Quo vadis (2001) User Reviews

Awesome version of classic novel as spectacular as the original

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 25 January 2006]

During 63 a.d. Roman , a prefect official named Marco Vinicio returns from war and he get home his uncle Petronio , friend of emperor Nero . Vinicio confesses him he is enamored Ligia , a mysterious and virginal young whom has known in the Aulus Paucius's home . Marcus Vinicius meets Lygia in Rome and falls in love . But she is Christian and doesn't want anything to do with him . In a party Vinicio tries to utilize to Lygia but she is helped by Ursus who carries her at a place of Christ's supporters . Later on , Christians are accused of burning ancient Rome . Vinicio risks his life to save his lover .

The motion picture is a larger than life production upon Nero and the Christians persecutions with lots of crowd scenes . It's realized on a giant scale with moving fighting scenes , dramatic scenes , spectacular sequences and bloody gladiator combats in the arena and lions attacks and Christian martyr . Depraved emperor want to get rid and he orders use like meat for lions and burn them on stakes . The Polish cinema's first great financial success but with unknown actors for general public although allegedly are famous in Poland . The picture is profitable by public tendency for ¨sword and sandals¨ genre re-initiated by ¨Gladiator¨ . The film is a definitive version of the classic novel by the Polish Henryk Sienkiewicz (Nobel prize winner) . Special mention to enjoyable music score by Jan Kaczmarek (Oscar winner for ¨Finding Neverland¨). The movie obtained three ¨Eagle Award¨, the greatest prize of Polish cinema , to the best gowns , production design and support cast. The motion picture was well directed by Jerzy Kawalerowicz (Pharaoh) . Rating : Good and entertaining.

Valuable as Faithful Adaptation, Flawed as Epic Movie

[marcin_kukuczka · 7/10 · 3 August 2008]

MGM Roman epic QUO VADIS? (1951) has remained one of the top movies among epic buffs. However, its popularity is not so much raised by its source novel but rather by its grandeur of colossal spectacle and magnificent performances. Therefore, after more than 50 years, the movie is still highly entertaining.

But a thought may arise...the Noble Prize winning novel QUO VADIS? is not only a historical account of the Rome in Nero's cruel reign but, foremost, a truly insightful, human and thought provoking novel by a great Polish novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz, the novel that masterfully develops human struggles within the corrupted world ruled by an artist, a cynic, a debaucher, an arsonist, a "beast." That thought absorbed the late director, a Pole Jerzy Kawalerowicz, who, in 2000, took up a task to adapt QUO VADIS? for the screen again. As I have seen both the movie and the TV series, my comment will apply to both of them and will hopefully result in a detailed analysis.

I would like to analyze this movie in two separate aspects: first, its depiction of historical period, its recreation of the first century Rome (epic features including wardrobe, sets, etc) and, second, its faithfulness to the novel.

Kawalerowicz's vision of Rome turns out to be much weaker than LeRoy's in 1951 film. It is short of that lavishness, scenes of crowds, magnificent wardrobe and that tension of splendor. The Roman Empire appears to be "closed up" and laconic. Consider, for instance, the burning of Rome which is condensed, hardly shows the event realistically being a glimpse on the seemingly small group of people in panic. Nero does not sing playing his harp while viewing the burning city from his balcony but he sings on an aqueduct in the middle of a sunny day. The palace occurs to be deprived of that grandiosity we found at LeRoy's. These flaws go in pairs with some technical weaknesses. Let me mention, for instance, the famous bullfight where Lygia is tied naked to the bull but Ursus appears to keep control over the animal from the very beginning. The bull barely moves and people's reactions are fake. Therefore, the movie faced strong criticism and, indeed, if we consider QUO VADIS? in terms of its recreation of Rome only, it is a flawed epic.

However... The movie is a very faithful adaptation of the novel and catches the gist of what Sienkiewicz wanted to convey. First, this has to do with the characters. The director develops Chilo Chilonides (Jerzy Trela) the character that was almost skipped in the American version. The story of this man who is once ironically called "the king of the state of wickedness" is so psychological that the entire movie about him would suffice for a meaningful story. His character indeed makes one find forgiveness meaningful and conscience universal. Chilo is beautifully portrayed by Jerzy Trela in a magnificent performance. In Nero's court, we have an accurate insight into "Nero's evil spirit" Tigellinus (Krzysztof Majchrzak) who prompts most crimes of the mad emperor. The depiction of Christian characters is also very accurate. What strikes us among Christians is the living example they give to the pagans and thanks to that example, they convert many people. In this respect, I would like to mention the arena scene - this movie really supplies the viewer with the gore of it, the camera goes in between the martyrs and you as an observer are really affected by the depiction. What touched me most is the baby consumed by a lion while the whole crowd is being mute to this tragedy as if it were totally unnoticed. The movie also depicts the arbiter of elegance, Petronius (Boguslaw Linda), as a witness of dying Christians (in accordance with the novel). That is what I like most about 2001 QUO VADIS? It makes use of the themes developed in the novel.

As far as the performances are concerned, there is a great acting and a poor acting. The leading cast Pawel Delag as Marcus Vinicius and Malgorzata Mielcarz as Lygia are good though Delag sometimes leaves much to be desired. He, unlike Robert Taylor, does not clearly portray his character's glorious way from the triumph of conquest to the triumph of spirit. He appears to be very sympathetic from the beginning, no proud Roman leader at first and a devoted believer later. Michal Bajor is not very good as Nero but it is not the looks that make his performance flawed but his talk. I liked Boguslaw Linda's portrayal of Petronius and Krzysztof Majchrzak's Tigellinus. Except for the aforementioned Trela, Franciszek Pieczka does a fine job as Apostle Peter, a calm hearted fisherman of Galilee who once left his barge and gave his total self to the Lord.

Finally, I would like to add one more feature of the film: its ability to talk to viewers' hearts. Unlike many epics that draw our attention rather to the spectacle, this movie gives us an insight into particular moment of the human history at the dawn of the new faith. It seems to ask a viewer a question of importance: What is it to be a person? Is it possible that one human feasts and laughs watching lustfully the other one dying in horrific pain? Is the world really mute to the moving cry of a little baby consumed by the beast of hatred, political correctness or indifference?

"Quo Vadis Domine?" "Whither Goest Thou, Lord?" Peter asked Christ on the way. He heard the answer "To Rome, to be crucified the second time" The memorable question that appears at the end of the movie seems to be the question of many people of our times: "Where are you going, Lord?" people who subtly predict the answer in their hearts: "To the innocent who constantly suffer most"

A truly waste of money, theirs and mine

[muchmalignedmonster · 5/10 · 19 July 2006]

After seeing again Mervyn LeRoy 1951's version of the novel, still memorable in many respects, I venture to watch Kawalerowicz's more recent and supposedly expensive polish film last night. Well man... the movie cannot be more horrible. It's in fact no more than a "TV quality ancient story film", maybe a little worse (oh) thanks to the bad acting ("special" mention to Michal Bajor as Nero), indifferent scenario and horrid direction (could this man be the same who directed long ago the pretentious, but interesting Pharaoh?). A truly waste of money, theirs and mine. And yet, all this said, the movie is redeemed and still watchable mainly for one reason: Rafal Kubacki, proud of showing us the power of a beard and an hairy chest… Not an actor, but a very fine specimen indeed.

A great book, a great movie.

[Catca · 8 October 2001]

Jerzy Kawalerowicz's Quo Vadis is a great adaptation, based on the novel by the Nobel Prize winner, Henryk Sienkiewicz. This is one of those films which make you wonder: What are our priorities in life? You cannot just leave the cinema and go back to reality and forget what you've seen. Wonderful acting is an unquestionable virtue of this Quo Vadis. Saint Peter played by Franciszek Pieczka, is not the esteemed, serious Saint Peter we can see on paintings or sculptures in churches, he's not this stern guardian at heaven's gate, the one who keeps the key to heaven. Ke is an eye witness of Christ's life and death, and he is a sage you may ask for advice in difficult moments of your life. He is one of us - the man who understands the love of young people - Marek and Ligia, and doesn't find anything wrong in it.

Jerzy Trela, in my opinion, in the role of his lifetime as Chilon, starts off as a comic character, as a cheater, plotter, unscrupulous liar, who isn't afraid to bertray people causing their death. For such a role, so comic and tragic, a great actor is needed. Jerzy Trela is undoubtedly a wonderful artist, the right actor for this role. I was crying with laughter at the beginning, and of emotion at the end of the film, watching his Chilon Chilonides.

A good idea, I think, was giving the role of Neron to a singing actor, Micha³ Bajor. This red-haired artist created a wonderful character, despite the role being so difficult. His musical and singing talents were spot on this film.

The best female performance was Ma³gorzata Pieczyñska's role of Acte, the only woman who really loved Neron - a love expressed so convincingly.

A breathtaking scene is the fight between Ursus (Rafa³ Kubacki) and the bull, especially, considering there were no computer or other special effects. Although Rafa³ Kubacki clearly isn't a professional actor, his fighting skills and sheer on screen power are worthy of respect.

Quo Vadis isn't a Hollywood style film. This film is not like Cleopatra or Gladiator. Comparing Quo Vadis to these films is a pointless exercise. The only thing these films have in common is the place of action: ancient Rome. The rest is quite different. The last scene of the film (I hope you will watch this film, and see this scene) begs the question: "Quo Vadis XXIst century world?"

Feels like a hybrid between a Catholic mass and "I, Claudius" TV show

[airen · 6/10 · 6 May 2002]

Having read several rather unfavorable reviews of the movie, I went to see it with quite low expectations. I was not disappointed: the movie was not a total loss, but left me with a sense of horrible loss of $18 million (the movie's overinflated budget). The movie's very long and it drags on mercilessly. The editing is the worst I have seen in a long time: the wonderful sets were completely underexposed by the shabby cinematography (or the film edit). Cinematography is very "narrow": it constantly focuses on the close-up action and the actors themselves, and with a complete lack of scenic shots and good panning, leaves the viewer with a sense of watching "I, Claudius" on a big screen. In fact, "Quo Vadis" would watch much better as a TV mini-series than as a big screen feature. The sound effects are underwhelming, the music uninspiring. And most visibly, the visual effects are sub-par, even for Polish cinema. The rubber doll of Glaucus on a burning cross was laughable and the lion scene was quite frankly unmoving. Same clip of a woman being tackled by a lion being repeated at least twice and the the lions sometimes looked like they were toying with the Christians. Where exactly did the $18 million go Mr. Kawalerowicz? There is a debate currently in Poland about "old masters" and their recent superproductions. While I believe that anyone has a right to film anything, I do think it's time to stop subsidizing "lifelong dreams" of the "old masters" and devote the money to younger directors with less egos and more original ideas.

Fast forward to lions and save your time...

[daeris · 3/10 · 9 August 2006]

I really would like this film to be good. Especially due to my general opinion that Polish, and generally European, historical movies are usually better than those American ones. But this one is not. All right - this is not a typical "historical movie", after all it is based on the novel that was written in a specific period of time in Poland, from the specific point of view and the story is partially just an excuse to depict some universal thoughts. But then is it not the case for almost every novel? Nevertheless - the movie is bad and it is not the novel fault but the director and actors and decoration and music and... almost everything. There are but few older Polish performers who act here as they should - not a great performance but can do. The rest, that means all the younger staff, is just "plastic" or "wooden" figures who instead of performing seam to read they quotes from prompter as they would saw them for the first time. Some of them are not professionals, but others are and thats a shame... The decorations are crappy - carton boxes imitating marble (which becomes really interesting during the Great Fire of Rome when you can watch burning marble!). The music is just awful! It almost never corresponds to the picture - I especially like those moments when the epic "symphonical" music accompanies someone who for example just walks the stairs from one scene to another... The second part of the movie is a feast for sadomasochist - constant martyrdom of poor and pure Christians. Thats from the book - all right. But should it be as much of it as there is? I know - them Romans were bad and ruthless but after five minutes of gore I got the full picture all right so next fifteen minutes of another sadistic ideas just tired me, bored and then just made me laugh. But hey! there were some good performance in those scenes! "Poor Christian" are pathetic but lions performance is outstanding! No, really - this is the only really good thing since the lions were trained perfectly. No bullshitting with computer animation - just real animals and stuntman. Save your time and fast forward to lions...

Terrible in many respects, bar the lion scene.

[pawcio · 2/10 · 20 October 2001]

A film which many were looking forward to. Not surprisingly as it is the most expensive film in the history of the Polish film industry ($18 million). Unfortunately, it doesn't pay off. One wonders where all the money went. I watched the film with two friends, one an actor who is a good friend of many of the actors in the film. After ten minutes, he was shaking his head, stating with unbelief at the terrible acting of the lead player Pawel Delag (Vinicjusz). We wanted to like the film, but we felt we were watching a TV play and the film was only saved in moments by the formidable acting of Boguslaw Linda and Jerzsy Trela. I must, however, applaud the excellent lion scene in the arena. With this I don't have qualms - excellent effects - this only saves five minutes of an over long boring 180 minutes. Oh, and one more thing, at times I felt I was watching a soft porn movie - what a shame!! That fact in itself was a big "turn-off", and they have school children watching this. Very sad.

A faithful and moving adaptation of a Nobel prize-winning novel

[danpatter2002 · 10/10 · 27 April 2002]

This new Polish version of a Polish novel, written in the 1890's by Henryk Sienkiewicz (who won the Nobel prize), is an excellent movie, gripping, exciting and deeply moving. Unlike the 1951 MGM version, which was a costume epic typical for its time, this new film seems to be about real people caught in the maelstrom that was Nero's Rome, in the struggle between decadent paganism and the emerging new faith of the Christians. The book is a favorite of mine and the screenplay's fidelity to the novel is highly commendable. The actors are vivid in their portrayals. This Nero, for instance, seems like a real madman, not a fine actor hamming it up (as did Ustinov in the 1951 film). The Petronius is excellent, the two leads both young and handsome. The conversion of Vinicius and Chilon are convincing and moving. This nearly-three-hour film moves quickly and covers a lot of ground. The ending gave me pause, and it's a stunner. The movie deserves a much wider audience than it's going to get in the US, because, face it, most people who go see foreign language films are not the same people who go to see religious, historical epics. I hope it gets a video release, at least. Hollywood would have given this film costlier and better special effects - the burning of Rome is a bit anemic - but Hollywood could not have filmed this movie as honestly, truthfully and brilliantly.

Lesson 1: How to waste your chance to make great movie with the budget of USD 18 MM?

[Mr_Slau · 4/10 · 19 September 2001]

I didn't like this movie. I was planning to see a good movie, based on the novel of the Polish Nobel- prize winner Henryk Sienkiewicz. I thought director has made some good movies in the past and hence the new super production with the budget of USD 18 MM (highest budget Polish movie ever had!) with many of the Poland's leading actors. I was wrong. The movie was crappy. It was boring, it was amateurish, and some actors would better do staying at home or sticking to their original professions (Rafal Kubacki- world judo champion- Ursus). Director together with the camera operator must have been asleep at their movie courses as there was no action. Even the scenes that could have been dramatic were not. It was boring at the most.

Unless I got it wrong. Maybe they were planning to make a farce, comedy and yet I didn't get it? Even if so I wouldn't rate it over "5". You just don't make that kind of movies in the year 2001. You could have made it in the '60's, '70's but not today! If I were you dear reader, I'd rather go and see "Gladiator" again. Or if you want to stick to Polish historic movies- go ahead and see "Ogniem i Mieczem" or "Pan Tadeusz" or "Pan Wolodyjowski" instead.

One of my thoughts during whole 2h 50' of the show was: "What the heck did they do with the money?". I personally hope they had many really good parties on which the money was spent as I can't see at even half of the budget in the movie. Maybe salaries, clothes, locations were expensive but I don't believe it was THAT EXPENSIVE.

One of my friends comment about "QV" was: "The movie was real misery. I regret I went to see it". I don't think one can make more insulting comment about the movie and this alone should discourage you from spending money to see it.

Worth The Wait

[mesadallas · 8/10 · 13 December 2005]

Filmed in 2001, the latest version of Quo Vadis is finally being released in a region 1 version with English subtitles. I waited SO long for the opportunity to see this film and it does not disappoint. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a "must see," I found it to be very well made on most levels and I recommend it without any reservations.

The costumes, sets, and special effects are very realistic and believable and the film makes a sincere attempt to stay true to the historical events and people on whom the story is based.

Although the burning of Rome could have been improved upon, the scene of the Christians being torn to pieces by the lions makes up for it. This scene is not over-the-top gruesome, yet remains horrifying to watch. The terror of the Christians is clearly felt,likewise, the scene of Christians being burned alive.

While every actor/actress in this film did an admirable job, the part of Petronius (played by the great Boguslaw Linda) is outstanding. In fact, Linda may have been just a little too good. Although the character of Petronius is an integral part of the storyline, the character is still that of a supporting role, however, Linda's portrayal is so powerful that in every scene in which he appears, the attention of the viewer remains riveted on Linda. This can at times make the acting of everyone else seem a little less convincing. Linda does not intentionally upstage, but rather he is so good that he can't help but stand out.This is one one of Boguslaw Linda's best performances and I would love to see him cast in more dramas.

Although this film is not preachy, it is about the early days of Christianity and the final scene of the film does leave a Christ centered message.This message can be interpreted several different ways, but to me, the message was that faith in Christ as well as obedience to his teachings is still imperative in the modern world and a necessity in order to achieve salvation. Hence the title of the film, Quo Vadis?; where are you going?

the worst film i've ever seen

[Citizen Kion · 1/10 · 23 October 2001]

i'd be proud of this movie but i can't. it's rubbish. except of some actors' playing this film is from some kind of another film dimension.

boring, ghastly filming and without even one positive mark. keep away of such movies if you want to take care of yourself. i don't like "gladiator" but it's ingenious comparing with the polish "movie". greetings.

Somewhere between Pan Tadeusz, Przedwiosnie, and Ogniem i Mieczem

[dawidbleja · 18 November 2001]

Inevitably, this film begs comparison to the three other recent Polish historical "super-productions", Ogniem i Mieczem, Pan Tadeusz, and Przedwiosnie. Quo Vadis isn't made with quite the elegance and visual grace of Pan Tadeusz, nor is it quite as dynamic and classy as Przedwiosnie, although it is elegant, visually graceful, and dynamic. It shares similarities, unfortunately, with Ogniem i Mieczem as well: at times it reverts to Hollywood-style kitsch, such as with close-ups that take themselves too seriously, and tacky, forced, over-dramatic music. However, these elements are both less frequent and less pronounced than in Ogniem i Mieczem; and - if you allow yourself to ignore them - are overpowered by many positive elements.

Boguslaw Linda is great as Petroniusz. This is, I think, one of his best roles for years, and he produces the grace and dignity of a Roman gentleman very well. Michal Bajor's characterisation of the naive, vain Nero, at once contemptible and likeable, was for me one of the nice surprises of the film.

The scene where lions tear Christians apart in the circus is shocking and heart-wrenching, and looks almost as realistic as I could imagine is possible. The famous scene where Ursus battles the bull in the circus is, if not as spectacular as the lions, similarly effective.

Not a masterpiece, but a very good film. 8/10

Awful

[donkey_90 · 1/10 · 28 July 2005]

It's one of the worst movies I've seen.

I hate polish literature but polish movies...

I hate the most on the world. Hopeless special effects, awful scene on the stadium - but in the one of the scenes in this piece of s**t some man had... Adidas!

And in the scene at the end of this 'movie' Holy Peter was going by path, and we could seen... modern Italy!!!

And all moments when the lions eating the people are looking very artificially and they don't make impression on spectator of this movie. For it all the plot isn't curious. NOT RECOMMENDED

Beautiful cinematography, great acting, moving story.

[Dorota · 10/10 · 19 November 2001]

I love this movie! The superb story comes from the writer whose books were once described as ready made movie scripts written one hundred years too early. Finally we have a movie that does justice to this breathtaking piece of literature. All the elements of a great story of Shakespearean proportion are here: love, revenge, murder, sacrifice, insanity, along with great actors and beautiful cinematography and on top of it a wonderful, universal message of love, a message we need to hear over and over, and what a great way to deliver it. This movie not only returns a great love story to movie screens but shows impulsive, greedy and egocentric behaviour in all its repulsiveness. It is a great clear lesson in morality, no ambivalence here, cowardly bad guy Nero falls and with him the corrupt and degenerated elites of the Roman Empire. All actors are great, somebody said "too theatrical", yes, this is what acting is about. All actors show depth of the characters they play especially Petronius - Boguslaw Linda, Nero - Michal Bajor and last but not least Chilo- Jerzy Trela. Ligia (Magdalena Mielcarz, journalism student and model) and Marcus Vinicius (Pawel Delag) are simply young and full of natural beauty, Ligia is absolutely stunning in her innocent and luminescent beauty.

I love the last scene of the movie, a beautiful tribute to the tireless pilgrim and messenger of love on this planet John Paul II.

Make sure you don't miss this movie.

Excellent Film, Timeless Story.

[the_professional · 10/10 · 21 November 2001]

Jerzy Kawalerowicz's Quo Vadis was both a compelling and evocative production. The story, based on love amidst persecution is a timeless story that was portrayed effectively thanks to the fantastic directing by Mr Kawalerowicz, the breathtaking special effects and the exceptional acting by some of Poland great actors. Although the film was 3 hours long, at no time was I bored or even afterwards, the film left me thinking about those times and the various themes conveyed in the film. This film is truely an epic and deserves to be credited as such.

I don't understand Polish

[zdormike · 26 October 2004]

Like summary states Polish is out of my leauge....but this quite wonderful movie isn't for me or any epic movie fan. VERY well done..with great sets,costumes and visuals. (I think the cinematography is beautifully done) The main characters look right and knowing the 1951 version of "Quo" as I do, I can follow their actions easily. In fact their appearance seems to make them more believable than previous versions of the movie.Sequences set in the "Circus" are realistic and in final scene closer to the novel. The entire movie is pretty wonderful and I think it's $18 million dollar budget shows. It's lavishly done. A worthy successor to MGM's version. Best, Mike M.

Haunting and brilliant

[steven-222 · 9/10 · 31 March 2006]

Nobel Prize winner Henryk Sienkiewicz is Poland's most revered author; this 2001 adaptation of his world-famous novel is the most expensive movie in Polish history. It's lavish, to be sure, but its real impact comes from the power of its storytelling and the timelessness of its themes.

Sienkiewicz was a devout Catholic, and writer/director Jerzy Kawalerowicz's intent is undoubtedly pious — one viewer called QUO VADIS a cross between a Catholic mass and I, CLAUDIUS — but to me, the Christian point of view neither diminishes nor enhances the basic integrity of the story, which is about human beings caught in the maelstrom of Nero's reign. Some, like the pagan Petronius, tread the razor's edge, as must all artists and intellectuals who live under an autocrat (Eisenstein under Stalin comes to mind). Others, like Vinicius and his beloved Lygia, happen to be members of the particular cult which Nero chooses to scapegoat after a fire ravages Rome and destabilizes his regime. This is a tragedy repeated throughout history: when a catastrophe strikes, like the burning of Rome — or the attack on the World Trade Center — the scapegoating impulse of the populace will be exploited by evil men to bring about the death and suffering of innocent people. Whether Christians are the victims or the perpetrators of such scapegoating, it is the duty of history and of art to record the suffering of the innocent — which QUO VADIS achieves, hauntingly and brilliantly.

Michal Bajor as Nero surpasses all other screen incarnations of the deranged emperor. Boguslaw Linda plays Petronius, the shrewd survivor, with the multi-layered subtlety the role demands. The other characters are equally well cast, from Judo world champion Rafal Kubacki's towering Ursus to Agnieszka Wagner's blood-chilling Poppaea. Special kudos to Jerzy Trela in the tragicomic role of Chilo Chilonides. The musical score by Oscar-winner Jan Kaczmarek is also memorable.

Although QUO VADIS was edited for theatrical release, I saw the original 6-part TV series that's available on DVD from MGE with English subtitles. The pace never flags and the sprawling novel is well suited to serial format.

Impressive achievement

[pompierson · 9/10 · 7 September 2012]

Having just watched the 1951 "Quo Vadis" (as well as "The Robe" and "Demetrius and the Gladiators") I find this version over all excels the 1951 version, although Ustinov in '51 did make a more memorable Nero. Genn and Linda each make a splendid Petronius. The Polish hero and heroine I liked better, and while I think Hollywood '51 did a nice rewrite, the Polish version is truer to the Sienkiewicz novel. With computers the arena scenes of the 2001 version prove superior, though grislier, and the bull scene with Lygia is remarkable, however they brought that off. While the 255 minutes made for two evenings (actually we watched the '51 version over two evenings also), I highly recommend this one. The bigger your screen the better. While the religiosity gets sensitive treatment, it seems less overbearing than it sometimes gets in the Roman vs Christian epics of the early '50s.

Kick ass!

[bayankaran · 3 December 2001]

This movie impressed me greatly. Seeing the grand coliseum scenes, movies like Gladiator feels like cheap imitations.

Excellent acting, pacy, and sensitive, I consider Quo Vadis on par with UNDERGROUND, the Emir Kusturica classic.

Hope a wider audience can catch this in theaters, even a DVD wont pay justice to the wonderful sets, costumes etc. I saw this in the Polish film festival in Chicago.

The best ecranisation so far of this famous novel

[Optimus_ · 9/10 · 29 April 2003]

Well acted,respecting the novel's plot and spirit, excellent costumes. IMO this is the best ecranisation of this Nobel prize novel,beating by far the 1951 classic.The only debatable part lasts a few seconds at the very end.

Best movie yet!

[deniolyu · 10/10 · 26 December 2006]

In my personal opinion this movie is one of the best, if not the best, film's ever made. The story, acting, costumes, film set is great, a true masterpiece work of art, better yet, authentic and factual. Factual was the attack on Christians by the evil...

I have voted 10/10 for this movie because not only did I enjoy it, it reminded me of Christian history, once you see it, you'll understand.

If you like movies like the brilliant Braveheart movie, Apocalypot, Potop, Gwiazda, Ogniem i Mieczem you are going to love this one too.

A true masterpiece that Hollywood will never produce, because fact the facts; Hollywood never produced anything worthwhile of our precious time, just pure filthy, stinky garbage.

Beautifully filmed and still a great story

[Nancy Douglas · 8 February 2002]

I thought this was one of the most beautifully filmed movies I've ever seen. I found it much more visually interesting than the earlier Hollywood version, and a lot more sly maneuvering is shown, making it more than a simple love story. I thought it showed considerable character development and made me want to learn more about that period in early Christianity.

Poznan,Poland(14.09.01) - extremely beautiful women - and what a love story!

[marcintomasz · 8/10 · 23 September 2001]

I thought the movie was not bad at all. One person who commented on this movie said it was boring, well it was not Gladiator if that is what you wanted to see. It was about the resistance of people who believed in Christ and were persecuted by the Caesar. I thought the acting was good. The lion scene could have been a better.

This movie has very much dialogue and not much action but I believe that is what they wanted - not a Gladiator type movie. They focused on the theme and a love story. If they had done more action, the movie would be 4hours. It was almost 3.

Had they made it into a Gladiator type movie then they would have been criticized for trying to cash in on Gladiator popularity. I

If I were to give a best actor award I would have given it to Boguslaw Linda who played Petronius.

Even though it is not the best movie - I would recommend a person see this movie once for a history lesson.

QUO VADIS {Theatrical Version} (Jerzy Kawalerowicz, 2001) ***1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 8/10 · 29 April 2011]

Being closer in length to the 1951 Hollywood spectacle (even if it has been some time since I last checked it out: interestingly enough, this was showing on Italian TV just as I was going through the remake!), it is the version of the Henryk Sienkiewicz novel (which was Polish to begin with!) to which this bears the most comparison – that said, it originated as a 274-minute mini-series! I had watched the earlier 1985 TV production (which was broadcast, unbeknownst to me, on Cable TV during Holy Week!) when it emerged, so do not remember it…while the 2 Silent adaptations were very much streamlined affairs. Anyway, having been previously impressed with 3 other Kawalerowicz efforts, namely MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (1961), the likewise sprawling PHARAOH (1966; though watched so far only in its shorter English-dubbed variant, I did recently acquire the full-length cut in its original language) and MADDALENA (1971), I was quite looking forward to catching this.

Actually, despite my familiarity with the plot (also because I only came across the Silent versions during this time last year), the 161-minute running-time moved at a fair clip (only slightly dragging its feet during the last act) and gripping one's attention all the way through! Incidentally, I half-expected this to be eroticized and blood-drenched as per the route taken by the ROME (2005) TV series (by which I was so disillusioned that I did not even bother to catch the Second Season!): nudity and violence were employed throughout but this was done discreetly and, for the most part, efficiently (such as having Lygia tied naked to the bull fought and killed by Ursus, evoking Cecil B. De Mille's remarkably similar Roman Empire opus THE SIGN OF THE CROSS {1932}, and the realistically-charred corpses of the Christians recalling Oliver Reed's burning at the stake in Ken Russell's THE DEVILS {1971}).

Truth be told, at first I was wary of the too-youthful heroes (Marcus Vinicius and the afore-mentioned Lygia), whereas Petronius was depicted as a bit supercilious, but eventually they grew on me (Lygia in particular bearing a classical beauty that is hard to ignore!). While Nero was fine (his come-uppance, though occurring a long way away from the Palace and does not come by his own {albeit assisted} hands, is well-handled nevertheless) and, perhaps thankfully, far removed from the buffoonish (if star-making and Oscar-nominated) characterization given by Peter Ustinov in the 1951 film, Poppea's was severely undernourished so that the makers did not even deign her of an exit (let alone hope to emulate Patricia Laffan's memorable one, death scene included, in the earlier Hollywood rendition)! As for the 'giant' Ursus, he was nowhere near the size of the formidable Buddy Baer (for this and the reasons mentioned above, the all-important bullfight is not as impressive here!) but the actor concerned still made the best of his significant part. Even so, the most compelling portrayal was that of the shifty Greek (Chilo Chilonides)…whom I do recall from at least one of the Silents but, frankly, not at all when it comes to the Hollywood epic (where he was played by the unfamiliar John Ruddock)!

By the way, one thing that irks me in all previous versions of the tale, however, is that while Rome is shown being famously devastated by fire, its re-emergence never is: it simply goes from being there to being decimated to being there again! In this case, however, the titular words – ostensibly spoken by Saint Peter to a ghostly Christ when he meets Him going to Rome while he himself is fleeing – occurs here, effectively, at the very end in a modern-day Rome with the Vatican dome in the background…whereas in, say, the 1951 version, we had gotten a conventional mix of romantic trappings and unwarranted sentimentality at the fade-out!

Feels like a rushed production, not doing any justice to the novel

[marek-14 · 27 September 2001]

I recently saw this film during my vacation in Poland, there was a lot of anticipation for this film due to the fact that it was the first Polish production of the famous book, and because it was the most expensive Polish film production in history. However the film failed to live up to its expectations on may levels. The beginning seems rushed, I remember there being more development in the novel than was shown in the movie. I could understand if the filmmakers wanted to speed up the tempo but, in this case they missed the correct pace and as a result it distanced me from the characters and plot. The movie slows down as it progresses but by that time I was already too far away to really care about what was happening. Another place where it fails is in the casting of the characters. Ligia is played by a model, who has not done any acting prior to this role, and it shows. She is never able to convincingly portray any emotions, which is another reason why I did not care much for her. Considering Ligia is one of the key roles in the film, it should have been cast with an actress with more experience, the film makers seemed to value looks over experience, and in my opinion it was a bad choice. The casting of Boguslaw Linda as Petronius raised some doubts too, as this is an actor who is frequently type cast into action roles. However his performance was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie, was he was able to break away from his mold, and provide a solid and enjoyable portrayal of Petronius. Lastly the movie fails on its production value. It is hard to believe that so much money was in fact spent on the film. Many of the scenes look like they were set in a studio and not Rome. Which again distanced me from where I was supposed to be. The special effects leave something to be desired also. They look like TV quality effects rather than effects created for a film. I hope a large part of the budget was not spent on them. The movie had a lot of potential, and it should have been given a better treatment. Polish cinema can do much, much, better, and hopefully someday it will. A lot of money was spent on this movie, it's too bad that more thought did not go into it as well.