Kirpianuscus first , as the first Polish adaptation of the novel. than, for the images who defines a lost world in its different aspects. for acting. and for the courage to propose a new version, in contemporary rules, of a great book. sure, it is not a masterpiece. but it has each virtue for impress. costumes and fight and love story and an interesting Nero or a Petronius who preserves the spirit of the book. it is an ambitious show and that detail is the key for understand it. many details are far to be perfect. after other adaptations, it is not surprising to be skeptical about few aspects. but it is a good film. the desire of realistic scenes could be its most important part.

MARIO GAUCI Being closer in length to the 1951 Hollywood spectacle (even if it has been some time since I last checked it out: interestingly enough, this was showing on Italian TV just as I was going through the remake!), it is the version of the Henryk Sienkiewicz novel (which was Polish to begin with!) to which this bears the most comparison – that said, it originated as a 274-minute mini-series! I had watched the earlier 1985 TV production (which was broadcast, unbeknownst to me, on Cable TV during Holy Week!) when it emerged, so do not remember it…while the 2 Silent adaptations were very much streamlined affairs. Anyway, having been previously impressed with 3 other Kawalerowicz efforts, namely MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (1961), the likewise sprawling PHARAOH (1966; though watched so far only in its shorter English-dubbed variant, I did recently acquire the full-length cut in its original language) and MADDALENA (1971), I was quite looking forward to catching this.Actually, despite my familiarity with the plot (also because I only came across the Silent versions during this time last year), the 161-minute running-time moved at a fair clip (only slightly dragging its feet during the last act) and gripping one's attention all the way through! Incidentally, I half-expected this to be eroticized and blood-drenched as per the route taken by the ROME (2005) TV series (by which I was so disillusioned that I did not even bother to catch the Second Season!): nudity and violence were employed throughout but this was done discreetly and, for the most part, efficiently (such as having Lygia tied naked to the bull fought and killed by Ursus, evoking Cecil B. De Mille's remarkably similar Roman Empire opus THE SIGN OF THE CROSS {1932}, and the realistically-charred corpses of the Christians recalling Oliver Reed's burning at the stake in Ken Russell's THE DEVILS {1971}).Truth be told, at first I was wary of the too-youthful heroes (Marcus Vinicius and the afore-mentioned Lygia), whereas Petronius was depicted as a bit supercilious, but eventually they grew on me (Lygia in particular bearing a classical beauty that is hard to ignore!). While Nero was fine (his come-uppance, though occurring a long way away from the Palace and does not come by his own {albeit assisted} hands, is well-handled nevertheless) and, perhaps thankfully, far removed from the buffoonish (if star-making and Oscar-nominated) characterization given by Peter Ustinov in the 1951 film, Poppea's was severely undernourished so that the makers did not even deign her of an exit (let alone hope to emulate Patricia Laffan's memorable one, death scene included, in the earlier Hollywood rendition)! As for the 'giant' Ursus, he was nowhere near the size of the formidable Buddy Baer (for this and the reasons mentioned above, the all-important bullfight is not as impressive here!) but the actor concerned still made the best of his significant part. Even so, the most compelling portrayal was that of the shifty Greek (Chilo Chilonides)…whom I do recall from at least one of the Silents but, frankly, not at all when it comes to the Hollywood epic (where he was played by the unfamiliar John Ruddock)! By the way, one thing that irks me in all previous versions of the tale, however, is that while Rome is shown being famously devastated by fire, its re-emergence never is: it simply goes from being there to being decimated to being there again! In this case, however, the titular words – ostensibly spoken by Saint Peter to a ghostly Christ when he meets Him going to Rome while he himself is fleeing – occurs here, effectively, at the very end in a modern-day Rome with the Vatican dome in the background…whereas in, say, the 1951 version, we had gotten a conventional mix of romantic trappings and unwarranted sentimentality at the fade-out!

deniolyu In my personal opinion this movie is one of the best, if not the best, film's ever made. The story, acting, costumes, film set is great, a true masterpiece work of art, better yet, authentic and factual. Factual was the attack on Christians by the evil...I have voted 10/10 for this movie because not only did I enjoy it, it reminded me of Christian history, once you see it, you'll understand.If you like movies like the brilliant Braveheart movie, Apocalypot, Potop, Gwiazda, Ogniem i Mieczem you are going to love this one too.A true masterpiece that Hollywood will never produce, because fact the facts; Hollywood never produced anything worthwhile of our precious time, just pure filthy, stinky garbage.

muchmalignedmonster After seeing again Mervyn LeRoy 1951's version of the novel, still memorable in many respects, I venture to watch Kawalerowicz's more recent and supposedly expensive polish film last night. Well man... the movie cannot be more horrible. It's in fact no more than a "TV quality ancient story film", maybe a little worse (oh) thanks to the bad acting ("special" mention to Michal Bajor as Nero), indifferent scenario and horrid direction (could this man be the same who directed long ago the pretentious, but interesting Pharaoh?). A truly waste of money, theirs and mine. And yet, all this said, the movie is redeemed and still watchable mainly for one reason: Rafal Kubacki, proud of showing us the power of a beard and an hairy chest… Not an actor, but a very fine specimen indeed.