Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide

TFOTRE is a pretty good epic, better in my opinion than Cleopatra and Gladiator. Stephen Boyd's performance isn't great, maybe because of the way it's written, but I think Sophia Loren's as good as in El Cid. Christopher Plummer does steal most of his scenes without going over the top until near the end when it's obvious that Commodus is crazy, then all the stops are out. One complaint about the battle scenes, Livius and Commodus fight without shields, that's suicide in a close hand to hand combat. The movie looks really good on DVD, although the massive sets are minimized on TV screens.

[deleted]

In the scenes with Boyd and Plummer, the contrast is dramatic. Plummer says a few words and he almost pops off the screen, lifelike, three-dimensional, believable. Boyd mouths his lines like he's spitting out chunks of lead.

Loren doesn't come off much better. She's a brilliant actress, but not here. Not that anybody could have much chemistry with Doofus Boyd
by - pninson on Mon May 5 2008 20:18:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most directors/studios when filming an epic, default to enuncuating and posturing as signs of class and education, and any semblance of decent acting suffers.

While I'm always interested in what can be done in such a large production, I generally abandon my hopes for decent acting quite early.

Maltin's guide is far from perfect, but all critics have ratings for some films that don't make sense in contrast to their ratings of other films.

I still can't understand the ** out of **** he gives to "Taxi Driver". He does update his ratings overtime given re-releases and what not. For example, when "The Battle of Algiers" was re-released in 2004, he moved up his rating half a star to ***1/2 out of ****. When "Alien" was re-released that same year, he completely re-evaluated it, moving his rating up from **1/2 to a much more respectable ***1/2 out of ****. Perhaps he will one day do the same for "Blade Runner".

I can even remember the 1990s editions of his books used to have "The Godfather" (1972) rated lower than Part II at ***1/2 out of ****. He has since moved it to the proper four star rating.

http://www.idfilm.blogspot.com/

I know I'm replying to an old post, but I find your description of this movie bizarre. Stephen Boyd was a very good actor. I haven't seen this movie recently, but I always liked it. It seems you use the word "doofus" for any one you dislike or disagree with. You don't like Boyd's acting so he's a doofus. Maltin's a doofus because you don't agree with his ratings of a few movies. I love his movie guides, especially the Classic Movie Guide he put out around 2005 or 2006. He's not always right, but who is? I think he's right most of the time. I record tons of old movies and use his rating and tv guide's ratings to decide which ones to record.

"Is this guy a doofus or what?"

Yes. Which is why it`s pointless to talk about him.

As for the film, I found it to be stunted and tedious, with the (mostly) talented cast required to do lots of grandstanding and give lots of banal speeches to portray their two-dimensional characters. The thing never really comes to life.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

The Allans ('The Sunday Times Guide to Movies on Television') are pretty harsher: they rate it XX ("Don't waste your time") and a brief rewiew includes, "Illustrates better the reasons for the Fall of the Hollywood Empire" [...] "James Mason, Alec Guinness look embarrassed; Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd let it all wash over them; Christopher Plummer apparently takes it seriously; Anthony Mann must be kidding."

But on the cover of the book you may read: "The only guide to movies I posess and the only one I need"—Sir Alec Guinness.

Well, Marcus Aurelius himself dixit...





🔺