Quo vadis youtube nero

Play trailer Biography Drama History. John Lee Mahin screen play S. Behrman screen play Sonya Levien screen play. See more at IMDbPro.

Trailer Quo Vadis. Clip Streaming Passport: The Roman Empire. Photos Top cast Edit. Deborah Kerr Lygia as Lygia. Leo Genn Petronius as Petronius.

Peter Ustinov Nero as Nero. Patricia Laffan Poppaea as Poppaea. Finlay Currie Peter as Peter. Abraham Sofaer Paul as Paul. Marina Berti Eunice as Eunice. Buddy Baer Ursus as Ursus.

Felix Aylmer Plautius as Plautius. Nora Swinburne Pomponia as Pomponia. Ralph Truman Tigellinus as Tigellinus. Norman Wooland Nerva as Nerva.

Peter Miles Nazarius as Nazarius. Geoffrey Dunn Terpnos as Terpnos. Nicholas Hannen Seneca as Seneca. Clarke-Smith Phaon as Phaon as D. Clarke - Smith. Rosalie Crutchley Acte as Acte. But she is Christian and doesn't want anything to do with him. Marcus decides to kidnap her but Ursus, her bodyguard, catches Marcus. Read all Marcus Vinicius meets Lygia in Rome and falls in love. After that, Lygia falls in love, but Marcus must go to meet Nero. After the meeting somebod After the meeting somebody told Marcus that Nero burnt Rome.

Marcus decides to go back to Rome and find Lygia. Sign In. Original title: Quo vadis. Play trailer Director Jerzy Kawalerowicz. Jerzy Kawalerowicz Henryk Sienkiewicz novel. Top credits Director Jerzy Kawalerowicz. See more at IMDbPro. Trailer Quo Vadis Photos Top cast Edit. Magdalena Mielcarz Lygia as Lygia.

Boguslaw Linda Petronius as Petronius. Michal Bajor Nero as Nero. Krzysztof Majchrzak Tigellinus as Tigellinus. Rafal Kubacki Ursus as Ursus. Andrzej Tomecki Glaucus as Glaucus. Jerzy Nowak Krispus as Krispus. Agnieszka Wagner Poppaea as Poppaea. Malgorzata Pieczynska Akte as Akte. Just watching his facial expressions were a joy. His insanity is unbelievable and you really feel that the emperor is a real nut job. Too bad that both Ustinov and Leo Genn were nominated for best supporting actor.

While Ustinov was far better than Genn, the latter had some great philosophical lines which he delivered so admirably. The film really discusses the blame technique which has been used throughout history for dictators to divert the attention of people from their horror. Yes, the Christians were blamed for the decadence of Rome.

It was adapted from Henryk Sienkiewicz's classic novel Quo Vadis. The film's story concerns the romance between a beautiful early Christian woman Lygia,played by Deborah Kerr, and the initially agnostic Roman soldier Marcus Vinicius,played by Robert Taylor. The love story is laid against the larger intrigues of the debauched emperor Nero,played excellently by Peter Ustinov, who hopes to gain immortality by destroying Rome with a fire and remaking it in his own image.

Part of Nero's master plan is the elimination of the Christians by sending them to the climactic lion picnics in the arena. The film has a lot of memorable scenes such as the the burning of Rome, the rescue of Lygia from a rampaging bull and the upside-down crucifixion of Simon Peter. What makes this movie special is that it offers a spectacular cast of excellent actors and actresses to match its overwhelming production.

For sheer size, opulence and technical razzle-dazzle, it remains a must-see despite of being made way back in General Marcus Vinicius Robert Taylor returns to Rome after battle and falls in love with Lygia Deborah Kerr , an adopted daughter of a fellow general, but effectively a hostage and considered a no no.

When she is presented to him as a gift, things are further compounded by the fact that she is in secret a Christian. Enter Emperor Nero Peter Ustinov who orders that all Christians must be thrown to the lions, leaving Marcus with no option but to deny his Pretorian ways and to try and save Lygia and her family.

Rome, will never be the same again. While the adaptation of Henryk Sienkiewicz's novel is written by S. There's no denying that Quo Vadis, meaning "where are you going" and appertaining to the encounter between St Peter and Jesus Christ on the Appian Way, is a technical spectacle. It's also tough going for its over talky melodramatics during the first 90 minutes, but you just have to stay with it, once you are in, you are in for the long haul.

A whole afternoon in my case! For its time, this was the bigger than than biggest, a studios dream, the cast of thousands, the sets, the costumes and the gazillion speaking parts that make up the story. It's also a point where the historical epic became more than just entertainment and a reason to make money. No doubt about it, Quo Vadis is very pro Christian, it has something to say, even if ultimately it takes a long time to say it and is historically dubious.

There's thought and intelligence within, with that, it pays to pay attention and sample the dialogue whilst feasting your eyes on the magnificence that surrounds the characters. Once the worthwhile action kicks in, it's no let down, the fights in the Coliseum, the burning of Rome we can thank the great Anthony Mann for that one and the dramatic climax, all make the time spent leading up to them more than worth it.

The cast are mostly agreeable, Kerr is gorgeous as ever and Taylor is, ahem, straight as ever, while Ustinov goes full tilt campy loony. Genn steals the movie as Petronius while Patricia Laffan as Poppaea Sabina gives one of the most sensually minx like portrayals given in an historical epic. Some may find the religiose aspects over bearing, but the spectacle does win out.

Looking as gorgeous as ever now after being remastered, Quo Vadis is a must see for like minded historical epic fans. It's some way down the pecking order of the genre greats, but still a must see movie regardless. CinemaSerf 11 January Oscar-nominated Peter Ustinov is superb as the Emperor Nero in this depiction of the end of the reign of this flawed megalomanic. His behaviour is only tempered by the clever Leo Genn "Petronius" , his arbiter of arts who manages by deft use of language and his wits, to keep the lunatic emperor from his worst excesses.

Robert Taylor turns in a pretty standard performance as the film's hero "Vinicius" and Deborah Kerr looks stunning, though acts woodenly, as the rather simpering "Lygia".

A wonderfully colourful spectacle of a film showing off the costumier and set designers arts to best effect. It does run on a bit long, and I'm sure I spotted Sophia Loren driving a chariot Lives up to your expectations Leo Genn and Peter Ustinov steal the acting honors Doylenf 11 May Ancient Rome never looked so good--especially in the gorgeous MGM technicolor of Costumes, sets, photography and music are all of a high order--and all of the performances are competent with two outstanding ones by Leo Genn Petronius and Peter Ustinov Nero.

Ustinov reminds me of an overbaked Charles Laughton in some of his mad scenes, but he is a convincing weakling as Nero. Leo Genn has some of the wittiest dialogue and handles his lines with professional ease, his eyes flashing with humor as he pretends to agree with Nero on certain points.

Robert Taylor is stalwart in the lead giving his usual dependable performance and Deborah Kerr is lovely if a bit British in manner as Lygia. All the action and excitement you want from a spectacle--the burning of Rome, Christians in the arena thrown to the lions, the triumphal marches accompanied by Miklos Rozsa's mighty score--and scenes with sentimental and religious overtones sometimes too extended and talky --all combine to make the kind of lush spectacle MGM knew would be popular at the box-office.

Although discriminating critics found fault with certain factors, it won eight Academy Award nominations with Ustinov and Genn both nominated for supporting roles. Grand scale spectacle--but don't expect anything deep. 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.

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. 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.

Good, as an historical piece on the early days of the Christian church, and the evil reign of Nero, and as an exploration of the Christian faith. However, pretty hopeless otherwise. The Robert Taylor-Deborah Kerr romance plot was unnecessary, contrived and boring. Robert Taylor's acting was rather wooden and his character was a bore.

But I guess if that part was removed, you wouldn't have a long enough movie to call it an "epic"! Quite long-winded in the end, and a bit boring. It was only the historical and Christian aspects which ensured it wasn't a total waste of nearly three hours. This movie really has all of the typical ingredients in it to be a true historic epic, set in the Roman empire. It has the grand looking sets, the right characters and even better actors to portray them but yet the movie feels like a very imperfect one.

It remains a good watch throughout and even though the movie is nearly 3 hours long, it didn't ever bore me. However this was mostly because the movie was kept going by its powerhouse performances by the its great actors. This movie actually somewhat looks and feels like a Shakespeare play, with also some wonderful written dialog, that brings out the best of its actors. Even though you could say that the main parts of the movie are being played by Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr, it still remains Peter Ustinov that absolutely steals the shows, as the very dependent and oblivious emperor Nero.

This movie made me actually realize what a truly great actor he was and how much I have always really loved him in basically every other performance as well. But by saying this, I feel like I'm not giving enough credit to all of the other actors in this movie as well. Everybody is truly superb and bring the movie to a very high level.

And I also really can't complain either about the way this movie looks and got directed. Yes, you could say that it's a bit old fashioned but this actually suits its genre very well and was also exactly the approach the film-makers were aiming for.

It's such an epic looking movie, with great set designs, costumes, settings and even some early special effects. It's a visual overwhelming movie, which doesn't make it a surprise that this movie got nominated in all of the visual categories for its year's Oscars. It was actually nominated for a total of 8 Oscars but it eventually won none.

It also lost out on the best picture of the year award but if it's any comfort for the movie, so did "A Streetcar Named Desire" that very same year. So far the movie sounds great you would say, which brings me to the problem of the movie; its story. It's not like the story on its own is not well written enough and all of the drama and characters don't play out well but a problem with the movie its story is that it's totally drenched with Christian-propaganda. It's up to a point that it makes the movie and some of its developments work out as ridicules.

It's even more bible orientated than a movie like "Ben-Hur" was for instance and I'm even inclined to say also more than "The Ten Commandments" but I'm not sure if that's really the case. Problem is however that it really feels that way.

It made the movie take some totally odd and unexpected approaches to its story at times, which all felt very preachy and like they were holding back the development of the story and all of its characters. Really, I of course have absolutely nothing against Christian propaganda, also not in movies but I do have a problem with it when it's slowing the movie down or is taking it in to a totally wrong and ineffective direction, as was the case with this movie.

Seriously, you're way better off watching the earlier mentioned movies "Ben-Hur" and "The Ten Commandments", both starring Charlton Heston, if you're interested in Christianity and Christian themes in movies. It sounds a bit cruel but it does make the movie a bit of a failure, since it didn't delivered on what it intended to do.

But luckily for the movie it still has way too much class and powerhouse performances from all of its actors to truly honestly regard this movie as a failure. AlsExGal 24 October This biblical epic has Peter Ustinov giving the definitive performance of the emperor Nero, in spite of the motion picture code.

But then, it seems they were always relaxing that motion picture code back in the 40's and 50's as long as it was for a biblical epic of some kind. In this case, you see - although from a distance - lions carrying the limbs of dismembered Christians upon which they are feeding, along with all of the other insinuations of decadence present under Nero. Robert Taylor, who was normally a rather wooden actor IMHO, did a very good job in this one as a Roman soldier entranced by a Christian girl.

If you didn't know better you might think this film was the work of Cecil B. DeMille, but instead the director was Mervyn Le Roy. Robinson's "Little Caesar", and "Three on a Match". In other words, Le Roy directed many crowd-pleasers. This might explain why this film got seven or eight Oscar nominations, but none for the director himself. He just wasn't considered good enough by the Academy to be "in the club" in spite of this excellent individual achievement.

Everyone knows the popular legend. Nero burns Rome to clear the way for the magnificent city he wants to build, but the peasants are revolting - literally. He then blames the odd and unpopular but quickly growing sect of the Christians for the burning, and begins feeding them to the lions for the amusement of the Romans. However, the Christians face death so bravely that Rome turns on Nero.

Well, that's the movie. The facts are much more in argument. In an ancient city such as Rome, accidental fires that destroyed cities were common. In fact Nero did lead a massive relief effort after the fire, and fires just as large broke out in Rome after Nero's death.

Some historians do have the Christians confessing to the crime. The fact is that the people did begin to circulate rumors that Nero was at fault, and he was responsible for blaming th Christians for the fire to save himself. He ordered to have them thrown to dogs, though, not lions, as in the film.

However, one can somewhat overlook all of this historical jumping to conclusions and outright inaccuracy in the name of fine entertainment. I might be more tempted to be religious myself if it ever seemed like religious people were having any fun. Instead, there are movies like "Quo Vadis," where Christians display all the vivacity of a wooden nativity scene. This three-hour film comes to life only a few times, almost all of them when Peter Ustinov shows up on screen as Emperor Nero and devours the scenery around him.

Things also perk up a bit when the Christians are fed to the lions, a moment that's supposed to horrify us but one that we instead welcome with a sense of relief that we won't have to spend any more time with these boring and emotionless people. Even these scenes are rather desultory and could have taken some lessons from Cecil B. DeMille's jaw-droppingly tacky depiction of the same events in "The Sign of the Cross" from Deborah Kerr is lovely as always, but she fades into the background as the film's heroine, a crime for which I can never forgive the supremely pedestrian director Mervyn LeRoy.

Instead, he gives most of the screen time to Robert Taylor, who plays a Roman soldier like a macho, and a rather dim one at that. This film talks and talks and talks and talks for three hours and left me thinking that if I had been alive at the time, I would have wanted to hang out with Nero. At least there would have been better food. The Academy went ga-ga over this film and dutifully handed out eight Oscar nominations to it, though it went home completely empty handed.

HotToastyRag 2 April The s produced many, many period piece epics. Most of them weren't very good, which is why the classics we watch every Easter are so revered.

But in Technicolor splendor, it's easy to see why Hollywood was so anxious to expose audiences to the grand world of King Arthur, Robin Hood, and other Biblical or Middle Ages stories.

Quo Vadis is one of the many, and like its counterparts, it doesn't really stand out from the crowd, despite a very valiant effort. On paper, it's pretty similar to Ben-Hur: it's set and filmed in Rome, has several epic adventurous scenes that include special effects and thousands of extras, and the plot involves cruel Roman rule and the birth of Christianity. There's even a chariot race scene! Although nominated for eight Oscars, Quo Vadis isn't the film most of us remember fondly and watch every April.

Why not? It's the acting. Every time he's on the screen you either want to burst out laughing or leave the room in search of more popcorn. He's just awful, and unfortunately, he's the lead.

Even great heavyweight Deborah Kerr is stinky in this movie, and it's one of the reasons I couldn't stand her for over ten years until I watched other, more palatable films.