century A.D., with Comodous. This film has the same historical fiction than "Gladiator".

A high recommended movie because of the superior quality of actors, the greatness of outdoor scenes and some great lines. For example : in his relatively short appearance in the beginning of the movie Alec Guinness (in his role as Ceasar) speeks at sunrise the almost poëtly line:
"..Timodeus...it is said more people die at this moment when night is about to give way to day then at any other time.....seems to me night whispers...COME WITH ME TO THE WEST...SLEEP FOREVER....WHÃT HAS ANOTHER DAY TO OFFER YOU?...... " Probably this motion picture will not be brought out on blue-ray discs so...by it on dvd to keep it close for your moments of need to see a classic and impressive motion picture.

A very enjoyable movie with good period detail and enough history to be well above the typical sword and sandal movie.

I'm so glad that this great movie was FINALLY released to DVD. The movie,Gladiator (Widescreen Edition) is basically a remake of the same story. I really do like Gladiator, but I this one is still my favorite.

...movies were made that were monumental productions. "Fall" is a prime example. Making it today as it was made in 1964 would probably break the bank of most studios. Christopher Plummer's Commodus is alone worth the price -- and one reason why he's perhaps Canada's finest living actor.

This is a classic Roman historical film I saw first time when I was a teenager. It is so great to have this DVD of the remastered version. The movie Gladiator owes a great debt to this film full of beautiful performances and unforgettable cinematography. I highly recommend this DVD to anyone interested in Greco-Roman films and epic cinema from the 1960's.

This is not so great movie but still enjoyable.At last available in a DVD with decent picture and sound, along with mind blowing extras. This limited collector's edition comes with 1 additional booklet and few art cards. Even though I purchased the Limited Edition, I feel like the goodies not worth the additional money I paid. Also the box will eat up more space in your DVD rack. So buying the The Fall Of The Roman Empire (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition) (The Miriam Collection) will be a good deal. I highly recommend this along with .El Cid (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition) (The Miriam Collection) to any classic DVD collection

Then this one will be right up there.

The contrast between the "old" movies and new ones is very apparent in this particular extravaganza. The focus is on the spectacle. Acting, scripting and accuracy are entirely secondary though not neglected. I like the movie and hence give it four stars but simply as entertainment. I could not get over the set design, the cast of thousands for extras, the range of vision offered. Modern movies use computer imagery to do this stuff. This movie relied on the basics... if you want to portray an army, hire one... and dress them up in period costumes.

Further, in contrast to "modern" movie making, the moralizing is "in your face." Marcus Aurelius is portrayed as pretty near a saint... modern ideas of "freedom" are unabashedly imposed on folks who had very little in common with them, etc. This movie genre is "historical myth" and that is OK. There is a place for myth (young Geo. Wash. chopping down that apple tree) in the communication of morals (as in the "moral" of the story) and its force should not be underestimated. An entire generation grew up watching this type of movie and on the whole, I think it was probably a more healthy environment for them than some of the modern stuff the young folks are exposed to now.

So... if you like old movies... this is a good one.

If you liked El Cid or the Gladiator, then this is a must. I think that it's a better story telling then the Russel Crowe remake.

The Fall of the Roman Empire is one of those big Hollywood spectacle films that were so prevalent during the 50s and 60s. It was produced by Samuel Bronston and directed by Anthony Mann who had teamed together three years earlier on another great sword and sandal epic, El-Cid. The Fall of the Roman Empire was a disappointment at the box-office in large part due to its lack of a big star in the male lead role. Charlton Heston turned down the role as he despised Sophia Loren who plays the female lead Lucilla. Kirk Douglas also turned down the lead role of Livius that eventually went to Stephen Boyd. Boyd was a very capable actor but didn't have the sizzle of a Heston or Douglas. Besides Boyd and Loren, the cast also includes Alec Guiness (Caesar Marcus Aurelius), James Mason (Timonides), Christopher Plummer (Commodus), Omar Sharif (Sohamus), Anthony Quayle (Verulus) and John Ireland (Ballomar).

Surprisingly, the film is historically accurate on a number of different counts. While the Livius character is fictional, Marcus Aurelius was rumored to have been poisoned, Commodus had a well documented love for the gladiatorial games, and his sister, Lucilla, did oppose his rule and attempt to assassinate him (Although this would be cut from the film so it did not make Loren's character look bad). Many of the minor supporting characters are also based in historical fact. The film opens at a Roman fortification along the Danube frontier as Roman forces battle the barbarian Germanic tribes. Marcus Aurelius believes Rome's best option is to make peace with the Barbarians and wants their leader, Ballomar brought in to discuss terms. Commodus opposes his father's views leading to Marcus naming Livius as heir to be the next Caesar instead of his own son. But before he can document his will, Marcus is poisoned by conspirators and Commodus becomes the next Caesar.

Commodus reverses his father's pacifist and diplomatic policies and sets out to conquer the barbarians and stirs up hostilities by taxing his allies from Armenia and Egypt. Once like brothers, Livius and Commodus are now bitter enemies and Livius is banished to the Northern frontier as Commodus continues to abuse his powers. Now bordering on madness, Commodus becomes a prime example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

The Fall of the Roman Empire is a true epic spectacle in every sense of the word. The recreation of Rome in full scale is absolutely stunning. However, the cost of building the sets on such a massive scale coupled with the poor box-office returns resulted in financial ruin for Producer Sam Bronston and his production company was forced to file for bankruptcy. You have to appreciate the dedication to historical accuracy, right down to the costuming as the uniforms worn by the soldiers of various nations was said to be thoroughly authentic. Without the modern use of computer technology, the films grand "Battle of the Four Armies" was staged with as many as 18,000 extras.

The performances in the film are generally strong. Boyd and Plummer definitely do their best to upstage each other and are guilty of hamming it up a bit much. On the other hand, Alec Guinness is outstanding as a serene and intelligent Marcus Aurelius. His calm wisdom will make modern fans think of his more famous role as Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars films. Loren gives an understated performance and she's miles away from the sex queen idol roles she'd become known for most.

This is an outstanding boxed set collection. The three DVD Special Collector's Edition set comes with host of fantastic extras including:

Reproduction of Original 1961 Souvenir Program
Six Color Production Stills (Collector's Edition Only)
Feature commentary by the producer's son Bill Bronston and film expert Mel Martin
Rome in Madrid Featurette
Fall of the "Real" Roman Empire Featurette
Making of Fall Of The Roman Empire featurette
Hollywood Vs. History featurette
Encyclopedia Britannica On The Roman Empire - 5 featurettes
Original Theatrical Trailer

I agree totally with all you guys who left reviews of this DVD before.
You actually do see every dollar spent on this production! The more often I watch this movie the more I love it, meanwhile preferring it even to Ben-Hur!
However the print used for this transfer was a 35mm print (as it was with El Cid), not a 70mm Ultra-Panavision print that would have presented the movie in all of its ribbon-like glory (as shown in the DVD release of the above mentioned Ben Hur, another Ultra-Panavision movie).
Unfortunately there is still one scene missing I saw years ago in a movie theater: after Livius' and Commodus' celebration of their first encounter (the wine-drinking contest) and their dilemma-discussion they climb a staircase. The lost scene shows the two men entering a viewing platform to look down into some kind of hurdling containing captured barbarian women. The next scene shows Commodus molesting one of these women. It is just a one-minute scene but it contains some cold-blooded dialogue by Commodus and its loss is indicated by an odd break in the music. There is one special feature contained in this disc, a simple text card with an apology referring to one recently found scene that could not be put back into the picture before the DVD release; I am positive it is that very scene and I am looking forward to a later release of this wonderful movie with that scene intact.

This, as Stephen Boyd said, "one of the best movies of its kind". It is suberb in the first part, during the life of Marcus Aurelius(Alec Guinness), but does not develop too well later. Still it is a great spectacle, even if not free of the preaching of modern morality which is foreign to the world depicted in the film.

"Fall" was incorrectly regarded during the 1960s as a coda to thunderous
cinematic Roman clunkers such as "Quo Vadis?" and "Cleopatra." In fact, and in retrospect, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" is the screen's first modern epic: literate, thoughtful, contemporary in its themes and flawlessly acted. Only "Spartacus" and the epics of David Lean rival it today. The four primary leads, Stephen Boyd, Sophia Loren, Christopher Plummer, and Alec Guinness, deliver Oscar worthy performances. They remind us that today's "A List" of screen actors is a very anemic bunch when compared to their 1960s counterparts. Dimitri Tiomkin's score stands alone as a masterpiece. When the score is blended with director Anthony Mann's visuals of the cast and incomparable sets, the results are breathtaking. The modern resonance of the movie's themes is emphasized within Alec Guinness' speech about the Pax Romana, and the struggle of the two principal characters (Boyd and Loren) to establish thoughtful government over brute force is a noteworthy reminder of a current and everlasting conflict. Boyd got his heroic role in "Fall" thanks, in part, to his magnificent work in William Wyler's "Ben-Hur." It was inevitable that Boyd's chariot race against Christopher Plummer would be compared to the spectacular Roman Circus sequence in "Ben-Hur." Whereas the race in "Hur" is added for spectacle, the chariot race in "Fall" advances the plot. Therefore, the two should not be compared, and the chariot sequence in "Fall" must be applauded for its contribution to the movie's complex dramatic canvas. The race represents the eruption of tempers and differences between Boyd (Livius) and Plummer (Commodus) with an action sequence that is both essential and entertaining for the audience. It is merely one example of the many components that make "Fall" a superior motion picture experience today. The Miriam Collection is also to be applauded for preserving and restoring this definitive classic of the 1960s, the only Roman film epic of the era that endures with themes of critical, current importance.

I've been waiting years for this to be released on DVD, thanks again Scorcese for saving the best of cinema for generations to come! I would have thought it would have been released after Gladiator because Gladiator basically took the entire storyline and recreated it for Gladiator. I think that as much as I love Gladiator FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE is the better film - especially the ending.

Too long, predictable dialog, background music that isn't background, occasionally blasting out over the scene, and an ending that is difficult to swallow. But if you're looking for grandeur, spectacle, huge sets, beautiful costumes, an almost perfect/printine transfer to DVD, and a chariot race and fight between the stars, Stephen Boyd and Christopher Plummer, that rivals the chariot race in Ben Hur, then this is your movie. However, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how James Mason could be torchered extensively by the barbarion, John Ireland, by fire, apparently on his left side or left hand, and not show any signs of it in the following scenes.

I bought this DVD because it's a favorite of mine. I didn't care if it was the original 185 minute version or the 170 edited version. When I received the movie it was the 185 minute cut! This film is one of the best ever made! An all star cast with superb acting! The DVD is in widescreen and on 2 DVDs. My recommendation is: BUY THIS DVD!!

This lumbering, overlong epic contains only a few shreds of historical accuracy, along with some appallingly bad acting and a musical score that is notorious for being both inappropriate and intrusive. Why then is it so enjoyable?

When I saw this first-run, at the age of ten, I couldn't have imagined a more enthralling movie. My childhood memories have stayed with me and to some extent influence my response to the film today. But there's more than that.

Christopher Plummer is brilliant as the young Emperor Commodus, whose reign begins Edward Gibbon's mammoth history, THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. As in the later GLADIATOR, Commodus is the dissolute son of the wise Marcus Aurelius. In real life, the great Marcus was blind to his son's defects and broke with precedent by allowing Commodus to become his successor. For more than a century, the Empire had prospered because the Emperors picked the most qualified men as their heirs, and ignored heredity. Marcus Aurelius inexplicably chose to go back to a hereditary monarchy, with disastrous results.

Plummer's depiction of Commodus is nothing short of remarkable. He shares several scenes with Stephen Boyd, who gives possibly the most wooden, lifeless, oxlike performance in film history, as the fictional Livius. Boyd's lines fall out of his mouth like bars of lead dropping off a shelf. Even so, Plummer brings the screen alive.

Sophia Loren, forced to endure several badly written love scenes with the hapless Boyd, is wasted here; these romantic scenes impressed me when I was ten, but not any more. Loren is a brilliant actress, but she is given little to do here but look mouth-wateringly good. Having to act opposite Boyd must have been a challenge.

Alec Guiness does what he can with the role of Marcus, which here is underwritten (he spends most of his on-screen time either philosphizing or dying). James Mason does typically solid work as one of Marcus's advisers, and Anthony Quayle uses his few scenes to good advantage.

The real stars of the show, however, are the sets. Two massive sets, one of Marcus's fortress on the German border, the other an astonishingly detailed recreation of the Roman forum, including several elaborate interiors, bring the spectacle to the forefront. The first half of the film takes place on the frontier, and although there are some deathly slow sequences, the pace is helped by the brooding atmospherics of the production design, along with a battle scene and a chariot race (Boyd has the white horses this time around).

Things pick up in the second half as the action moves to Rome. The set alone is worth the price of admission, but the story moves along at a nice clip. None of the events are historical, but it's all entertaining, and it does manage to capture the feel of an Empire on the edge of collapse. (The Empire actually lasted for more than 200 years after the time of Commodus, and continued in the East until 1453. But let's not get too technical. If you want a history lesson, read a book.)

It's worth sitting through, if you can stomach Boyd. He looks for all the world like a slow-witted reptile who has just been shot between the eyes and is already dead, but is simply too stupid to have realized it yet. It's astonishing how bad he is, especially if you've seen him in BEN HUR or ABANDON SHIP. Perhaps he just wasn't cut out to be an action hero.

Modern audiences will likely prefer Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, which is more briskly paced and has a more coherent plot. But for me, the edge goes to the vivid reality of the old-fashioned spectacle, because what you're seeing really exists, and so far no computer-generated imagery can live up to reality.

As another reviewer mentions, what Amazon refers to as the "(Two-Disc Limited Collector's Edition) (The Miriam Collection)," is actually 3 discs. Someone else unfortunately wrote a few months ago, before said was even released, referring to a DVD release he/she did not specify, AMC used to air a wider screened print/aspect ratio. However, comparing said Miriam Collection edition to my tape of the AMC widescreen airing, the Miriam Collection's picture is WIDER than AMC's, and the same vertically. The "Miriam" release of this underrated film looks STUNNING on my large Mac screen; frankly, much better than expected for a neglected classic from 1964! A must-see for fans of epic films.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" is interesting as one of the last of the great Roman epics (which is ironic, given its title).

The story has been discussed repeatedly, but there are a few holes in the story. We aren't exactly sure how James Mason's character (the Greek philosopher) rises to prominence with Flavius (Stephen Boyd), or how Flavius gains such favor with Marcus Aurelius (a very sympathetic Alec Guiness, who is absolutely wonderful), or the bit with Sophia Loren being forced into a loveless marriage, or exactly why Commodus sacks the (at this point) peaceful Barbarian village. Perhaps this is included in the recently-found lost footage that the special features mentions, but was not yet included in this set.

This aside, it is the action, suspense, and spectacular scenery that made this genre of films so successful. The chariot battle in the woods between Flavius and Commodus is particularly exciting. Sophia Loren's tender relationship with her father (Alec Guiness) is particularly touching and the musical score is perfectly fitting. Some fiction mixed with fact as expected (certain major characters aside from the Historical Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are fictional), but it makes you want to read and learn more about the real fall of Rome.

It's not hard to understand why the film flopped in 1964. The film's theme of murderous treachery and absolute power corrupting absolutely is a bit dark for a time when audiences flocked to lighter, escapist fare such as "My Fair Lady," Mary Poppins," and "A Hard Day's Night." By the end of the 1960s and early 70s when certain events in America paralelled the actions of Ancient Rome in the film (needless wars for expansionism, corrupt leadership, and moral decay among the populace-HEY! Sounds like NOW!), it became common to compare the fate of America to the Roman Empire. This movie will really make you think as you watch it and ponder the events of our own time. Let us not let history repeat itself.

This is the EDITED version FFolks

About 10 year ago A.M.C., before they Flushed themselves down the toilet, showed 2 versions of this movie, one was 179 minutes and a FoolScreen and the other was The Original 188 minute and 2.76:1 version, too which i recorded and still have.

The Original Uncut Movie is 3 Hrs and 8 Min or 188 Minutes

This DVD Version is (according to the Product Details) 179 Minutes..10 Minutes shorter than Original Theatrical Version


Also This DVD has been (Modified and Formatted), It was Originaly Presented in an Aspect Ratio of 2.76:1
This DVD version is Presented in an Aspect Ratio of only 2.35:1, which means that it has been Blown Up, So some things will be missing.

So for this DVD release you will be missing Part of the picture and 10 minutes of the Film.

Released one year after "Cleopatra," Anthony Mann's "Fall of the Roman Empire" (1964) is not a great film, but is noteworthy for the quality of the production, the assemblege of a splendid cast, and the fact it truly signified the end of an era in filmmaking.

The film was remade, sort of, as "Gladiator" by Ridley Scott, but it is Mann's film that is far superior cinematically. What is immediately striking about "Fall" is the number of historically accurate sets (over 20 in all) depicting the Roman capital at the time of emperor Marcus Aurelius and Commodus all handcrafted by scores or set designers and craftsmen in Spain long before computer animation was ever heard of.

While critics at the time scoffed at the fact that a film could compress Gibbon's opus into a film over 188 minutes, Mann does succeed in capturing really the "beginning of the end" by depicting the frustrations of a philosophical emperor's (Marcus Aurelius) 20-year reign now in its twilight, filled with small but bitter barbarian battles and frontier wars, who leaves behind a spoiled and twisted son (Commodus) who squanders such ideals and leaves the empire in chaos.

Spending much of his $16 million budgeted for the film on sets (an enormous amount of money circa 1964), we see a vision of Mann's Rome (and the Roman Forum), not only architectually accurate but of tremendous breadth and scope. The Temple of Vesta, the Curia, the Arch of Titus, The Temple of Jupiter, are all rendered with tremendous authenticity. Certainly, a Rome even Nero would be reluctant to burn!

Interior sets are also equally impressive decorated with garlands, frescoes, pools, and columns modelled on the Pompeian style. Like the sets, the costume design, cinematography courtesy of Dimitri Tiomkin, and even the stuntwork (overseen by Yakima Canutt), are all first class. Even noted historian, Will Durant, author of the nine volume opus, "The Story of Civilization," was both a consultant and advisor for the film.

All in all, the film authentically captures all the grandeur and decadance that was Rome, so why only four stars? Perhaps the problem lies with the two leads Livius (Stephen Boyd) and Drusilla (Sophia Loren) with a love story that fails to convice and somewhat drags the principal story down. However, they manage to do what they can with these rather bland roles.

James Mason (Timonides) and Alec Guinness (Marcus Aurelius)are both impressive in their respective roles, and Christopher Plummer, plays a Commodus a bit too refined to be that sinister and half-mad, but it all seems to work apparently well in this film. The final scenes are a subtle reminder that great empires do not fall to outside foreign influences before they first fall from within.

This bloated, overlong epic marked the virtual end of multi-million dollar spectacular movies produced in the late fifties and early sixties. Boasting the largest budget ever at the time, it also grossed the least amount of money for this sort of film (a mere $500K). Its screenwriter, Philip Yordan, once told me that after this movie "the banks closed their doors whenever they saw Sam Bronston coming." Despite its impressive cast, the film is downright dreary. How did such a huge film on such a fascinating subject go so terribly wrong? It's too bad, really, because I miss this kind of spectacle with thousands of "live" extras and fabulous, rousing music scores.

oh, but if Kirk Douglas were in it-a whole new level would have been added.
Stephen Boyd is a poor choice for lead-no charisma

If you enjoyed Gladiator with Russell Crow you will undoubtedly enjoy this film for the simple fact that the story line is the same.

Story Line: Decadence of Rome after the death of Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness); the fall from grace of Rome's greatest general (Stephen Boyd); romance between the general and the emperor's daughter (Sophia Loren); and the struggle for power between the general and Commodus, (Christopher Plummer).

There is a lot more attention to detail in Fall of the Roman Empire with more plot twists and character development than Gladiator, although slower in pace. By no means is the story slow or uninteresting, just more drama and less video action - for the mature adult who appreciates plot development before the action begins.

This film was made with the same mindset as films like Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and Ten Commandments, meaning; huge budgets, a massive sets, cast of thousands and costume designs that surpasses any film of its time. Along with all this you get one of the finest casts ever assembled. There are no computer generated images in this film so the thousands and thousands of extras you see in this film are real!

See this film on the largest TV screen you can get your hands on and get ready to be impressed.

I saw this film on the giant 70mm screen when it was first released.It was one of the most tedious experiences I had encountered in a cinema at the time.The passing years,and a recent viewing,have not improved the film's standing with me.

This movie filmed in Ultra Panavision 70, cost over $20,000,000 to produce in 1963 which would be equivalent to 200 million if produced today and you see every penny of it on the big screen. It stars some of the greatest actors of all time which includes Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland, Omar Sharif, and Mel Ferrer. The music is incredible; it was nominated for an Academy Award and Golden Globe (Won) for best original score. This movie was long overdue on DVD including the remaining Bronston Epic- 55 Days at Peking which is due out in July. Experts say, the only reason this film did not recoup its losses in the theater, is by 1964 movie audiences had grown tired of the Roman Epics as it followed great movies such as Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra, etc, so they considered it a timing issue rather than the quality of the motion picture. I highly recommend this 3 hour adventure, enjoy the film.