User reviews

The 1st century Roman Empire, the fire of Rome, early Christianity, martyrdom...this historical content was dealt with in many films before and after 1951. Yet, it is LeRoy's QUO VADIS most viewers associate with the infamous period of Roman history, the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68). Why? There are, I think, several reasons. One is, definitely, the source, a Noble Prize winner novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz. The Polish writer, being an acknowledged historian, contained detailed historical facts and a vivid fictitious story in his novel. As a result, QUO VADIS is a universal masterpiece, absolutely worth reading for anyone. But, since the film, though an adaptation of the book, skips many events or even characters, we may treat Mervyn LeRoy's QUO VADIS as a separate Hollywood production. In this respect, the movie is also well known as a gigantic spectacle with great cast, lavish sets, crowds of extras, which constitutes a magnificent journey to ancient Rome, the Rome which was on the verge of becoming "Neropolis". Then, a viewer does not have to know the novel and will enjoy the film.

THE STORY: If we consider QUO VADIS? as an entertaining movie only (which is, of course, a limited view), then anyone more acquainted with cinema will find much in common with Cecil B DeMille's great epic THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932). Yet, comparison does not work that well concerning the perspective of QUO VADIS (1951). After deeper analysis of the films, a lot of differences occur. While DeMille's film based on Wilson Barret's play shows early Christianity in Rome, it foremost concentrates on the clash between the new religion and the Roman order being put in danger. LeRoy's movie, since based on Henryk Sienkiewicz's, focuses on the undeniable victory of Christianity. Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) at first finds a new faith meaningless. He has reasonable arguments from the Roman point of view (what about slaves, conquest, enemy treating, etc). Yet GRADUALLY thanks to love for Lygia (Deborah Kerr) and the courageous faith of the martyrs, he shouts out with confidence "Christ, give him strength!" The story of Nero and "the imperial companions" is also much more developed. Yet, Nero (Peter Ustinov) is not only the one who heads for delicious debauchery but also wishes the crowd to have one throat that could be cut. He is an artist who burns Rome in order to create a song. He is a coward who blames the innocent for his own guilts. He is a cynic who collects tears in a weeping phial after the death of his "best friend" Petronius (Leo Genn). Finally, he is a lunatic who praises his "divine ego" and screams at his death seeing no future for Rome without him.

CAST: Anyone who has seen ancient epics must admit that most of them can boast great performances. Nevertheless, I believe that QUO VADIS is one of the top movies in this matter. Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr are a gorgeous couple portraying a Roman leader and a Christian girl. Taylor naturally expresses a change of heart. Kerr appealingly portrays innocence, gentleness and true love. Leo Genn is excellent as Petronius, a man of art and elegance who is fed up with Nero's "secondary songs and meaningless poems." Peter Ustinov gives a fabulous performance as Nero combining all wicked features of his character. I also loved Patricia Laffan as lustful empress Poppaea with her two pet leopards. There is no milk bath of hers, she does not imitate Ms Colbert but Laffan's Poppaea is foremost a woman of sin, a woman of lust, and a woman of revenge. The Christians, except for a number of extras, are portrayed by very authentic-looking actors: Abraham Sofaer as Paul and Finlay Currie as Peter...not more to say than that they look identical to the old paintings.

SPECTACLE: The movie is a visually stunning epic that can be compared in its magnificence to BEN HUR (1959) and even GLADIATOR (2000). There are numerous breathtaking moments: arena scenes, lions, bull fighting, triumph in the streets, and foremost the fire of Rome. We see the real horror within the walls of the burning city. A moment that is also worth consideration is Vinicius hurrying to Rome on a chariot being chased by two other men. When he comes nearer, we see the red sky... The authenticity is increased by a lovely landscape of Cinecitta Studios near Rome where the film was shot. For the sake of spectacle, I went once to see QUO VADIS on a big screen in cinema and felt as if I watched a new film made with modern techniques. It was a wonderful experience.

All in all, I think that QUO VADIS by Mervyn LeRoy is a movie that has stood a test of time. Although it is 55 years old, it is still admired in many places of the world. It's one of these movies that are the treasures of my film gallery. Not only a colossal spectacle, not only great performances but a very profound historical content at which Henryk Sienkiewicz was best.

QUO VADIS DOMINE? Where are you going, Lord? These are the words that Peter asked Christ while leaving Rome. After the answer that Peter heard from his Lord, he turned back... in order to proclaim peace to the martyrs and to be crucified. Yet, where once stood decadent "Neropolis" now stands the Holy See where people yearly pilgrim to the tombs of the martyrs and where the blessing "Urbi et Orbi" is goes to all the corners of the world. Sienkiewicz writes about it in the touching final words of the novel. Yet, LeRoy changes it a bit in the film...

A small group of Christians who survived, including Lygia and Marcus, are on a journey. But after a short stop at the place where Peter met Christ, the journey seems to turn into a pilgrimage towards "the Way, the Truth and the Life"

"Quo Vadis" (1951) is an amazing spectacle and a film you should see. But, you should also realize that it's not exactly a great history lesson...especially when it comes to Emperor Nero.

The film begins with Marcus (Robert Taylor) arriving back in Rome with his legion after three years of war. Once there, he sees first hand the wacky antics of the Emperor...and he also soon sees a cute lady and he's smitten with Lygia (Deborah Kerr). The rest of the film consists of Marcus pursuing Lygia, though she is a Christian and he is a traditional Roman. At the same time, Nero's weirdness and infamy increase.

The film is a spectacle and apart from one brief scene which was sloppy (Marcus racing to Lygia during the burning of Rome), it's among the most amazing movies of its age. It's every bit as spectacular as "Gone With the Wind" and "Ben Hur". I can easily see why it was the biggest box office draw of 1951.

The story itself is also generally good. After all, few films have been made about the early Christians and this is 1000 times better than the god-awful "Sign of the Cross" which covers much of the same material. My only complaint comes from its fictionalizing the Burning of Rome. In the movie, it was deliberately set by Nero and his minions....and this is a common myth. But it is a myth with no real basis in fact. And, since it makes up such a big portion of the film, it is a strike against it. By the way, following the fire, it IS true that Nero blamed Christians and used their persecution to divert attention from his incompetence.

Overall, a film every film buff should see...and even with its faults, it's an amazing film. And, one of Robert Taylor's best roles.

As someone else wrote, they don't make them like this any more. An all-enveloping spectacle with a brilliant performance from Peter Ustinov as the madman, Emperor Nero. The local TV network just aired a newly mastered print and the colour is fabulous. Deborah Kerr never looked lovelier or Finlay Currie more awesome. The costuming is memorable as well.

The best scene is of the crowd entering Nero's temple, filmed from above. Thousands of extras streaming in from all sides like ants flowing over a corpse. Truly memorable!

Magnificent sets, plenty of gold gilt, debauchery, brutality, crazy Peter Ustinov as Nero, vivid cinematography, racing chariots, the arena, a score by Miklos Rosza, sober pronouncements in British accents, fervent Christians, and a bevy of beautiful actresses (Deborah Kerr, Martina Berti, and Patricia Laffan) keep this 171 minute ocean liner of a movie rolling on to a tense, gripping, moving conclusion. Fans of the ancient world can't miss.

One of the best movies about Rome ever made, and that's saying something. While the story is believable and the cast excellent, Peter Ustinov as mad Emperor Nero simply steals the show.

Like James Cameron's film 'Titanic' with its $200 million budget (an investment which has already earned Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures a return of the order of $900 million gross), 'Quo Vadis?' is generally recognised to be a 'Major Hollywood Epic'. What constitutes a major epic is a matter of judgement, but perhaps one test is whether the Studio concerned gave the producer a virtually unlimited budget, after a warning that the film created has to generate earnings significantly more than the total cost of production or "you are out on your ear". (By comparison, for a minor epic the producer would typically have a free hand over all but the largest expenditures, which would have to be referred back to the studio heads for approval, and might therefore decide to re-use sets created previously for a major epic, or utilise footage created during the production of an earlier film.). Historically Demille was one of the most prolific creators of epics and he had a mould into which his projects had to fit. They had to include a number of daring or even risqué sequences which would ensure the film was widely talked about, and would achieve exceptional attendances when screened. The overall stories had to have a religious, or at the very least strongly moral, theme which would leave typical audiences with the feeling they had seen something worthwhile which they should recommend to their friends. Finally there had to be a number of almost unbelievable sequences, created by the special effects department, to ensure the film concerned continued to receive ongoing attention. Many of his films made in this mould were not only financially successful but remain regarded as classics today; however none were exempt from criticism over historical or textual inaccuracies. Directed not by Demille but by Mervyn LeRoy towards the end of this same period, Quo Vadis fitted almost perfectly into the same mould. Although not released until Hollywood was coming under pressure from colour TV, its release proved that the small screen still could not compete with large screen productions, and it finished up as the second largest grossing film released by MGM. Biblical subjects were often chosen for major epics, and 'Quo Vadis?' was based on a religious novel written by the Polish Nobel Prize winning author Henryk Sienkiewicz; which remains essentially true both to biblical accounts and early Christian traditions.

What can we say about such an epic over half a century after it was made? There should soon be a long promised DVD version which will encourage many younger viewers to see it for the first time. Big screen presentations are preferable, but today are few and far between. Can we help those contemplating buying the DVD? Quo Vadis is essentially pro-Christian propaganda and, as with any such film, viewers reactions to it will be closely tied to their religious beliefs. But every prospective viewer can be assured that there are several outstanding acting performances, even though none won Oscars. These include Peter Ustinov as Nero (a Golden Globe winner), Leo Genn as Petronius - the original author of 'Satyricon', Robert Taylor as Vinicius and Finlay Currie as St. Peter. This viewer can also be assured that many of the spectacles and special effects are still stunning today, even when limited to the small screen (somehow modern computerised special effects never seem quite so real as the original Hollywood style ones). He can also be warned about historical inaccuracies, which should have been avoided, and departures from the original novel, which are usually regarded as legitimate in a work created for a different medium. A cynic might tell him that Roman banquets are believed to have been much more decadent than is shown here, and historically we know that the Romans would never have tied a beautiful captive to a stake in the arena for public entertainment without stripping her first. Also the Christians being burnt at the stake to illuminate the proceedings had not, in accordance with normal Roman practices, been dipped into tar first, so the illumination would probably have been rather poor. But these are minor consequences of the Hollywood production code for this period and should have little bearing on either his enjoyment of the film or his ability to mentally visualise the full horrors of the scenes featured. Finally we need to warn him that other versions of the same story co-exist with this 1951 film, and that each of them is regarded as the best by some viewers. In 2001 there was a major Polish version that some reviewers regard as much closer to the original novel. One of several TV versions was a 6 hour mini-series produced in Italy in 1985, and there were two early silent versions made in 1902 and 1912. Both of the latter would probably be hard to find today, but the 1912 version appears to have been of considerable interest. Following current trends with other classic silent films, perhaps it will be re-released coupled with this definitive 1951 version, as the long awaited deluxe DVD. I certainly hope so.

The bottom line is that this film provides one of Hollywood's greatest spectacles, it has first rate acting and is both enjoyable and satisfying to watch. It is also a classic to which other movie lovers frequently refer. There are plenty of things about it that you may (and are free to) criticise but, if you have not seen it, you should plan to rent or buy either a copy of the VHS tape now, or better the long promised DVD when finally released.

It's a great epic film but with equally great flaws. Robert Taylor is the Roman officer close to the emperor who gradually is converted from a ruthless bully of a soldier to a dedicated Christian, brought around by the irresistibly sweet Deborah Kerr, lovelier than ever, whom he tries to possess by using the emperor's authority for his own selfish means, while it works the other way, so she gets the better of him. He is the nephew of Petronius Arbiter, the emperor's closest friend and chief counsellor, played with excellence by Leo Genn, who was a true character who authored "Satyricon", 20 twenty years later screened by Fellini. This whole film was made in Rome in Cinecittà, and it's all about Rome and its crisis when the whole city, the world's greatest, burned down, for which Nero blamed the Christians. This is where both the film and the book turns into gross falsification of history. It was not Nero who set fire to Rome, and he did not sing and play the harp on his balcony gloating pyromaniacally in the disaster. All that is false and wicked rumours. The fires started by accident, but Nero did take that for an excuse to start the first major persecution of the Christians.

The film is mainly worth seeing for Peter Ustinov's unforgettable characterization of Nero, even better than Charles Laughton's 20 years earlier. Peter Ustinov had a knack for entering other characters, you can see that from his hilarious caricatures of contemporary tycoons, like Ronald Reagan, and his Nero is absolutely formidable in his extreme and ridiculous vanity, actually turning this tragedy of the fall of Rome and the Caesar family into a splendid comedy of the blackest kind. Leo Genn as Petronius is his counterpart, cool common sense and intelligently balanced diplomacy to match the extreme irrationalism of the ruling madman. The film is also worth seeing for the exquisite dresses, mainly of the women, and there are some definite premonitions of "Ben Hur".

Two other women are noteworthy here, Patricia Laffan ravishingly wicked and impressing as a dashing Poppea with her gepards, and, perhaps the most interesting role of all, Rosalie Crutchley as Acte, the only one who cares for Nero and actually saves him the only possibkle way. Her part is small but enough to put both Deborah Kerr and Poppea in the shadow.

What spoils the film is the Christian tendentiousness, which also spoils the great and interesting novel, Sienkiewicz' greatest. Finlay Currie is not convincing as St. Peter, he is far too majestic, imposing and almost pompous, and Paul isn't any better. Like Robert Taylor they don't get any better than superficial stereotypes, while at least Deborah Kerr is convincing as a underground Christian. Miklos Rosza's music also fails to impress in remaining no more than background accompaniment, while of course the scenes of the hellfire of Rome remain the most impressing. It's a great epic but hopelessly flawed.

This rollicking yarn serves as an extenuating piece of evidence in support of the case for the defence of director Mervyn LeRoy.

Already possessed of the definite advantage of the gracious presence of Deborah Kerr as the comely female lead, inevitably it's the villain who provides the film with its meat. Peter Ustinov has a rare old time as the crazy, mouth-breathing emperor Nero, forming a priceless double act with Leo Genn, who probably gives the best performance.

According to Ustinov LeRoy summed up Nero as "a guy plays with himself nights"; too bad he didn't stick to that and spared us all his performance on the lyre.

Full disclosure: I've never read the book on which Mervyn LeRoy's Academy Award-nominated "Quo Vadis" is based. I've also heard conflicting stories about the origin of Christianity (namely that the Jesus story has a lot in common with other stories from the region). But whatever the case, it's an impressive movie. I found the most intriguing character to be Nero. He's known as a ruthless, decadent individual, and the movie portrays him as such. Right before the US invaded Iraq, Peter Ustinov got interviewed and said "I don't know whether I played Nero or George W. Bush."

It was ironic that Christianity, initially the movement of oppressed peoples, became an instrument of oppression in later centuries. There's always those unintended consequences. But anyway, the movie itself is an epic in the true sense of the word. Admittedly, the movie's so full of itself that one might feel tempted to riff it like on "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But I recommend it.

PS: The title means "Where are you going?" in Latin.

The novel by Henryk Sienkewicz is one of my favorite books in the world, so of course, I had to watch this movie, and I have even recorded it twice on my VCR on two different tapes, and likewise, I have two versions of the novel. However, the novel is just a little better than the movie, so if the book almost is a perfect 10 out of 10, I have to grade the movie a 8 out of 10. For example, I find Vinicius much more agreeable in the novel, but instead, I understand Lygia's insecurity about him better in the movie. But I won't blame Robert Taylor or Deborah Kerr for this, of course, for I suspect they didn't make the script. And also, other things are different between the novel and the movie. I have to admit though, that Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero is excellent. He really nailed the emperor's cruelty and his madness. But then, Patricia Laffan was just the right person to play the part of empress Poppaea too. She could really look like a female villain. Leo Genn was really the right person to do Petronius too.

Quo Vadis (1951) is one of those movies where if you start watching it, you got to finish it because it's one of those epics that gets going good the longer you watch. It is a grand spectacle that gets even grander, where even the Sir Peter Ustinov, who I have yet to see in Spartacus (1960), another big screen epic I own on DVD, does a good job portraying an evil Emperor Nero. Robert Taylor is awesome as Commander Marcus Vinicius and Deborah Kerr as the beautiful hostage Lydia. This is the movie that saved MGM from bankruptcy, and this is my only pick out of any movie made in 51, if anybody else decides to go ahead and see this, I'd recommend it.

Quo Vadis

DIRECTION 87% Style and a fascinating look at anicent times and people with realistic scenes of grand roman power! Watch out for the lions, no unrealistic computer graphics here!

ACTING 79% Very good in many scenes by the leads which doesn't distract from the main story.

EDITING/SPECIAL EFFECTS 94% The combat scenes are realistic and tension filled!

PLOT 81% A fight for survivor in a Roman city with romance in the backdrop.

STRONG WORDS AND VIOLENCE ETC. 92% No strong language here.... but seeing nice humans being killed in such a way may make you think this is not a family movie.

MUSIC 50% Suits the atmosphere, but is not that noticeable.

SOUND 87% Those animal sound are realistic to me!

HOOKABILITY 89% The bigger the viewing screen the more attractive Qua Vadis feels to you!

LASTABILITY 93% You might want to skip the middle talking section and get into the real drama.

OVERALL 89% Could have been better acted and added more emotional elements, you are going to be feed to lions you know!

While Robert Taylor gets top billing in this epic it is Peter Ustinov who steals the show with his convincing over the top Nero. Stunning location work in Rome gives this epic a lush feel.

While the special effects look somewhat feeble now they were cutting edge for the day. It was also very factual for the day and did not fall into metaphors as it could have.

This film is a must see and should be required viewing for all politicians! Perhaps Gray Davis might have learned something if he watched it.

Ancient Rome never looked so good--especially in the MGM technicolor of 1951. Costumes, sets, photography and music are all of a high order and all of the performances are competent. Two outstanding ones were by Leo Genn (Petronius) and Peter Ustinov (Nero). Ustinov 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 a mighty score, and scenes with sentimental and Christian overtones (sometimes too extended and talky). All combine to make the kind of spectacle MGM knew would be popular at the box-office. It won eight Academy Award nominations with Ustinov and Genn both nominated for supporting roles.

Finlay Currie as Peter was delightful but the screen writer took too many editorial licenses with his dialogues, especially unBiblical events and comments. More than definite Catholic influence.

I enjoyed this spectacle as much as The Robe, and Demetrius and the Gladiator, and but not as much as The Ten Commandments And Ben Hur.

Finally I found Jay Robinson's role of Caligula in the Robe and D&tG easier to hate the Utinov's Nero.

Even so, I Highly recommend this movie.

Of the half-dozen film versions that have been made from the novel by Nobel Prize winner, the Polish Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846-1916), the most successful and widespread was that of Mervyn LeRoy. Counting on the cast with such star-studded figures as Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov, he adapted the grandiose epic and romantic story set in the era of decline and disappearance of the first dynasty of Roman emperors (Julius-Claudius, 27 BC-68 AD), of which the last was Nero. In the middle of the splendor and expansion of one of the most powerful empires that ever existed, a young patrician and Roman soldier falls in love with a beautiful foreign host in a Christian home. He will soon understand, to his great disappointment and torment, that he will not be able to seduce her like any Roman woman, nor make her his mistress. These are hard times. Nero is a bad emperor. His mental disorders and his excesses are leading to Rome to chaos and ruin. He is surrounded by both competent men (the elegant, epicurean and intelligent Petronius, the great philosopher Seneca) who try to breathe in some sanity, as ambitious men who seek only their own recognition. Nero's delusions outline a threat that will soon become a reality. All Rome will pay a very high price. Both the fire that will devour the city, and the arrest and extermination of many Christians who live peacefully with the rest of the population, will mark a deadly time. Ligia, the beloved of the soldier Vinicio, is Christian, with which it is in serious danger. He, leaving behind his résumé of superfluous delights, throws himself head first to his authentic love and, realizing that he can only earn it with his heart, will do everything possible to save her from the city threatened by fire and the clutches of the Collective madness that is wreaking havoc with the Christians, making them suffer for believing them the authors of the catastrophe that destroys Rome. This epic drama is a reflection of an era in which Christianity had expanded enormously and was beginning to suffer the consequences of constituting a form of religious worship that was still seen in Rome with suspicion. It is also the reflection of the end of the first imperial period that happened to the Roman Republic, with the intermediate transition of Julius Caesar. A love that has to overcome great obstacles, the progressive maturity and religious conversion of a man deeply in love, the exaltation of the new faith, the annihilation of reason and peace at the hands of a lunatic ruler, and the destruction of much more Which is the most important city in the world. The fall of past beauty, of a past glory that is consumed in the flames and vanishes with smoke. Nothing will be the same. But the cycles are always renewed, and new lives and new illusions will continue walking along the path of the times, becoming the eternal question: "Where we go?"

One thing you won't find anywhere I looked is that Quo Vadis was done as a movie called "The Sign of the Cross" by Cecil DeMille in 1932. Why he changed the name I have no idea. Perhaps he changed the story enough to merit a name change. DeMille also had something called a BUDGET to worry about. The 1950s version had a big budget no doubt.

Anyway the 1950s version is a good film. The 1932 version is worth seeing as a compliment to this one. Both versions were recently played on a TV channel I watched. The 1950s version fits more into the generation of that time, with Christian beliefs being openly popularized in America. How we have changed. The 1932 version is more like a drama but also has the same basic messages as the later film. I just found the earlier film more tender [but just as meaningful]. There are no lions or violence as opposed to Quo Vadis 1950 which is violent.

I really noticed how much more loquatious the 1950s version is. It is LONG and probably doesn't need to be so. Granted, Quo Vadis 1950 was a high-budget film with lots of perky special effects. I could take it or leave that.

Watching this film again these several decades later, it struck me how audiences in the early to mid-20th century were awed by the sheer scope and magnificence of the occasional epic film being made back then. "Quo Vadis" and other grand epics were made when Hollywood was at its best. The sheer number of extras - up to 30,000 people used in some scenes dazzled young and old alike. The costumes, equipment, sets and settings were all spectacular in this film, as in most about historical events of the past. And the fictional stories, most often based on novels, were so well scripted and acted, that one so easily became emersed in the film.

"Quo Vadis" is based on the 1896 novel of the same title by Polish author and Nobel laureate, Henryk Sienkiewicz. Although this isn't the first movie made from the book, it's the grandest by far. This is the story of early Christianity in Rome under the reign of Nero, and the burning of Rome and start of persecutions of the Christians. Many of the characters in "Quo Vadis" are real historical figures - Nero, Petronius, Poppaea, Tigellinus, and Seneca of Rome, and Peter and Paul of the Bible and early Christian Church. The story revolves around a fictitious couple who find love amidst the hedonism and growing madness of Nero.

Robert Taylor is a Roman legion commander, Marcus Vinicius, who returns to Rome after successful battles in Europe. He is ready to enjoy the revelry and pursuits of pleasure when he meets an adopted daughter of a former great Roman general. Deborah Kerre plays Lygia, and is Christian along with her parents. They and several other actors give superb performances. Peter Ustinov as Nero and Leo Genn as Petronius are exceptional The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards. Although it didn't win an Oscar, Ustinov won a Golden Globe as best supporting actor.

Some modern historians question the blame of Nero for the great fire of Rome. But most accept the early Roman historical accounts. Some point to Nero's incompetence as leading to the fire outbreak. Still, others say that it was inevitable because of the crowded city. And some say flatly that Nero couldn't have started the fire because he wasn't in Rome at the time, but was 35 miles away at his summer palace. Well, the surviving tradition sides with the early lore that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. He didn't play a violin but did play a lyre which was a stringed instrument like a small harp that is played by plucking or stroking the strings. The film shows that and Nero's imagined talent as a poet with some lyrics he recites to some plucking on the strings.

While there are varying theories as to whether or not Nero burned Rome, the one that seems so naïve is that he couldn't have done it because he wasn't in Rome at the time. Isn't that like saying that Hitler didn't kill the Jews because he was never within a hundred miles of an extermination camp? Nero was lauded for the speed of rebuilding the city after 70% of it was destroyed in the July 64 AD fire. It was done in Greek style architecture. And, Nero already had the plans and a model of his new palace already made before the fire.

Nero blamed the Christians for the fire and used it as an excuse to outlaw the faith and start the bloody public killings in the theater.

The early Christian martyrs were burned at the stake, and mauled and killed by lions - all for the enjoyment of the emperor and spectators. Yet, numerous stories circulated among the Romans at the time that tied the fire to Nero. The earliest written Roman historical sources that reported this are no longer extant. But later historians reported on the earlier writings, and Nero's blame for the burning of Rome, one way or another, has lived throughout history. Nero was most known for his indulgences with theater, music and poetry, considering himself a great talent. He was just 17 when he became emperor on the death of his adoptive father. After a few years of struggling with his mother over rule of the empire, he murdered her, and later had his wife and a brother-in-law killed. He soon became a tyrant, and after a rebellion unseated him and led him to flee, he committed suicide at age 31.

The film doesn't show all of this, but it gives a good picture of the reign of Nero, the persecution of Christians, and decadence amidst the culture of the Roman Empire in the first century AD.