Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

romanorum1 Marcus the Blacksmith (Preston Foster) is a content Roman: He has a lovely wife (Gloria Shea) and infant son. One day a reckless chariot runs down his small family and changes his life for good, as Marcus lacked the funds for immediate medical attention. But one does wonder where the Roman "police" were as there was an effective court/justice system. Anyway, the embittered Marcus decides that making money has become all-important (character change number one). As he has good size and quickness, he becomes a gladiator and earns much money. Upon discovering that one of his dead opponents left a young son, now an orphan (Flavius = David Holt), Marcus decides to adopt the handsome and helpless lad. Now adoption was not unusual in ancient Rome (but another character change for Marcus). Later, after being wounded in gladiatorial combat, Marcus can no longer compete in the arena. He becomes a trader in slaves and horses and becomes wealthy. Meanwhile an old woman, an oracle, tells him to go to Judaea to meet the greatest man in the world. Believing in a special prophesy, Marcus takes his young son to the Levant where he catches glimpses of Christ's Crucifixion. Marcus, though, meets with the local procurator, Pontius Pilate (Basil Rathbone), whom he believes is the great man (even though Christ had cured the ailing Flavius). When he is back at Pompeii, an older Marcus becomes the administrator of the arena spectacles. But by now his grown up son (Flavius = John Wood) has heeded the Christian message. Flavius aids runaway slaves to gain their freedom in far away locales, like Britain. A complication arises when the Romans conquer the island. Eventually Flavius is caught, imprisoned, and sent into the arena for his "crime." The helpless Marcus is unable to free his son. During one of the arena spectacles, Mt. Vesuvius erupts, sending the population into a general panic. It is up to Marcus to make a right decision (another character change) and redeem himself.Preston Foster's performance is adequate. Basil Rathbone, a fine actor, performs the role of Pontius Pilate nicely, especially the procurator's quandary. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent of the trumped-up charges, but was afraid of the people's reaction. He washed his hands in front of the mob (who, by the way, demanded that the criminal Barabbas be freed instead). Despite the bad decision, Pilate's philosophical and sensitive treatment is closer to reality than realized. The movie has a few flaws, especially the dating problem. My own research places Christ's Crucifixion on 5 April 33 AD (experts overwhelmingly place the year between 30 and 34 AD). Now it is an historical fact that the volcanic eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum occurred on 24 August 79 AD, or 46 years later. But the movie treats these two events as if they occurred just a few years apart from each other! Furthermore Pontius Pilate died around 38 AD, long before the eruption. There is also a difficulty with some of the Roman costume designs of Aline Bernstein. Furthermore the Romans never wore those globe-style caps although the Montefortino type of helmet did have a conical shape (like the Gallic model) but with a raised central node. Also Gaius Tanno's name is pronounced like GUY-USS, not GAY-US; Fabius is FAB-I-USS, not FAY-BIUS. Nevertheless, the historical inaccuracies do not detract from the entertainment value of the film. For the 1930s period the sets are good-looking, and the script is acceptable. Also, the special effects of Harry Redmond and Vernon L. Walker of the destruction of Pompeii are fine (and expensive) for 1935. The picture is accurate in showing that defeated gladiators did not always die in the arena (as their upkeep and training cost much money). Finally it was most interesting to see western celebrity Yakima Canutt's name as one of the stunt-men.

MartinHafer This film is a bit of a surprise, as you'd think this was a film by Cecil B. DeMille since it is a huge spectacle with a vaguely Christian message. However, this is NOT a Paramount film and instead the man behind the film was Marian C. Cooper--the same guy who had made "King Kong". And, incidentally, Willis O'Brien (the stop-motion guy who created Kong) did the special effects in this film.The film begins, not surprisingly, in Pompeii. However, it's decades before the eruption in 79 AD. A nice blacksmith (Preston Foster) is living a happy life. But, when his wife and son are killed, he finds himself willingly becoming a gladiator. In the process, he gains great fame as well as adopts the young son of one of his dead opponents. How does all this eventually lead to the life of Christ and the ultimate destruction of their town? See the film and find out for yourself! There are a few quibbles I have about the film (such as how quickly Foster goes from being a nice guy to becoming a jerk-face as well as the weird 'redemption' at the end of the film that will probably make theologians wince). But, overall, it IS entertaining and seems to have a little bit more depth in the characterizations than a DeMille epic. Entertaining even if the story lags a bit towards the end--and the effects were quite nice for 1935--even if they seem cheesy compared with those in use today.

telegonus The Last Days Of Pompeii tells the story of a poor blacksmith in ancient Rome who becomes a gladiator and in turn a wealthy man, while his son, upon encountering Jesus, grows up to become a Christian. The film is a spectacle from the middle thirties, after the De Mille manner, which is to say it tries to look big but is actually, upon closer examination, at best mid-sized. RKO didn't really have the bucks to make a film on as lavish a scale as they surely would have wished. The film has many flaws, but also virtues. It was made by the King Kong team of Ernest Schoedsak and Merian Cooper, who were very resourceful gentlemen, highly creative and not at all like other Hollywood film-makers, and therefore the movie has a unique style that's difficult to put into words. The best way I can describe their approach is to say that it's highly individual; its makers had their own way of doing things, and therefore told their their story, or more properly showed it, so that the movie doesn't resemble other films with similar themes. Also on the plus side is its cast, not of thousands, maybe of hundreds; more likely of dozens. In the leading role Preston Foster's anchors the film in a kind of emotional reality. He may not have been the most versatile of actors but he was a most sincere one, and he is excellent in the lead. Also good is Basil Rathbone as Pontius Pilate, surprisingly unhammy. It's a very good movie overall, hokey as hell but always watchable, and in the end, while the spectacle of Mount Vesuvius erupting isn't all it might be, the movie as whole at least holds firm, and I for one was moved by it, not to tears maybe, but in a more modest way, by the smaller, more intimate tale of a good man who comes to his senses too late, at least for redemption in this world.

margot-6 I first saw this film when I was a child and the impact it had on me has never faded no matter how many times I watch it, nor at what age. Every time I find some nuance I had not noticed before...it really is an unsung masterpiece. Try to see it with eyes unjaded by years of excess on the movie screen...for its time it had great special effects..a wonderful script, interesting casting...none so much as Basil Rathbone as Pontius Pilate..I have never seen better! Basil imbues Pilate with a sense of duty and conscience that fills the screen with its irony and pain at his dilemma. Marvelous! Preston Foster is often forced and hammy...but it did not distract from the enjoyment of the movie..in fact it was "a style" of acting in the thirties that many leads presented..actors like Fredrick March, etc had the same style...a leftover from the silent age when actors, in order to convey their sentiment used their body more to propel their feelings to the screen. An exaggeration of movement that lasted for a number of years until the realization hit that on the big screen with sound actors could be more subtle with their gestures. The story is , in content wonderful...holds my attention even after all these years of viewing. It is a fascinating story...a progression from a happy, hard working man with everything he could ever want, who loses it all in a very few days for lack of money. Bitter and lost, after having lost not only those he loved but losing his principles too to try to save them, he decides the only thing worth having is money..because it is the only thing that PROTECTS you. In the backround to all of this is the story of the Christ...not meant to be in the foreground but a backdrop to everything that happens to this man struggling with the heavy burden of his reality and his decisions. This is a beautiful film worthy of repeated viewing for its amazing messages...and there are many. This is a thinking man's film, a philosopher's film, a spiritualist's film, and a film for every man and woman searching for answers to the question "why?" What it ultimately leaves you with is HOPE. This is a KEEPER.