User reviews

Yikes! De Mille's erotic raunchy graphic and splendid SIGN OF THE CROSS made at Paramount in 1932, and his first talkie bible study is a movie you not forget. It is infamous and famous for many sights and other comments here will give you the reaction to the graphic cruelty of the truly shocking Arena/Gladiator scenes. The ridiculously entertaining asses milk bath with nipples ahoy and Claudette's milky breasts, the very funny dialog of daily life amid the splendor, the horror of the rape and torture of a teenage Christian boy, the eerie similarity to the 1932 German persecution of the European Jews, the depression era parable of the idle rich uncaring at the financial death of the 1930s masses, the dazzling costumes (no bras in Rome either), the claustrophobic street sets with rushing horses and fights in corners, all in all create an amazing action tableau like a pencil sketch bible book drawing brought to life. The film's art direction and set design and costumes are especially evocative of 'a silent epic with sound' and one easily can transfer the idea of seeing the 1925 BEN HUR with sound as SIGN OF THE CROSS favorably compares. The Arena montage scenes are really shocking. The Moon Dance is outrageous lesbian swankiness and gorgeous as all hell... well pagan hell as depicted by the morally austere Demille. Great moving wallpaper for your next party if played on a big TV and without sound with your CD collection going instead. If you agree that SIGN OF THE CROSS made in 1932 is really a 1920s silent film with dialog, have a look at FOLLOW THRU made two years earlier in 1929 and in color and as jazz modern today in it's creative style. CROSS plays like an ancient movie but FOLLOW THRU still plays new.

Cecil B. DeMille was famous for the excesses he depicted on screen, and "The Sign of the Cross" has enough excess for a dozen movies by any other director. Fortunately, DeMille loved to detail the debauchery that warranted divine punishment, because he was more adept and entertaining when portraying orgies than he was when depicting piety. Perhaps sin is intrinsically more interesting than virtue. Certainly the sinful characters, especially Charles Laughton as Nero and Claudette Colbert as Poppaea, are riveting and colorfully conceived. Laughton lolls around on his divans, while alluring slave boys attend to his whims. Colbert lures and tempts lovers when not catering to her bare flesh in a milk bath. Bloody gladiatorial games and the obligatory feeding Christians to the wild beasts keep the proceedings on track, and an erotic Lesbian dance enlivens an otherwise dragging orgiastic gathering. Orgies can be difficult to film because the delights are far more evident to participants than they are to viewers. Perhaps every orgy needs a Lesbian dance.

Unfortunately, DeMille felt compelled to throw away screen time on a group of early Christians, whose idea of a good time was to sit on rocks, sing tuneless songs, and listen to a motivational speaker. Naturally, the improbably named Marcus Superbus, played by Frederic March in a fetching mini-skirt and tight curls, falls in love with Mercia, a bland, but virginal, Elissa Landi, and he rejects the advances of the milky, silky Claudette Colbert, who had been around the Colosseum a few times. Of course, March not only rejects Colbert, but risks losing the endless parties and his own rising career for the touch of Landi's soft hand. "The Sign of the Cross" is hardly convincing drama despite the lure of Romans sinning every way, everywhere, and with everybody.

If the corny dialog and stilted scenes of pious proceedings had been severely cut and Laughton's and Colbert's roles had been brought to center focus, the film would have been a delicious camp spectacle. However, as the film now plays, viewers must patiently wait out the dull-as-drying-paint scenes with Landi and company to savor the sinful delights of Nero and Poppaea, which make "The Sign of the Cross" worth a look and a hoot or two.

Great old DeMille flick about the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome. The movie starts with Emperor Nero (Charles Laughton) laughing and playing music while Rome burns. When someone reminds him that the people might hold Nero responsible, he quickly decides to blame the unpopular believers of the new Christian religion. As Christians are being rounded up and killed, Roman prefect Marcus (Fredric March) falls in love with a Christian girl (Elissa Landi). This doesn't sit well with Empress Poppaea (Claudette Colbert), who's in love with Marcus, and she conspires to have the girl arrested.

Charles Laughton gives an outrageously hammy performance and I loved every second of it. I wish he had been in the film a lot more. Fredric March is good, as always. Lovely Elissa Landi does an admirable job in probably her biggest role but she's eclipsed by Claudette Colbert. What this film is perhaps most famous for is the scene where Colbert takes a bath in donkey milk, in which we see quite a bit of what God gave Ms. Colbert to work with. She's a beautiful woman and it's a very sexy scene. The sets and costumes are great, as one expects from a Cecil B. DeMille picture. It's just a really good film, entertaining and dramatic, with some provocative bits of sex and violence that will surely please pre-Code fans. If for no other reason, see it for Colbert.

Rome - First Century A. D. Nero, the mad Emperor & Poppaea, his vile Empress, engage in every sort of vice & degradation. Wanton cruelty becomes a spectator sport and virtue & innocence are denigrated. Slowly, however, a new Power is growing. People calling themselves Christians are secretly spreading their Faith ever more widely. They are horribly persecuted, but they continue to multiply. Which will eventually triumph - the might of Imperial Rome, or the gentle ones who follow THE SIGN OF THE CROSS?

This Cecil B. DeMille epic is a vivid retelling of the struggles of the first Christians. Paramount gave the film a lavish production and DeMille wrings every drop of piety & puerile interest possible from the plot. Fredric March is stalwart as the Roman official who falls in love with a beautiful Christian girl. While his ultimate conversion wouldn't convince the average modern Baptist, he holds his own in scenes with other performers whom are allowed to behave outrageously. Elissa Landi is sweet as the virtuous Believer, effectively underplaying her role.

`Do you want to play the most wicked woman in the world?' DeMille asked Claudette Colbert one day on the studio lot. She did & she does memorably, from her eye-popping milk bath scene to her revenge on her would-be lover. Sniveling, whining and wearing a huge fake nose, Charles Laughton is pure effeminate evil as Nero (notice his catamite), a foul blot on the face of humanity & stealing all his scenes from everyone else. History tells us that Nero eventually murdered Poppaea by stomping her to death...

Ian Keith is enjoyable as an unpunished villain. Ferdinand Gottshalk & Vivian Tobin are effectively degraded as Roman bacchants. Film mavens will recognize the voice of John Carradine, calling `We who are about to die, salute you!' out of the arena to Nero; he can later be spotted in the role of a Christian martyr ascending the dungeon stairs to his death.

DeMille had just returned to Paramount from a 3-year, 3-picture stint at MGM, where he was remarkably subdued. Back at his home studio he was allowed more license. Wrapping a little sermon up in a lot of sin, he filled this pre-Production Code drama with plenty of the latter. When THE SIGN OF THE CROSS was re-released in 1944, many cuts had to be made. The film now having been restored, it's not difficult to guess which sections those were. The Dance of the Naked Moon & much of the antics in the final arena sequence are beyond the bounds of good taste, but certainly not beyond the bounds of Cecil B. DeMille.

1932 – the height of the depression, Paramount studios in financial straits, Hollywood's output limited to small-scale dramas and bedroom comedies – and Cecil B. DeMille decides to make an epic. There are many classics among the "small" pictures of the early-30s, but it's good to see that someone was, against all odds, still carrying the torch for grandeur and spectacle.

Of course, Sign of the Cross is still an epic of its poverty-stricken time. There are no stupendous sets or masses of extras, but DeMille always knew how to make our eyes deceive us. A huddle of a dozen people filling the screen looks like a crowd. Five men on horseback shot from a low angle looks like a stampede. In the scene where Titus and Favius first meet, the camera wheels round and backs away at the same time, giving the impression that the street scene is much more than a cramped indoor set. And DeMille's use of lighting (here courtesy of Karl Struss who was Oscar-nominated for his efforts) really pays off, with fuzzy half-light and shadows disguising the lack of lavishness.

Better yet, the constrained budget seems to have pushed DeMille to concentrating more on the poetry and beauty of what we see. Unable to dazzle us with scale or special effects, he makes full use of his talent for flowing, dreamlike imagery. Sign of the Cross features some of the smoothest camera-work and carefully choreographed movement of extras of this period. He even makes effective use of slow-motion with the pouring goats milk. DeMille was not the only director to turn to simple camera trickery when money was tight – Rouben Mamoulian's earliest pictures for example are end-to-end cheap tricks. It's just that DeMille is doing it better than almost everyone else – it adds sparkle to the picture without being distracting.

But it's not just with the images that DeMille shows his talent. Unlike some directors who were sceptical about the coming of sound and tried to work around it, or some producers who naively thought it automatically made pictures twice as good, DeMille really explores the possibilities of sound. In an early scene, we cut to a close-up Elissa Landi while we hear from off-screen the calls of Romans searching for Christians. We see her reaction to the calls, and this is something that could not be achieved so succinctly in a silent movie. A more obvious example is the torture scene, where we hear the boy's screams, while the camera is pointed elsewhere. The point is, we do not need to see him being tortured because the scream alone has enough impact. However what we do see – the eagle of Rome, a sentry unconcernedly marching back and forth, a flaming torch – adds layers of meaning to the scene.

Of course, this being DeMille, and it being the "pre-code" era, he also seeks to dazzle us with a bit of bare flesh and other assorted depravities. It's one of the great ironies of DeMille's work that his pictures often revel in the very "immorality" they seek to preach against. So the poster advertising the attractions at the Colloseum is as much to whet the appetite of the real-world audience as to show the barbaric tastes of the Roman one. DeMille spends ten minutes of screen time (not to mention more precious money on tin-hat manufacture and zoo rental fees) on the promised blood-fest, which can only be for our entertainment since it is inconsequential to the plot. And, in another bit of audio/visual juxtaposition, while the martyrs' chanting drowns out the "Naked Moon" song, it is the notorious Lesbian dance that DeMille shows us, not the Christians outside.

The acting in Sign of the Cross is a bit of a mixed bag, although it is of a higher standard than many of the DeMille talkies. Charles Laughton is hammily brilliant, laying down a blueprint for Emperor Nero which Peter Ustinov would follow to a well-deserved Oscar-nomination in Quo Vadis (1951). However Laughton's part is fairly small, and the screenplay makes Claudette Colbert the real villain. Colbert is fantastic, playing the Empress as an ancient world vamp, giving by far the best performance of the bunch. It's almost a shame that It Happened One Night re-invented her as a major romantic lead, because she really was at her best when she played villains.

The weakest link in Sign of the Cross, as with many DeMille pictures, is the screenplay. However DeMille's inventiveness, careful construction and strong imagery, not to mention the fact that his pictures are great fun if you don't take them too seriously, transcend the limpness of the script. It was perhaps because DeMille refused to allow his style to be compromised by a limited budget that makes many of his 1930s pictures among his greatest.

A lot of Cecil B. DeMille's films haven't aged well and this was indeed one of them. Perhaps we've grown a bit too sophisticated for something like the Sign of the Cross. It certainly couldn't be made today.

This in fact was a key film in DeMille's career. He had left Paramount in the mid twenties and first had his own production company and then did some films at MGM which didn't do so well and he was let go. DeMille was considered washed up when Paramount took him back and he had to have a hit.

He chose to make a second movie of a Victorian morality play about early Christian martyrs by Wilson Barrett who was a famous English stage manager/actor/playwright entitled The Sign of the Cross. The title refers to the cross the early Christians made as a sign of recognition in the Roman Empire. In the early years of Anno Domini discretion was certainly in order.

The Sign of the Cross was the sort of stuff DeMille grew up with at the end of the 19th century. At the same time he knew that sex sold movie tickets. So in his silent film period he perfected a formula to glorify the religious but also show the sins of the world they were trying to fight.

DeMille as a young actor and budding playwright before he turned to film was also heavily influenced by David Belasco who wrote a lot of morality type plays which would be laughed off the stage today. But Belasco also given the limits of the stage tried to produce the kind of eye catching spectacle that DeMille perfected on screen.

This is the background DeMille brought to his films and it's never more obvious on the screen than in The Sign of the Cross. The plot is that young Marcus Superbas, prefect of Rome and general debauchee, finds a young discreet Christian girl named Mercia. Fredric March as Marcus is quite taken with her, Mercia as played by Elissa Landi has a purity and a sweetness that he doesn't usually find with the crowd he hangs out with.

Later on she's taken in a general round up of Christians and March intervenes for her. That displeases Empress Poppaea played by Claudette Colbert who Marcus has been a favorite of. She influences Emperor Nero to execute her in the arena with the rest of the Christians.

In his autobiography DeMille took some bows for discovering Charles Laughton who played Nero and got his first real notice in America with this film. What he doesn't tell you is that DeMille and Laughton fought like crazy over the actor's interpretation of Nero. Laughton, a closeted gay man himself, played him as an effeminate gay fop and it was his interpretation that we see today. Probably Laughton's own homosexuality brought a dimension to the part that another actor could never have achieved. His performance holds up today if the film itself doesn't.

In DeMille style the film goes back and forth from the debauchery of Rome to the purity of the Christians. One scene I guarantee that will send a revival audience rolling up the aisles is the one where March brings Landi to his villa where the weekly orgy is in progress. He tries unsuccessfully to seduce her and figuring she's not into guys has a woman try to seduce her with some lesbian siren song. Her song and vamp dance are drowned out by the Christians outside, singing hymns on the way to the arena. It's an absolute and positive hoot, but I'm sure 1932 audiences were titillated. I'm also sure it wasn't in the original play.

Actually homosexuality runs pretty rampant in this film. During the arena scene you see Laughton being waited on by what looks to be his boy toy. And earlier in the film young Tommy Conlan gives up the Christian meeting place through torture. We don't actually see the torture, but there's definitely a look of lust in the eyes of the torturers.

Add to that Claudette Colbert looking quite seductive indeed in her milk bath. No wonder she got to play Cleopatra later on for DeMille. This was all pre-Code and you could get away with a lot.

The Sign of the Cross made a ton of money for Paramount, justifying the expensive outlay for them during the Depression. It put DeMille back on top and he stayed at the top and with Paramount for the rest of his life. But for today's audiences the film is horribly dated.

My favorite DeMille film. Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert are delicious as the debauched emperor and empress of Rome. Prominent supporting players Arthur Hohl and Harry Beresford appeared in two horror classics (ISLAND OF LOST SOULS and DOCTOR X, respectively) the very same year. John Carradine can be seen as a condemned Christian on his way to the arena (you can also hear his voice as a spectator and as a gladiator). Very sharp viewers can also spot Dave O'Brien (a condemned Christian) and Kent Taylor (a disinterested spectator). Three famous scenes still impress today: Poppaea's milk bath; Ancaria's attempted lesbian seduction of Mercia; the outrageous arena sequence featuring beheadings, burnings, impalements, hungry crocodiles, untamed apes, bears, tigers and, of course, lions. Only C.B. could have gotten away with this in 1932! The closing cast list includes the characters Viturius, Servillius and Philodemus, but I'm not sure who they are. Viturius may have been Marcus' soldier-aide, although he doesn't look as burly as Richard Alexander. The other two must be Strabo's ugly, brutish companion and the old Christian man protective of the little orphan girl.

A comment on the original 1932 version.

Pagan Rome, the third night of the great fire. Emperor Nero (Charles Laughton) unjustly condemns Christians of burning the eternal city and sentences many of them to martyrdom. He does not realize that through this deed he unconsciously opens for them a wonderful glory in a better world. The struggle between the sign of the Roman eagle of decadent Nero's times and the sign of the cross begins, this is, symbolically, the endless struggle between those with "delicious debauchery" as the sole aim of life (the lifestyle Nero's times promoted) and those heading for everlasting virtues like love, piety, forgiveness, and purity of heart. Cecil B DeMille's THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, being the first sound biblical epic after his silent KING OF KINGS (1927) is, though more than 70 years old, a great spectacle, still one of the most entertaining Roman epics, except for QUO VADIS (1951), SPARTACUS (1960), and BEN HUR (1959).

GREAT CAST: The outstanding cast in the movie are its strongest point. Claudette Colbert's portrayal of wicked, lustful Poppaea is gorgeous. The same can be said about Charles Laughton who portrays Nero as a really decadent emperor, entirely flooded in debauchery and all sorts of sinful lusts. There have been more portrayals of this cruel pair (Poppeae and Nero), but theirs from DeMille's film is real feast for the soul. Therefore, they are even more memorable than Elissa Landi and Fredric March playing the main roles of Mercia and Marcus. Indeed, March as Marcus Superbus does a good job, especially in the way he shows a change of heart from a mocker to a believer. Elissa Landi presents Mercia's innocence and virtues memorably. But they are not that terrific as Colbert and Laughton. As far as performances are concerned, it is also important to mention Joyzelle as "the most wicked and talented woman in Rome", Ancaria. The scene of her seduction is truly well played. The dance of the Naked Moon that Ancaria seduces on Mercia is disturbed by Christians singing in a dungeon. MORAL MESSAGE: That scene clearly expresses the fact I have mentioned at the beginning: the universal struggle between two groups of people with two different aims in life. I think that DeMille also wanted to show this moral in another scene: the meeting of two old Christian men, Favius and Titus sent by Paul to Rome. One of them draws the sign of the cross on the ground, which is later trodden on by many people walking in the square.

SIMILARITY TO ANOTHER EPIC: A significant fact is that the content of the movie is strikingly similar to another Roman epic, made almost 20 years later, QUO VADIS (1951) by Mervyn LeRoy. While QUO VADIS is based on the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, this film is based on a play by an English playwright, Wilson Barrett. Both films, however, present the 1st century Rome, in particular, spreading Christianity in the cruel times of Nero; both films show the conversion of a Roman soldier Marcus who loves a Christian girl; both films remind us of the secret Christian meetings; both films focus on Poppaea being lustful for Marcus and demanding revenge on Christians because of jealousy (consider the moment Marcus Superbus comes to Nero to ask him to spare the life of Mercia. Nero says: If she would publicly renounce her faith... when Poppaea disturbs radically: "Not even then!") Moreover, both films show Poppaea's beautiful leopards. Finally, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS and QUO VADIS show the arena sequence, however DeMille presents much more of its gore than LeRoy in 1951.

ARENA: Alligators feeding with a young Christian woman, elephants treading on people's heads, a gorilla raping a girl tied to a wooden pillar, people crucified and burned, men fighting with bulls, bears, women fighting with dwarfs; yet lions and tigers eating Christians, and many other cruel games to the joy and lust of the viewers. Indeed, it is a film not to be watched by kids even at the beginning of the 21 century, but historically accurate and visually very well made.

ONE OF CINEMA'S MOST MEMORABLE MOMENTS: Except for the cruel arena sequence, which is still entertaining in some way, any viewer will be surprised at one scene: Poppaea's famous milk bath. That's a moment that everyone should consider while watching the film. Her sexual bath is one of the best made moments that cinema has ever seen. It is totally filled with desire and sexuality. And all thanks to the great performance by Ms Colbert. No surprise Cecil B DeMille cast her to play Cleopatra two years later, in 1934.

It's difficult to express all I feel about this movie in one review. I simply tried my best to encourage everyone to see this movie because it was an unforgettable experience for me, one of the very best Roman epics of all time. If you have already seen QUO VADIS, you will find this movie very similar but, indeed, more DeMillean. The end is very much influenced by the 1930s cinema but very touching and universally true - the absolute victory always comes in the Sign of the Cross... 9/10

Believe it or not some sort of code did exist during the pre-Code era but no one felt obliged to follow it. Although lapped up by audiences the excesses on display in this extraordinary opus proved too much to bear in certain quarters and undeniably hastened the formation of the Hays Code and the crackpot Catholic League of Decency. One would hazard a guess that it is not so much the unspeakable cruelty depicted here that caused such moral outrage but the skimpy costumes and the hip-swivelling cooch dance by Joyzelle Joyner with its distinctly lesbian overtones.

Piety and Paganism are in direct opposition here and although Mr. De Mille is seen to be on the side of the angels he is astutely aware of the box office potential of depravity and debauchery.

What should really concern an objective cinéphile is how well-made the film is and how well it has held up over nine decades. The cinematography is lustrous courtesy of Karl Struss, one of the greatest pictorialists in the history of cinema whilst Mitchell Leisen's art and costume design is exemplary. The plot is not entirely original of course as the play by Wilson Barratt from which it is taken had been strongly influenced by the novel 'Quo Vadis?' of Henryk Sienkiewicz. Here the ill-fated lovers are played by Fredric March and Elissa Landi, both of whom do their very best in one-dimensional roles. The classy Miss Landi's portrayal is virtuous without being self-righteous and her anguished cry: "Dear Christ, why?" really touches the heart. A relatively small amount of screen time is allotted to Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert as Nero and Poppaea but they certainly make the most of it. Miss Colbert is utterly bewitching here and supremely sensuous which makes her the obvious choice to play Cleopatra for the same director two years later. Apparently de Mille was perplexed by the idiosyncratic Mr. Laughton and gave up trying to direct him. Left to his own devices his performance is touched by genius and we are obliged to film historian David Thomson for describing Laughton's interpretation as 'the most flagrant and fleshy portrait of an abandoned homosexual spirit seen in a Hollywood film until that time.'

Although not for the faint hearted this piece is arguably Cecil B. De Mille's finest achievement.

At the intermission of this Cecil B. DeMille epic, I had the sneaking suspicion that I'd been duped. This was the film blamed with bringing down in earnest the iron fist of the Motion Picture Production Code on Hollywood, but I'd seen precious little up to that point to warrant the claim. O.k. so I had seen Claudette Colbert's nipples as she frolicked in a milk bath (and let me tell you, I was NOT expecting that!) which I know for certain were her nipples and not a trick of lighting because I watched the scene in extreme slo-mo on my DVD player to make sure. But that was about it. However, the second half started rolling, my jaw dropped to the floor, and I began to understand all of the broo-ha surrounding this film.

Part two kicks off with a drunken orgy, in which a salacious lesbian performs some sort of seductive dance for the benefit of Elissa Landi (I assume it was meant to be seductive, though it looked more like she was suffering from full-body cramps). But that was lightweight compared to the film's climactic 20 minutes, which chronicles in grisly detail the goings on in a Roman arena. We see all manor of wild animal (crocodiles, elephants, bears, oh my!) chomp down on hapless victims. We see a naked woman chained to a post for the sexual gratification of a gorilla (I'm not making this up). We see a battle between "barbarian women and African pygmies" (as they're billed in the event's program), in which one barbarian woman lops off the head of one African pygmy while another skewers hers on a scimitar and holds him up over her head like a Thanksgiving turkey. And of course, no Roman epic would be complete without some Christians being fed to some hungry lions.

You're forgiven if you don't shed much of a tear over the loss of the Christians. DeMille makes them so pompous and boring, and the Romans so much fun, that you end up rooting for the lions. The whole movie smacks of hypocrisy. DeMille really wants an excuse to get us off on sex and violence, but couches the whole thing in a pious framework to justify his own bloodlust. He's as debauched as the Romans in his movie.

Mostly, "The Sign of the Cross" is terrible. The somnolent pacing will threaten to put you to sleep before you get to any of the good parts. The acting is atrocious, especially from Landi -- who would be the worst person on stage in a high school play -- and Fredric March, who looks about as much like a Roman prefect as I do (and I don't look a thing like a Roman prefect). Leave it to Charles Laughton and Claudette Colbert to bring some dignity to the proceedings. In Laughton's first scene, the one that opens the movie, he babbles incoherently about the burning of Rome while sucking his thumb. Colbert, for her part, vamps through the movie tossing out sexual innuendos like she's Mae West. The most unbelievable thing about the whole film is that March could possibly fall for the goody-goody Landi when he already had Colbert on the side.

I can't wholly recommend it, even for the laugh factor, because there's so much dull movie to slog through, but I would recommend at least tuning in for the grand finale and enjoying the spectacle like a true lecherous Roman.

Grade: C

This special slice of history occurs in Rome that is firing itself and Nero : Charles Laughton accuses the Christians to have committed the burning disaster . While his alluring wife Poppea : Claudette Colbert attempts to seduce Prefect Marcus Superbus : Fredric March who at the same time has fallen in love for a beautiful Christian , Mercia : Elissa Landi , the latter along with his mates are being pursued by Nero troops commanded by Tijelinus : Ian Keith . As a result the Christians are damned to die on the arena between a menagerie of hungry , wild animals . Out of the blazing parade of Rome comes the love that has outlived 2.000 years ! . Nero fiddles Christians sing Rome burns! . A picture which will proudly lead all the entertainments the World has ever seen !

A really spectacular film with tension , emotion , religiosity , adequate miniature set burns , overwhelming combats with Gladiators and other unfortunate Christians thrown to a fearsome zoo of starving animals , dreadful events and a deep romance . Much general debauchery among the sadistic , masochism and the erotic . It begins with prologue tacked on in 1944 that ridiculously attempts to link the horrible happenings in Nero's time to the Allies' advance over Italy . It displays breathtaking , brutal combats in the arena among gladiators and Christians and lions and many spectacular sequences that include burning of Rome . Religious movie with some hokey elements , but history is always a plaything to Cecil DeMille , useful only as a surefire way of offering up sex , erotism , naughty scenes , brutal images of sacrifice , fights with strong violence and visual spectacle under the guise of moral and cultural enlightment. The eroticism is provided by Claudette Colbert and her suggestive and attractive bathing up to her nipples in asses' milk that surprisingly passed the Hays Code , along with insinuating slinking about Mitchell Leisen's gowns . The great Charles Laughton scene-steals as Nero , here as an implicitily gay emperor, while Rome burns and sermonising a speech , his acting to be partially repeated by Peter Ustinov in the similar Quo Vadis 1951 by Mervyn LeRoy with Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr .

This big budget motion picture was competently directed by Cecil B DeMille following his peculiar style . DeMille was a great professional who made various epic , historical and Colossal films, such as : "The Ten Commandments 1923" , "King of Kings" , "Cleopatra" , "The Plainsman" ," The Crusades" , "Union Pacific" , "Uncomquered" , "Samson and Dalilah" and "The Ten Commandments version 1956" . Rating 7/10 . Above average.

First, this film is high camp. One need only know some of the backstage events to know that all the actors had a great deal of fun in making the film. March tells in his biography that Claudette Colbert spurned his attempts to flirt by chewing several garlic cloves before each close up between the two of them. The famed Chicago World's Fair fan dancer Sally Rand has an uncredited role (according to her family members) as the woman who is about to have her head bitten off by an alligator near the end. There is a close up of Sally's face. With such goings-on, what's not to like here?

I found Fredric March as Marcus Superbus (the Prefect of Rome and man upon whom Empress Poppea has her eyes) convincingly full of himself through the first three quarters of the film. He shows a believable change of heart towards the end. Colbert is charmingly over-the-top as Poppea, as is Charles Laughton, who plays Nero. The ingenue Christian girl, Mercia, is played with restraint by Elissa Landi. While this may make her seem to be overshadowed by Colbert, Marcus states that he is "tired" of overpowering patrician women and, thus, Landi's cool understatement entrances him.

Despite the violence, which is standard fare in tales about early Christians in Rome, there are moments of good acting, not only by the main characters, but by the bit players. Some of the group scenes and interactions among the Christians as they await the arena are well-played, indeed.

There is nothing to dismiss here. At very least, the film is worth a viewing as a landmark epic sporting some of the Hollywood elite of the mid-1930s.

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS begins with Nero and the burning of Rome and the theme throughout is the martyrdom of Christians willing to die for their faith. Against this is a background of excessive sex and violence.

Overall, it's a disappointment and very similar in structure to QUO VADIS which ended with Nero and the burning of Rome instead of using that as the starting point and handled the whole theme much more fully and effectively with some outstanding performances.

They both have virtually the same plot elements--Christians are persecuted, there's a love story between a Roman officer and a Christian girl, the Christians are depicted as willing to die for their faith, there are scenes of wild parties among Nero's wicked harem, and at the conclusion we have the arena scenes with an over-the-top display of wanton mayhem and violence as beasts are set free to devour the brave Christians.

The big difference is the matter of restraint shown in QUO VADIS, whereas Cecil B. DeMille couldn't resist pulling out all the stops. He even has his Empress Poppaea CLAUDETTE COLBERT bathing in a bath of milk and behaving as wickedly and wantonly as the Empress in QUO VADIS. And unfortunately, for his leads, he has the dull FREDRIC MARCH (eyeliner and all) going through the motions of falling in love with the beautiful but vacuous ELISSA LANDI who never manages to be the least bit convincing as the devout Christian. He photographs her in close-ups so that her golden hair seems to be a halo around her head. March gives a performance as dull as the one he gave as ANTHONY ADVERSE a few years later.

It's all typical DeMille excess and the only thing missing is the gorgeous Technicolor that MGM was able to use for their QUO VADIS.

Wasted as Nero is CHARLES LAUGHTON who has about fifteen minutes of screen time and never has the chance to make a dimensional character out of the role the way Peter Ustinov did in QUO VADIS. What little he does is effective but the film concentrates mainly on March and Landi and they're not up to their assignments for some reason. CLAUDETTE COLBERT makes the most of her earthy role as Empress Poppaea.

The most natural performance in the film belongs to TOMMY CONLON as Stephan, a boy who eventually must face his fate alongside Elissa who gives him inspiration with the usual cliché-ridden dialog given to the Christian martyrs.

Summing up: A dull first hour, it picks up speed during the last hour but is so full of hokey excesses that it's like watching a silent film and you keep waiting for the title cards to appear on cue.

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (Paramount, 1932), directed by Cecil B. DeMille, returns its director to the genre to what he's best known, the religious spectacle, his first since THE KING OF KINGS (Pathe, 1927) starring H.B. Warner as Jesus the Christ. While this title certainly indicates another retelling into the life of Christ, the script, taken from an old play by Wilson Barrett, focuses more on Christians following in the teachings of Jesus years after His crucifixion, only to face suffering and prosecution for their faith.

The setting is 64 A.D. where the Emperor Nero (Charles Laughton) is introduced playing his lyre while watching in laughter the flames raging through the city of Rome. Although responsible for starting the fire, Nero places the blame on the Christians, arranging for his guards to have them placed under arrest. His wife, Poppara (Claudette Colbert), is an adulteress whose only desire is the manly Marcus Superbus (Fredric March), a prefect of Rome, but cannot put her hold on him after learning from Dacia (Vivian Tobin) of his love for Mercia (Elissa Landi), a Christian girl. As much as Marcus believes "Christianity is stupid," he tries his best to persuade Mercia to renounce her faith and marry him. Tigellinus (Ian Keith), Marcus' rival, sees an opportunity in making trouble for them both.

With crime dramas, drawing room comedies and/or social related issues as common theme during the Depression era, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS was something out of the ordinary. In true DeMille fashion, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS is not only a 128 minute spectacle with a three minute intermission in the midway point, but a large-scale production with lavish sets and cast of thousands accurately costumed according to its time structure. Of the performers in this Biblical story, Elissa Landi, the central character, seems out of place with her 1932 head-dress while Claudette Colbert, in her first "bad girl" role, quite evident with her lipstick and pencil drawn eyelashes, has her cherished moment bathing in a pool of milk gulped along side by two kittens at a distance. Fredric March as the Roman soldier who rules with the cracking of his whip, physically makes a convincing Marcus, though some of his badly scripted dialog, along with others in the cast, may provoke laughter for any contemporary viewer. Charles Laughton's Nero is exceptional, right down to his curly hair with added putty in the middle of his nose adding sharpness to his cruel facial expression. Although his scenes are regrettably limited, Laughton simply stands out, especially as he watches in sleepy-eyed boredom the slaughter of victims at the arena as he sits back eating large portions of food. Other members in the large cast include Tommy Conlan as Stephanus, the teenage Christian boy; Nat Pendleton, Arthur Hohl, Charles Middleton; lions, tigers, crocodiles and elephants as uncredited extras.

As much as the plot was reworked into the MGM spectacle of QUO VADIS (1951) starring Robert Taylor as Marcus; with Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov giving a tour-da-force performance as Nero, nothing can compare with the intense arena sequence found in THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. Graphic, then and now, this sequence, along with "The Naked Moon" dance performed by the wicked Ancaria (Joyzelle Joyner), was all that was missing when THE SIGN OF THE CROSS was not only reissued to theaters in 1944, but when sold to commercial television around the 1960s. In its place was a ten minute prologue written by Dudley Nichols, set during World War II with the cast featuring Stanley Ridges (Chaplain Thomas Lloyd); Arthur Shields (Captain James Costello); James Millican (Captain Kevin Driscoll); William Forrest (Colonel Hugh Mason); Tom Tully (Hoboken); Oliver Thorndyke (Lieutenant Roger Hammond); and Joel Allen. The new opening revolves around bombardiers being assigned on a dangerous mission and heading out to their destination. As the airplane flies over the Colosseum, a discussion about to the prosecution of Christians under Nero's regime leads to a flashback and events that takes place.

It wasn't until March 14, 1993, when American Movie Classics cable channel presented the original uncut 1932 theatrical release of THE SIGN OF THE CROSS that was obtained from the DeMille estate, and played it as part of AMC's initial Film Preservation Society festival. Without these missing scenes, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS would have been hopelessly dull and talkie, such as the case with the 1944 reissue that had circulated for nearly half a century. In 1995, Universal Home Video distributed the now uncensored 1932 version to home video and then to DVD in 2006. After AMC ceased airing THE SIGN OF THE CROSS in 1999, Turner Classic Movies picked up its option by airing this DeMille epic where it played from occasionally from 2004 to 2007. Regardless of its flaws, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS is prime DeMille, best suited for viewing during the season of Lent or Good Friday. Hail Caesar!! (***1/2)

A big disappointment. I've wanted to see this for years.The historical era, of course, is of great interest to me. And Charles Laughton as Nero just seems like inspired casting! But unfortunately Laughton is barely in the picture! He's got like about 15 minutes of screen time. Maybe less than that even. Claudette Colbert as the empress Poppaea is in it a bit more – she takes a famous bath in milk and you can even catch a glimpse of her nipple if you watch carefully – but she's not in it enough, either. No, the vast bulk of this vastly bulky film is spent with Frederic March and Elissa Landi. He plays the prefect of Rome and she the young Christian woman he tries to save from persecution. March's acting, in my opinion, varied a lot from role to role. He was occasionally great, as in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or especially in Inherit the Wind, but oftentimes he was dull or mediocre (too many examples to name). In The Sign of the Cross, he is just bad. Elissa Landi, who was the second female lead in After the Thin Man and played opposite Robert Donat in The Count of Monte Cristo, is a beautiful woman, but not much of an actress. The film is very stilted in an early-talkies sort of way. The dialogue is very bad, and often very difficult to understand (I had to watch some scenes with subtitles). The film does have some great moments. Any scenes with Laughton or Colbert are worthy. I love the scene where Joyzelle Joyner molests Elissa Landi with her erotic dance. And the Christians in the film are so stuffy and self-righteous it's actually a lot of fun when they all get fed to lions, tigers and bears. And crocodiles and one girl is even offered up sexually to a gorilla (a scene which begins and vanishes just as quickly – I'm guessing DeMille didn't want to leave it up long enough for anyone in 1932 to actually get it).

This was a powerful and shocking movie, at least for people who see a lot of classic films, including movies from the '30s. I haven't seen this in quite a while but I never forgot seeing a nude Claudette Colbert taking a milk bath!

However, seeing Christians persecuted was not entertaining to me. Although there is no gore, it's pretty brutal to almost see lions eating people, elephants crushing them, alligators ripping them apart, gladiators being speared, stabbed, torn up, etc., etc. And some wonder why a morals' code was instituted several years later?! I'm sure there were some outcries after this was released.

The Christians, led by Elissa Landi, are inspiring in their bravery in the midst of all this persecution. One wonders how - in real life - they did it. In addition to the torture, violent scenes, this movie was shocking in its day for the nudity. For a classic film, to see all these bare breasts is indeed shocking.

Regarding other actors, Charles Laughton was convincing as the sick, sadistic "Nero" but Frederic March looked more like a silent film star with all the eye makeup.

Of a final note, it was interesting to see an "intermission" in this film, considering it's just two hours, but that was a long time for a film in 1932.

How did DeMille do it? How did he make a film that is wildly decadent, revelling in the debaucheries of Ancient Rome, while still making it a moving tribute to the Christian martyrs of the time? The way he balances spectacle, comedy, drama, moralising and debauchery is pure genius! If you've never seen a pre-Hollywood-production-code movie before you may be surprised to see a glimpse of Claudette Colbert's nipples as she's bathing in milk, to see an erotic lesbian dance sequence, to see a naked young man sitting next to the very gay Nero of Charles Laughton! And then DeMille joyously recreates a whole day of gruesome spectacles in the arena in all their gruesome detail. But then, somehow, he switches the whole mood and, thanks to excellent performances from Fredric March, Elissa Landi and young Tommy Conlon, creates a deeply moving finale, that tragically anticipates the horrors of the Holocaust. An amazing film in every way, and so much better than "Quo Vadis"!

Put 'em in a toga and they all think it's 1925. This is Cecil B deMille at his very worst. How he manages to make decent actors seem like they're in a children's pantomime is quite astonishing. This is one to avoid!

It does however shine a light on what people in 1932 found entertaining. These overweight CBdM epics were the blockbusters of the day, events which had to be endured because it was expected. That's no reason to watch this now - who'll be watching TRANSFORMERS in ninety years time?

This is two hours of torture. It's gratuitously violent. The love story is ridiculous and patently impossible. The background story, based on a third rate novel is just wrong - Eddie Cantor's ROMAN SCANDALS was more authentic. The Roman soldiers look like extras from FLASH GORDON and Fredric March looks stupid in his little mini skirt and weird 1920s eye make-up. But the worst thing wrong with this is the acting. It's like they've all suddenly forgotten that they don't make silent movies anymore.....and that includes the normally great Mr March! Oh how they have clearly missed being able to do those exaggerated over the top gestures but in this they can all behave like an animated emojis to their heat's content.

No, there's something even worse than the terrible acting - the Christians. Holy mackerel, if the Cristians had been like this back then there wouldn't be any of us around today. I think that if somehow I found myself there I'd have been tempted to feed all the sanctimonious, annoying, smiling smug sods to the lions myself. Stop singing you annoying people! Stop speaking as though you're doing the tv commentary for the funeral of Queen, speaking ever so slowly with quiet somber reverential tones! Why does every single word they say have to sound so sincere and earth shatteringly important and why are they constantly accompanied by choirs of angels? And why have they all got beards? Is it wrong to cheer on the lions?

Everything and everyone associated with this is terrible with one exception - Claudette Colbert. Maybe because she didn't bring much silent cinema baggage with her but she's the only one who acts like she's been in a film before. I have to admit that the reason I first watched this many, many decades ago was for her famous nipple flash. That scene, maybe because it's made to look accidental or maybe it's because it's the very respectable and sophisticated Miss Colbert, is still incredibly sexy and extremely classy. As for the remaining 2 hours and 3 minutes, don't bother.