Ketrivie
It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.
Lollivan
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Stephan Hammond
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
deniolyu
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.
muchmalignedmonster
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.
airen
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.
Nancy Douglas
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.
