MovieChat Forums > The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) Discussion > Awful movie

Awful movie

posted 17 years ago by bsg_tns
17 replies | jump to latest

Despite the fact that they obviously spent a gazillion dollars on the sets, costumes and battles, it was an AWFUL movie. No wonder Charlton Heston wanted nothing to do with it. The script was written by morons FOR morons, the battle sequences were a joke to look at they were so poorly filmed. And the music. The MUSIC. I would hardly call it a score because a score should have some relation to the actual movie it accompanies. It completely overpowered the movie. Bombastic and shrill, it never let up. Awful stuff. Not one quiet moment throughout the whole movie. Nor did the music ever fit the scenes. I was totally distracted by it. I couldn't wait for the movie to end just so the music would go away.

Free speech

[–] powelltolar 17 years ago

It's been many years since I last saw this movie, but I'd have to agree with you on the awful music. I read another post by someone who was wondering what was wrong with it that he just couldn't put his finger on, and I remembered the awful, tinny music. As I recall, the sound track sounded like everything had been dubbed, too. It had the sound "quality" of the typical Italian sword and sandal movie even though played by English-speaking actors.

Much has been written by posters about this movie being ripped off by Gladiator. When I saw Gladiator, I immediately recalled this movie, but I just consider Gladiator to be a remake of this movie, and in my opinion, Gladiator is much the better movie.

To those who fret that the history portrayed isn't completely accurate: Get over it! It's a MOVIE. I'd never enjoy any historical movie if I required absolute accuracy.

I disagree that this movie is awful. I'd give it, eh, 6/10. It has some fine actors, even if the script isn't wonderful.

[–] bohemian11 16 years ago

There is so much technology now. Ain't there any way to change the score of this movie say by film school students/musicians and release it again?

[–] waynec50 17 years ago

While it's not a great movie, it's really not awful. The acting is uneven, either by script or direction, and the score just kills the movie, it often seems more suited to a Western than an epic. Still it's an eye filling, awe inspiring film. Watch it for the color and spectacle of the fort and the Forum, the terrific acting by Christopher Plummer, Sir Alec Guinness and especially James Mason. a big fault with the battle in the forest is that Livius and Commodus were fighting without shields, suicidal in a pitched, hand to hand combat. Also the decimation wasn't accurate. Soldiers selected for decimation (1 in 10), were stipped bound and gagged and beaten slowly to death with lightweight clubs by their fellow soldiers. Any soldier who failed to enthusiastically participate in the beatings was then giving the same treatment.

[–] trochesset 17 years ago

I wish a director like a Kurosawa or a Leone could have had this kind of a budget. This film is bad. I just tried to watch it. I don't mind a film with a slow start, but this film just never seemed to get anywhere after an hour. Everybody is way to self important, Loren is bad, and Boyd is not worthy of being in a bad b grade noir flick.

[–] vince-volaju 17 years ago

Wayne is right. TFotRE isn't awful. It's wonderful to look at and gives the viewer some things to think about which are relevant in today's world.

[–] Kawada_Kira 8 years ago

I agree with waynec50. The movie does have some significant flaws in terms of historical accuracy, battle depiction (seriously, why can't ANY movie ever depict Roman warfare correctly? That's a flaw not unique to this film) and the background music. But at the same time, it's also a visually gorgeous film and it contains Alex Guinness and other fantastic people. The music wasn't ALL bad either. Some of it was, but it had its moments IMO. I wouldn't call it a flawless movie but I can't call it awful either. I really enjoyed it despite the flaws.

[–] rosiecadaverdog 17 years ago

Now I know where the prototype Star Trek barbarian originated. "Kirk, bring back the sun and teach me of love".

[–] naseby 17 years ago

It IS a bit of a mis-match, quite talky and lovey-dovey scenes aka Loren and Boyd, but some performances are good, creepy Plummer and Alec Guiness as Marcus Aurelius. You can't fault the sets though. And as it's a bit long, well that usually puts people off if not enough action spaced out. It looked as if through Marcus Aurelius, it wanted to be a narrative, or it hadn't made its mind up for spectacle. Still worth seeing at least once.

[–] turtletommy 16 years ago

I agree worth sitting through once- a decent but very flawed epic. Just throwing millions of dollars onto the screen isn't a guarantee of a classic! Most of the acting was pretty good except for Sophia Loren who is pretty bad. I have yet to see her in any English-language film where she performs well. Not even crazy about her looks. Hey at least she's Italian! Despite the complaints I've heard about Boyd I thought he actually was better than I would have expected- and it wasn't as much of a reprise of his (career-best) Ben-Hur work as I would have thought either. Losing the brown eye contacts and darker hair he had in Ben-Hur gave him enough of a different look and of course this time he was the good guy. Funny to read in the trivia how Charlton Heston was supposed to star opposite Loren again after El Cid but they hated working with each other in that so I can imagine that was one reason Heston didn't come on board for TFOTRE. Besides, frankly Heston rarely has had any chemistry with his leading ladies anyway.

Yes this film seemed to drag on too much and could have used slightly faster pacing and a much better script. And people complain about Ben-Hur being slow at times- yeah right! The soundtrack as others have noted is awful! I know the bar was set mighty high after Rozsa's magnificent Ben-Hur soundtrack but Tiompkin obviously wasn't up to the challenge. My god overbearing and wrong for the subject matter- it sounded like it was written for a western, a silent movie chase, the French Revolution (harpsichord music?), Wuthering Heights (syrupy strings) among others. There was a scene of the "Barbarians" camps outside Rome where there was dancing and music being played and it would have made perfect sense to have soundtrack music that matched that action but no we still get the same blathering nonsense from Tiompkin over it!

I was impressed by the film's sets and design, casts of thousands and the battle scenes were generally interesting and exciting. The cinematography was good. But that wasn't enough to overcome a rather dull story and pacing- and the love story wasn't too interesting either.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] turtletommy 15 years ago

Thanks. The only worse type of soundtrack to me is one of those horrible neverending tinkling piano silent movie ones! Plummer was pretty good in this and he was much more lively than he usually is which was a mini-revelation. But really any decent acting by anyone in this film was way overshadowed by the sets, casts of thousands and objects like chariots! While I enjoy seeing well-done use of these things, that's usually a recipe for an average to mediocre film when those make more of an impression than the actual story. We see enough of this stuff all the time with CGI extravaganzas of today.

Yes without a doubt those chariots (of old and the ones used in the film) had to have been built very stoutly to withstand the stresses they received in battle or during races. Must have been a real enjoyable ride- not.

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

It was a thought provoking in the sense of the ethics regarding the Roman Empire, so in this regard the film was good. The performances of Manson, Plummer and Guinness were the top three in my opinion and the settings were magnificent. The downside for me was the romance between Loren and Boyd did not have great chemistry.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

I've got to disagree, as I think it's a good movie. (Though naturally that's just IMO)

[–] raymond_chandler 9 years ago

The script was written by morons FOR morons, the battle sequences were a joke to look at they were so poorly filmed.

I agree completely. The scene of Loren wandering dazed through the crowd of generic revelers at the end is hallucinatory, it is so bad. "Go to him, go to him, love him, love him!" The drinking scene early on between Boyd and Plummer is so over-the-top gay that it is the best part of the flick. This movie is not just bad; it is laugh-out-loud bad. The Steve Reeves Hercules films are better than this trash.

As iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

it is wonderful

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

It had some decent performances but it was okay for the most part

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

i liked it