The biblical epic was one of the most popular movie genres of the 1950s and early 1960s. Unfortunately, most of these films were expensive, Technicolor bores with stiff acting and cheap sensationalism. A few of these films were good/great (Ben-Hur (1959), Barabbas (1961)), some were kitschy fun (The Ten Commandments (1956)), and others were outright awful (The Silver Chalice (1954)). However, most of them were merely average to dull in quality, and that category is where Quo Vadis (1951) falls.
The story takes place during Nero's reign and concerns his persecution of Christians after Rome is burned to the ground. The main plot concerns star cross'd lovers Marcus and Lygia, a macho Roman general and a gentle pagan princess-turned-Christian convert. The two encounter historical figures and events as they fall in love and come close to being martyred by the maniacal Nero and his equally vicious wife, Poppaea.
The love story is handled poorly. Though Lygia later admits to Marcus that she knew he was the one for her at first sight, their first encounters involve him objectifying her, belittling her intelligence by saying she should not concern herself with philosophy, disgusting her with stories of battlefield gore, and to cap it all off, he forcibly takes her from her adopted family with the hope of legally owning her. Yet Lygia "knew she could come to love him"? She wants to be his wife even though he's shown her no respect? Some would say I'm being too "PC" and that Lygia is representative of 1st century women, but this film is not trying to show a realistic portrait of the 1st century. Many of the events in the film are not historically accurate as it is, so I doubt getting the mindset of 1st century women was on the mind of the screenwriter. It's bad writing, plain and simple.
The acting is nothing to brag about (save for two special performances, but we'll get to them soon). Robert Taylor is his stilted, wooden self. Deborah Kerr is stuck in an uninteresting part that she struggles to breathe life into. Patricia Laffan is your standard pagan vamp, shooting bedroom eyes at Taylor while seductively posing on couches.
The only two worthy performances come from Leo Glenn as Petronius and Peter Ustinov as Nero. Glenn's sarcastic, smart character is a thousand times more interesting than Taylor's cardboard soldier, and the love between him and his slave girl Eunice is more endearing than the one between Taylor and Kerr. Ustinov is just fantastic, whining and screaming and reciting bad poetry. He steals the show from everyone, making you wish this were a Nero biopic instead.
Honestly, if you wanted to watch an old school biblical film concerning the love affair between a Roman soldier and a Christian woman, watch Cecil DeMille's Sign of the Cross (1932). Frederic March is a superior actor to Robert Taylor, and you can never go wrong with Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert. No, it does not have the budget of this film, but it certainly sustains your interest a great deal more.
The story takes place during Nero's reign and concerns his persecution of Christians after Rome is burned to the ground. The main plot concerns star cross'd lovers Marcus and Lygia, a macho Roman general and a gentle pagan princess-turned-Christian convert. The two encounter historical figures and events as they fall in love and come close to being martyred by the maniacal Nero and his equally vicious wife, Poppaea.
The love story is handled poorly. Though Lygia later admits to Marcus that she knew he was the one for her at first sight, their first encounters involve him objectifying her, belittling her intelligence by saying she should not concern herself with philosophy, disgusting her with stories of battlefield gore, and to cap it all off, he forcibly takes her from her adopted family with the hope of legally owning her. Yet Lygia "knew she could come to love him"? She wants to be his wife even though he's shown her no respect? Some would say I'm being too "PC" and that Lygia is representative of 1st century women, but this film is not trying to show a realistic portrait of the 1st century. Many of the events in the film are not historically accurate as it is, so I doubt getting the mindset of 1st century women was on the mind of the screenwriter. It's bad writing, plain and simple.
The acting is nothing to brag about (save for two special performances, but we'll get to them soon). Robert Taylor is his stilted, wooden self. Deborah Kerr is stuck in an uninteresting part that she struggles to breathe life into. Patricia Laffan is your standard pagan vamp, shooting bedroom eyes at Taylor while seductively posing on couches.
The only two worthy performances come from Leo Glenn as Petronius and Peter Ustinov as Nero. Glenn's sarcastic, smart character is a thousand times more interesting than Taylor's cardboard soldier, and the love between him and his slave girl Eunice is more endearing than the one between Taylor and Kerr. Ustinov is just fantastic, whining and screaming and reciting bad poetry. He steals the show from everyone, making you wish this were a Nero biopic instead.
Honestly, if you wanted to watch an old school biblical film concerning the love affair between a Roman soldier and a Christian woman, watch Cecil DeMille's Sign of the Cross (1932). Frederic March is a superior actor to Robert Taylor, and you can never go wrong with Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert. No, it does not have the budget of this film, but it certainly sustains your interest a great deal more.