Nero. Or the Fall of Rome.

This film may only appeal to fans of early silent cinema, but I thought it was interesting. The story is simple, the scenes are all played in a continuous long shot and the acting is very broad. But these characteristics were typical of most other films of the period, and Nerone has a visual richness that is unusual for the time. Apparently the Italian producer Arturo Ambrosio was willing to invest much more money in sets and costumes than producers in other countries. What makes Nerone effective, though, is that the scenes are staged and photographed with a sense of drama. By today's standards the film may seem tame, but audiences of the period were thrilled by Italian spectacles like these, especially the later ones which were much longer and much more spectacular. The Italian films of this era set a new standard for production values, and influenced filmmakers all over the world, including D. W. Griffith.

Remarkable that five years from this film, "Nero", that "Cabiria", with its outstanding sets, would be released. In just two years, the production values in "Nero" were made dated by those of "L'Inferno". Additionally, Pathé's Film d'Art had already set the standard in production values for historical spectacles higher than that in "Nero" with the prior year's release of "The Assassination of the Duke de Guise". Yet, Italy's film industry had only recently begun. Rapidly, the national cinema led the world in historical and literary spectacles, longer films and grand set design. Thus, this film is historically noteworthy for being an early entry to the Italian spectacle—but it's not of much interest otherwise.

"Nero" contains the dated tableaux structure, with title cards preceding and describing static shot-scenes, and is theatrical as a result. The sets, which are just cardboard and backdrops, are also no better than what could be found on the stage. For what they are, though, they're not bad. Although the story is set in Ancient Rome, the sets are all Renaissance with their linear perspective. The positioning of the extras also adds to the deep staging and the illusion of a kind of artificial deep focus. If I recall correctly, the same tricks were used in "The Last Days of Pompeii", released four years later by the same company. In short, the sets here are better than most from the time, but are, nevertheless, artificial, theatrical and dated.

Another effect of note in this film is the vision scene. The special effect, however, is simply a superimposition (or double exposure), which had been used in films for over a decade even by then and in photography for longer than that. The real roots for the composition of these vision scenes in early films belongs to magic lantern slides.

I really do admire this film because of its amazing production values for 1909. While the sets certainly won't rival those of later Roman epics like QUO VADIS or CLEOPATRA, the costumes were awfully good for a time when budgets for films hardly surpassed the cost of film! So, this is a standout film in this sense.

However, when it comes to the style of the film and its value as history, it is of dubious value at best. The acting seems very vague and the actors mostly stand around and wait for the next inter-title card--there just isn't that much action on film and it seems as if the director was only yelling out a few suggestions here and there as the actors ad-libbed. This really was the style of many early films. Plus, the story is pure hokum--as if it was written by someone only vaguely aware of the facts. It implies Nero had Rome burned and talks about his love for Poppea, but this is odd since most historians today doubt if Nero had anything to do with the fire AND Nero apparently stomped his "beloved" Poppea to death during a fit of jealousy!! So much for the romantic aspect of the film! So I advise you to watch the film for its historic value and if you are a lover of early cinema. Otherwise, the film is pretty easy for the average person to skip,...and maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

This short version of the story of the Roman Emperor Nero suffers from being tediously slow - not a failing of every primitive silent but it certainly is of this one.

Rolling in at 14 minutes it seems much longer and doesn't keep to historical fact for very long. Some bits are interesting though - Nero has visions because of guilt (which echo the visitations to the king in Shakespeare's Richard III to some extent). Now and again a performance comes to life but not that often.

An interesting curio, especially when you watch early attempts to create a believable setting to make the viewer think they are really watching something set in Rome. An Italian production which is interesting in fits and starts.

An early historical spectacle, Nerone is a forerunner of the likes of Cabiria which would five years later take the film world by storm. Today, it might look stagey, with some incredibly over-the-top acting at times, but it holds the interest more for what it signifies than the factually inaccurate story it tells. The costume and set design are far superior to most other contemporary films, giving at least some impression that the events we watch on-screen are actually unfolding in Ancient Rome rather than in a Turin film studio.

As you'd expect, Nero's a bit of a cad. He ditches his slightly dumpy wife Octavia when the younger Poppea catches his eye without a second thought, and then allows himself to be talked into killing the ex to clear the way for Poppea to become his new empress. So what we might possibly have here, in the form of Poppea, is cinema's first femme fatale - I certainly can't think of an earlier one.

As others have mentioned, the film is an uneasy mix of hokum punctuated by brief moments of artistic highlights. I certainly didn't find it as dull as some others seem to have done but, having said that, can see how this would chiefly be of interest to film historians and hopelessly completist film buffs like me...