Customer Reviews

Quo Vadis

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I chanced upon this superb Polish production of the classic Henryk Sienkiewicz novel while routinely checking up to see if the 1950 MGM version had arrived on DVD yet. What a great suprise and a treat to find this version available from Amazon, and at a great price! In widescreen and 5.1 Dolby Surround, with English subtitles in yellow.

Highly recommended for fellow biblical epic junkies like myself, this is a must see. As stated by fellow reviewers, there are parts that do not make this family friendly, but that fit in with the hsitorical context. Having not read the book yet, I was weaned on the 1950 Mervin Leroy version with Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr. Although I miss Peter Ustinov as Nero and Leo Genn as Petronious in that earlier version, the leads in this 2002 production come across more believable as Marcus and Lygia. There is a particularly fascinating character, a little Greek weasel of an informant, who plays a connecting thread to the strengths and weaknesses of the different characters. His ultimate fate is one of the film's most touching moments.

Anyway, I can't say enough good things about this except forget the MGM verison for the time being and send away for this! You'll be glad you did!

"Quo Vadis" is a grand historical epic based on the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz running four and a half hours in length. Although this is long by most standards, it really does allow the plot to fully develop and be brought to a conclusion. We get a glimpse of many parts of life in Rome, from wild drunken parties with plenty of topless women, a gruesome close up of lions eating Christians in the coliseum, and even the burning of Rome itself.

The story has several elements that are all dovetail each other. We have a young patrician named Marcus Vinicius (Pawel Delag) who falls in love with Lygia (Magdalena Mielcarz), a Christian woman. At first she is not interested in him, but soon returns his love. Petronius (Boguslaw Linda), who is one of Nero's advisors, tries to help him physically capture his love as he has influence with Nero. Matters are complicated as Nero is out of control and is most concerned about his insane self-interests, which leads to trouble for many others.

Boguslaw Linda was one of the best performers in the film. As he was the middleman between Marcus and the crazed Nero, his position from the start was precarious. He portrayed the patrician who was calm and collected in moments of confusion, sincere with his feelings, and often had witty remarks. Linda's acting was fantastic.

"Quo Vadis" is perfect for those who enjoy historic epics. Overall, I thought the underlying message was about forgiveness and love, something we can all relate to and topics that would not hurt us to reflect upon. With nearly all of its characters experiencing moments of triumph and suffering, we witness and experience a wide range of emotions in this story that takes place about two thousand years ago.

This DVD is actually an expanded cut of the most expensive film in Polish history, which ran 3 hours. This one is and hour and a half longer, as it was cut to a 6 one-hour-long TV miniseries format (45 minute episodes without commercials). With the long format, scenes that seemed rushed in the theatrical cut now have a more appropriate pacing, and we see much more of the minor characters, most notably Glaucus, whose story should not be missed. For those of you familiar with the book, this is the most straightforward and faithful representation of the classic novel made for the screen (those not familiar with the book, GET THAT FIRST). MINOR SPOILER ALERT for those who don't know the story.

This version far surpasses the 1950 version and the Italian version of the 90s in faithfulness to the novel, in acting, and in production value. The film is in the original Polish with English subtitles, which works well since the novel was originally in Polish.

Petronius is wonderful, coming across as thoughtful, sometimes cynical, and always witty. Vinicius is marvelous, sufficiently impetuous and very convincing. Ligia is played by a gorgeous Polish beauty and delivers well. Incidentally, I have yet to see Ligia played by a brunette as she is supposed to be in the novel (the blonde Lygia seems to be a throwback to 1950).

Nero is nuts, and his delivery is a bit over-the-top. Okay, very over-the-top. This actor took theatricality to its extreme, which is, of course, a legitimate interpretation of Nero's character, and I think works better the story than Ustinov's bumbling version (though his acting was a joy to watch and the only high point of the 1950 version).

There are two reasons for docking this film two stars. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film, mostly because I love the book, and as I said, this is a faithful representation of it. But it has two major flaws:

1) It is too graphic, both in nudity and in violence (though if it were only in violence I might have given it 4 stars). Nero's parties leave no Roman decadence to the imagination. Polish bare breasted women galore. Thankfully, that sort of stuff is only in scenes were they would logically be, and not scattered randomly throughout the film. Happily, Ligia, even in scenes where she is unclothed (such as the changing scene and the bull scene), remains tastefully covered by strategically placed obstacles.

The violence of the Christian executions, likewise leaves nothing to the imagination. While I generally don't have a problem with violence in film (I couldn't love Ridley Scott's historical epics if I did), this was a bit much. I don't know exactly how they did it, but you actually witness people being mauled by lions in full frame--no extreme close-ups or cutaways here to obscure your view.

In any case the graphic nature of this film (especially the nudity) prevents it from being appropriate for the whole family, which is a real shame.

2) They changed the order of events in the ending. They wanted to end the film with St. Peter returning to Rome (oddly with St. Peter's Basilica prominently featured in the background) as some sort of Roman Catholic statement. The problem with this is that they had to shift Nero's death a few scenes earlier in the film. Which makes Peter's return to Rome rather pointless since the persecution would presumably have ended with the suicide of Nero a few scenes earlier.

They should have left the narrative untouched. It made logical sense as it was and makes none at all as it is now.

In any case, definitely worth seeing, especially if you loved the book. But not for family viewing. For mature audiences only. And you'll have to overlook the narrative flub at the end of the story.

This is the only film version of the novel which is true to its time; some of the scenes seem to be Pompeian frescoes come to life. Early Imperial Rome had been reconstructed down to the most minute details, such as jewelry or colors of the clothing (other films, devoted to antique, too often have everybody wear marble whites). I also marveled at the music, which does not follow the convention based on the tunes of mountainous regions of the Balkans and Near East. Kaczmarek wrote incredibly beautiful music for the instruments used by the Romans, fitting melodies to the scenes; whenever needed, the music is solemn, at other times playful, or menacing, or joyous. Somehow, this music strikes me as being more like the one the ancients did play, than the monotonous drone of the Anatolian flute.

Speaking of historical veracity, I must make a special mention of Seneca, who, however marginal, seems to be a real Seneca resurrected from the dead. I don't know if this actor looks so naturally, or had been somehow made up - a mask perhaps? - but he could pose for the picture in a history manual. To show off this look better, his is photographed mainly in profile, just as real Seneca is shown in his surviving portraits.

Acting is good, with the exception of the female lead, who is an amateur and perhaps that's why she seems very often quite stiff. But, what Miss Mielcarz may lack in her acting skills, is more than compensated by her looks, and let's face it - Ligia is first a beauty, than a Christian, and a person last, and even in the book her character is not very well drawn. So it is not such a major flaw, and doesn't show too much against all other performances. I enjoyed in particular Poppea, who, in interpretation of Agnieszka Wagner, is a vile, self-serving, street-smart schemer, capable of manipulating the emperor, but at the same time a stupid woman, so fully convinced of her feminine power that she cannot see an impending death sentence on herself. In the circus scenes she affords us a glimpse into what is probably the most incomprehensible today aspect of the Roman psyche - enjoyment of the physical suffering of other people. Another spectacular performer is Trela, as a lowlife hoping to survive by deceiving the rich and powerful. These two - the empress and the beggar - convey the message that no life condition can prevent the person from foul acting, when the person lacks ethical standards.

I have been amazed to find comments of other reviewers concerning nudity and "family values". For once, nudity is necessary, because in some scenes full clothing would look outright false. Secondarily, the film is not intended for the puerile audience and parents seeking entertaining material for their offspring should turn to proper sources, such as Disney. There would be very little real art if all artistic endeavors were to defer to perceptions of children, and the deplorable state of art today is caused in large degree by the pressure to make all works kiddie-friendly. I bet the same persons must be deeply offended by paintings of Rubens' and the famous, much quoted in books and magazines, Michelangelo fresco on the Sistine ceiling with a totally naked Adam being freshly created. Those comments reminded me of a debate from many years before, when some political prudes were demanding to outlaw all representations of nudity as pornography. The proposed law has not been passed, precisely for the reason I mention - too much art of the greatest rank contains a lot of nudity. Therefore, I view those comments as expression of prudishness, and can only regret that the film did not attract more open-minded viewers.

The ending is different in the film than in the book, because the film is not a literal translation of the book into picture. I don't see there any "logic of the events" - Christians were persecuted whether Nero was dead or alive, because their religion directly opposed the imperial dogma, which cast the emperor in the role of god. Therefore, the death of St. Peter is not an outcome of some personal hostilities between him and Nero, but one more stage in the struggle against the evil. And the image of modern city serves as a memento that this struggle is not an affair of the past, but continues to be relevant also in our time.

This film is not just a visually great picture, it is also a statement about ethics, Christian values, morality. My only regret is that it does not lasts longer

"Quo Vadis?" is a grand historical epic based on the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz running four and a half hours in length. Although this is long by most standards, it really does allow the plot to fully develop and be brought to a conclusion. We get a glimpse of many parts of life in Rome, from wild drunken parties with plenty of topless women, a gruesome close up of lions eating Christians in the coliseum, and even the burning of Rome itself.

The story has several elements that are all dovetail each other. We have a young patrician named Marcus Vinicius (Pawel Delag) who falls in love with Lygia (Magdalena Mielcarz), a Christian woman. At first she is not interested in him, but soon returns his love. Petronius (Boguslaw Linda), who is one of Nero's advisors, tries to help him physically capture his love as he has influence with Nero. Matters are complicated as Nero is out of control and is most concerned about his insane self-interests, which leads to trouble for many others.

Boguslaw Linda was one of the best performers in the film. As he was the middleman between Marcus and the crazed Nero, his position from the start was precarious. He portrayed the patrician who was calm and collected in moments of confusion, sincere with his feelings, and often had witty remarks. Linda's acting was fantastic.

"Quo Vadis?" is perfect for those who enjoy historic epics. Overall, I thought the underlying message was about forgiveness and love, something we can all relate to and topics that would not hurt us to reflect upon. With nearly all of its characters experiencing moments of triumph and suffering, we witness and experience a wide range of emotions in this story that takes place about two thousand years ago.

While not flawless, this epic provides entertainment of epic proportions. A huge novel, written before every novelist hoped to see his work on the big screen, is gloriously re-imagined with stellar results. Sets, costumes, and look are lovely. The music is fine, the scenery stunning. And the cgi is gut-wrenching.

All of this is irrelevant however if the guts fail. (See HBO's Rome, for one ponderous, boring and vapid example.) Not here! The two central characters, Nero and Petronius, are perfectly portrayed. Nero is precisely as we imagine him, simpering, vain, timid, justifying, and vacillating. There is a scene in which he is jibbering to Petronius that, though I didn't understand the words, I completely understood his mind. Those who say he was insane miss the point. He was a flawed and weak man given unlimited power, with a desire to inflate his image and retain his position. His behaviors make absolute sense given that setting, and those who dismiss him as simply crazy deny one of the novel's, and the film's, major themes. Basing a state on one man, elevating that man to divinity, and celebrating his every uttterance as eternal creates a society where envy, jealousy, deceit, secret deals and intrigue rule the day. Gosh; what a surprisingly timely message......

Petronius is also perfect, played by an actor who can imbue a glance with more meaning than anyone I've seen since Bogart. When Nero's scatter-brained histrionics meet this calm intellectual, the results are exquisite.

The other beauty of this film is how it demonstrates the divergence between two world views. It is hard for us to imagine, as we are the descendants of these first century Christians, but in the Roman world the individual had no value. People like me were things to be used as needed, discarded when done. The novel works this theme with more vigor, in, for example, Vinicius' murder of his slave. This important and shocking event in the book gets but a couple of seconds in the film. Yet as we watch masses of Romans seeking earthly pleasures with abandon, since life can end at any time, and compare that with Christians who bring this new thing called love, we see just how far the world has come since those days. The lives of small people, whose death was entertainment for the masses, became worthy and valuable. As one born to low parents and plunked in the common schools, I can only shout, "What a blessing."

Gripping entertainment, this is both a worthy and loving adaptation of a great novel and a vastly entertaining film in its own right. Acting is (mostly) great; when we do not speak the language the acting is all the more important. Nearly everyone succeeds! Highly recommended! My only complaint is that I wish some extras showed how they made this. I usually don't really care, but this is so graphic and terrifying that I was amazed.

Note--there are DVDs of an abbreviated version and the full 6 episode version. The longer version is worth the hunt!

GREAT MOVIE EXCEPT IT IS IN POLISH. IF YOU DON'T MIND SUB TITLES THEN THE MOVIE IS WORTH WATCHING. IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST QUO VADIS SO IT IS NOT LIKE WATCHING A REPEAT.

Better and more complete then the first one with Robert Taylor.

Nice picture spacely in the forum.

Actor who play Nero great.

Rest of the cast superb

Some fairly short movies seem interminable, while some lengthy ones zip right along. For me, this was one of the latter, and I found my ignorance of Polish was not all that great a disadvantage. Pretty legible subtitles along with visual clues convey more than enough information to make sense of the action --the story, after all, is not all that complicated, and this is still primarily a spectacular, not a highly cerebral drama. I thought it outclassed the MGM film from 1951, which was entertaining enough.

Any viewer would immediately begin to compare it with the Hollywood epic of the past but in retelling the story the more youthful Polish actors are less stilted and plastic than Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr. Or was that due to the screenplay? This version follows the novel much more closely and Nero does not dominate in the retelling even though I must admit I prefer Peter Ustinov's portrayal. The only major flaw is the rather disjointed language of the subtitles that makes the viewer figure out what was actually being said.