bob9354 This is an incomplete review as my wife and I could only take about an hour and a half of it. As for the acting, it's not bad for an older movie. The problem we had with the movie, and it's a major one for us, is that Christianity is wrongly portrayed. I realize that it may not be a problem for everyone, but Christianity is portrayed, pretty much as Judaism. If the faith of the female lead were Jewish, I would have been able enjoy the movie. But to have her portrayed as a Christian, and yet Christianity portrayed as a list of do's and don't's, takes away from the impact of the movie. I know that many would ask me, "What do you mean? Christianity IS a list of do's and don't's." And I know that's what a lot of people think it is. But Christianity is about how humanity cannot reform themselves... that we are separated from God by our rebellious hearts and wills...that there is only one way for us to return to a relationship with God...and that is to trust in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We don't reform ourselves to be acceptable to God. That's impossible. We accept the free offer of forgiveness that Jesus extends to us. We accept His forgiveness, and only then can we enter into a whole new relationship with Him...having the guilt for our shortcomings and rebellion cast as far as east is from west.But the movie portrays Christianity as a religion in which the followers of Jesus simply do the right thing.

Kirpianuscus for the wise adaptation of a novel who remains an important declaration of faith. for the acting, who remains memorable for each of lead actors. for the credibility of a society who seems be not only realistic but not presented from a single angle. for the Rome and flames and for the courage to create little more than part of historical blockbusters of period. for the sensitivity of Deborah Kerr, for a Petronius who remains the best interpretation, for the love story who has more poetry than eroticism. and, sure , for Nero by Peter Ustinov. a film who impress and remains seductive after six and half decades. and that is its great virtue.

mostlyrance A propaganda flick worthy of Joseph Goebbels.All the old worn out clichés of ancient Rome are trotted out. Some people still think they are true.Christians: gentle, peace-loving, intelligent, honorable.Romans: evil, war-like, cowardly, dumb, sexist.Ustinov's Nero is just as annoyingly inaccurate as Jay Robinson's sniveling Caligula in The Robe.Watch it if you're a Christian who likes to be lied to about how wonderful you are.Anyone with an IQ > 90 will cringe.

writers_reign What a colossal bore. I've just spent the thick end of three hours watching at most - and being generous - three minutes of half-decent cinema. Presumably it was 'sold' as spectacle and if that's true then they really SHOULD have gone to Specsavers. What it is is TALK and then MORE talk and nothing worth hearing. It's just possible with two half-decent leads as opposed to the wooden Taylor and the insipid Kerr it might have been watchable, say Lancaster or Douglas opposite Ava Gardner. As it is the only diversion is looking for the uncredited Liz Taylor and/or Sophia Loren. Ustinov walks away with it of course but given the role as written even Arthur Mullard could have made a respectable stab at it. Finlay Currie and Felix Aylmer in one movie is also notable though not enough to make it watchable. Maybe if they'd turned the lions loose at the first pre-production session it would have done us all a fovour.