Khartoum

That British Empire, it got around in its heyday. You couldn't go far without stepping on some territory that Great Britain had an interest in. So with so big an empire, things didn't always go well, and in steps film and movies. Today's entry is 1966's Khartoum, an epic story about a little-known part of history (to me at least) with some impressive scale.

In 1883, an English general marches into the Sudan with 10,000 Egyptian troops looking to capture or put down a rebellion of Muslim zealots being led by the Mahdi (Laurence Olivier), believing himself to be the one appointed by Muhammad as a savior. The army is massacred to a man, leaving the British government in a spot.  The Prime Minister, William Gladstone (Ralph Richardson), doesn't want to commit a British army to the Sudan to resolve the situation, but what other measure can be taken? A solution is found in the form of a British military hero, General Charles "Chinese" Gordon (Charlton Heston), the man who helped rid the Sudan of slavery. The plan seems doomed to failure -- the British admitting to him they will only offer military assistance as a last ditch effort -- but Gordon takes the job just the same. What is his reasoning? Can he accomplish a mission with little hope of success? What does the Mahdi have in store? It's all going to be played out on an international stage.

I love a good epic from The Alamo to Spartacus, Ben-Hur to Lawrence of Arabia. This 1966 epic from director Basil Dearden doesn't quite have the huge scale of those other movies, but it is most definitely a gem. It clocks in at a modest 134 minutes (not quite the 3-hour behemoths) but accomplishes a lot in its running time. 'Khartoum' is based on a true story about Britain's quasi-involvement in the Sudan during the 1880s, filming on location in Egypt to give it some authenticity. Most importantly, it has the feel of an epic from the look to the far-reaching story to the music (composer Frank Cordell's score is solid) to the action. It doesn't have quite the reputation or following of so many other historical epics from the 1950s and 1960s, but it is well worth seeking out.

Who better to lead the way in this epic than Mr. Epic himself, Charlton Heston? Here's a case of some excellent casting. This is an underrated performance in a career that featured plenty of memorable roles, his Gordon interesting because there's so much mystery. A military hero, he's religious, loyal, intelligent, stubborn, and so much more. Does he take on this mission because he believes he can accomplish the impossible? Or is it ego, his vanity? Is it more than that? Is it something else? Whatever the answer, this is a layered, deep character who possibly only has one for sure intention...to do good. Gordon himself -- read about him HERE -- was a fascinating person, and Heston more than does him justice. We see all the sides of Gordon, a capable leader, a strong military strategist, and a man brimming with personality. It's easy to see why people believed in him, why people followed him and turned to Gordon when times were tough. An excellent performance from Heston.

The depth of the cast isn't the cast of thousands we've come to expect from an epic, but what's there is excellent. Olivier's part isn't huge -- kinda an extended cameo -- but once you get past the point that the very British actor is playing a very Muslim Arab, it's a good part. His scenes with Heston's Gordon are a high point, two Hollywood legends going toe-to-toe in quiet, underplayed scenes dripping with tension. Richard Johnson is excellent too as Colonel J.D.H. Stewart, the one officer granted to Gordon, working as his aide who sees the writing on the wall with their desperate mission. Richardson leads the government contingent as the wishy-washy prime minister, Michael Hordern, Hugh Williams and Ralph Michael as his government tools. In the military department, Nigel Green plays General Wolseley, the army commander tasked with "rescuing" Gordon, while Peter Arne plays Major Kitchener, the signal corps officer sent somewhat close to Khartoum to aid the defense. Also look for Johnny Sekka as Khaleel, Gordon's house servant, and Alexander Knox as a British official working with Gordon in Khartoum.

Enough with all this acting stuff, let's talk about some epic scale! I liked the story and the characters, feeling like I really learned something from this historic story. What resonated most though in 'Khartoum' was the impressive scale from three extended battle sequences. The opening massacre really sets the tone, the Mahdi's army swarming down hillsides at an exhausted army. Seemingly thousands of extras fill the screen in an amazingly tone-setting sequence. The middle action sequence has Gordon's forces holding off a nighttime ambush of the Mahdi's forces while the final assault on Khartoum packs the screen with Gordon's small forces in the city and the Mahdi's army charging the city in endless waves. Cinematographer Edward Scaife and second unit director Yakima Canutt (a former stunt man, a hugely underrated name in Hollywood stunt/action history) film right there in the dirt and sand with the action. They put the cameras on trucks and speed right into the battle like cavalry charging into its own battle. Great, adrenaline-pumping sequences that belong in the conversation of memorable battle scenes.

I liked a lot about this 1966 epic. It's able to cover a lot of ground, the siege of Khartoum lasting almost a full year. Things never feel rushed as we get to know Gordon, his motivations (sort of), the international situation, the British "solution" to the plan, and the slow-burn Gladstone and Parliament use to hopefully resolve it all. While it's an up and close and personal story, the script from Robert Ardrey does a good job keeping it in an international perspective. All the while, the doom builds right up until the conclusion. I liked it a lot, the expansive look from the opening prologue narrated by Leo Genn to the desert scenes and everything in between. Highly recommended.

Khartoum (1966): ***/****

Tank Force

Running for two season in the 1960s, The Rat Patrol was a fun, little show following the exploits of the real-life Long Range Desert Group. Yes, it was ridiculous, four men taking on seemingly the entire German army in North Africa without taking casualties, but it was entertaining and a lot of fun to watch. Released in 1958, British war flick Tank Force seems almost like a dry run for the short-lived TV show.

Caught up in a chaotic back and forth battle, two British tank crews, one commanded by an American, Sgt. Thatcher (Victor Mature), and the other by Sgt. Kendall (Leo Genn), are captured by German forces. They are transported to a makeshift prison camp where hundreds of other Allied prisoners are being held in the Libyan desert. Kendall goes along with the flow, joining the escape committee and joining in on the effort to pull off a successful escape. Thatcher on the other hand is looking out for himself, planning his own escape without checking in with the rest of the camp. His efforts piss off the other prisoners, but he has his reasoning. An SS officer is headed to the camp to interrogate Thatcher who has no intention of being around for that questioning.

Directed by future James Bond director Terence Young, 'Tank' is a forgettable if entertaining WWII story. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it and probably won't feel the need to revisit again anytime soon. Part tank battle, part POW escape story, it's heavy on action and short on story and any sort of reality. It is entertaining though, and a WWII story that focuses on the 1942 North Africa campaign is rarely dull. Desert warfare always makes for interesting, unique viewing, and an escape across that desert with murdering Arab tribesmen, Italian and German forces on patrol and waiting is a cool premise.

American and British, a natural and historical rivalry, so in step Mature and Genn. Their dynamic is easily the best thing going in 'Tank.' They both want the same thing but go about it in polar opposite fashion, Mature's Thatcher on his own and Genn's Kendall as part of the team. Only when their backs are against the wall do they decide to work together. Their rivalry actually consists of a handful of scenes where they argue back and forth, but seeing the brooding intimidating American -- with an interesting backstory at that -- and the stuffy shirt, prim and proper British soldier going at it certainly keeps the action going.

Filling out Tank's Rat Patrol is a small but international bunch, starting with Anthony Newley as Pvt. 'Tiger' Noakes, Kendall's driver and all-around optimist. Nothing seems to rattle him, and he's always ready with a joke like most of Newley's supporting parts were. Bonar Colleano plays Walewski, the Polish POW who teams up with Thatcher in his escape efforts. Ready and willing to kill to preserve his own well-being, it certainly adds a darker dimension to the group. Some other familiar faces include Sean Kelly, Percy Herbert, David Lodge and Alfred Burke as the other British prisoners. Future Bond-girl/villain Luciana Paluzzi has a small part to as Carola, an Italian woman aiding the escape effort.

Not surprisingly, the action is what will draw most viewers in. Escaping the prison camp, Thatcher, Kendall and crew cut a swath through North Africa a mile wide, taking out Germans and Italians wherever they go. It's a fun movie overall that isn't great and isn't bad. Entertaining and forgettable but not much else. Probably worth a watch if nothing else.

Tank Force (1958): ** 1/2 /****

Paratrooper

Is there anything more ridiculous that a person can do than jump out of a plane with a parachute? I say this as someone who would like to sky-dive at some point in my life, knowing the inherent and fairly obvious consequences that could result from said experience. Now let's add something to the equation. What about jumping out of a plane and landing somewhere where thousands of men with guns would like nothing more than to kill you?  Okay, so maybe not my best lead ever, but I thought it was good enough for a movie appropriately titled Paratrooper, released in 1953.

This British war flick was aired recently as part of TCM's Memorial Day programming (like many of my recent reviews), and was one I'd never heard of before stumbling across it on their website. The story sounded a lot like a book I was given as a little kid by my Dad, a book he had read as a kid about a commando raid in France trying to knock out a German radar station. As is the case with this movie, it was appropriately named 'Radar Commandos.' The story sounded interesting enough, the talent behind the camera impressive, and the cast had a couple names I'll always check out.

It's 1940 in England, and American volunteer via Canada, McKendrick (Alan Ladd) volunteers to be part of a newly formed unit of paratroopers. He doesn't tell anyone, but he has an aviation background, and more than that, experience with parachuting out of a plane. Joining the completely volunteer unit, McKendrick just wants to blend in and do his job like all the other volunteers. His superiors quickly see his talent and his ability to lead, but he wants nothing to do with a promotion. The training revs up as the paratroopers practice jumping out of planes. Their orders are coming though as the fighting intensifies against the Germans. First up on their list is a German radar station in France, but that's just the start. A heavily guarded German airfield also awaits them.

This is a lot like so many movies I've seen over the years. It's not bad mostly because the talent involved on both sides of the camera just wouldn't allow a truly bad movie.  On the other hand, it's not very good either. It is dull at times -- surprising considering the subject matter -- and so cliche-ridden in other segments that the story struggles to get off the ground. Director Terence Young would go on to direct three of the best James Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball), but this WWII venture doesn't have the same urgency or even a fraction of the entertainment value. Cliches are one thing though -- I love cliches, just about all of them -- but Paratrooper is undone by some just bizarre moments that seem out of place, some things I may be reading too much into and others that are just bad.

In an effort to save some money (I'm assuming), some green screen shots are used so painfully obvious and out of place that they're laughable. Ladd and fellow cast members stand close to the camera while footage of paratroopers training or tanks driving by is shown behind them. Ladd's McKendrick is also given a love interest...sort of... who really wants nothing to do with him but ends up falling for him because gosh darnit, he's just a good guy. Ladd has little chemistry with 22-year old Susan Stephen who was 18 years younger than him so that's always nice. Then there's Stanley Baker, typically a sure thing, playing a jump instructor. His acting isn't in question here...just his voice. He is dubbed so bizarrely that every time he speaks it just sounds odd. Just weird little things that pepper throughout the movie.

A saving grace in even a bad movie can be the casting, and above all else that's what drew me into Paratrooper. I was disappointed then because the script doesn't allow for much in the way of actualy character development. The more I see of Alan Ladd I lean toward thinking of him as a one-note actor. He's so calm, so even-keeled that his characters could be accused of being asleep. Ladd rarely shows emotion, and here his character's internal struggles and demons come across as a minor problem as opposed to something that's tearing him up. Leo Genn is your prototypical cold British officer, calculating and good at what he does but not particulary interesting. Harry Andrews gets to yell and scream as the unit's platoon sergeant, and Baker makes a quick appearance as the jump instructor. I recognize a bunch of other faces, English actors who always dotted these movies as background players, but like the leads, they don't make much of an impression.

Through all the tedium in the story, there are some solid moments. The attack on the radar station is well-handled if a little chaotic. I can't decide if that was the intention or just a by-product of some lazy filmmaking, but it's a cool sequence. The same goes for the raid at the German airfield in North Africa. The violence isn't gratuitious, but it is pretty graphic for a movie released in 1953 including a couple uses of blood squibs.  Unfortunately by the time these action sequences come around, I was bored with the movie, its story and its characters. Average in every way, but there are worse options to kill 90 minutes.

Paratrooper (1953): **/****

The Wooden Horse

Since I was introduced to the 1963 classic WWII movie The Great Escape as a kid, I've been a sucker for prisoner of war stories.  I've read books, seen movies, and watched documentaries about the lives of P.O.W.'s -- usually Allied prisoners -- as they fought the war from the inside of prison camps.  The courage shown by these men in continuing to attempt to perform their duty of escaping never ceases to impress me.  In camps specifically built to stop them from escaping, the prisoners concocted unique, innovative, even brilliant plans at getting outside the barbed wire and trying to make their way to freedom.

One of the first movies to show these efforts was 1950's The Wooden Horse, a British film documenting the story of British prisoners in a German prisoner of war camp in 1943. Movies like The Great Escape focused on a mass escape, a whole camp working together. Von Ryan's Express was a completely fictional story of a desperate mass escape that had no basis in reality. Other movies like Bridge on the River Kwai were about more than just prisoners of war, attempting to deliver a message about the war and what it does to its soldiers, bringing up questions of honor and duty. But in the early 1950s, a handful of British movies were almost documentary looks at prisoners of war, like The Colditz Story or here with The Wooden Horse.

A prisoner at Stalag Luft III in Germany, downed British airman Peter (Leo Genn) has seen countless escape attempts fail as the German guards foil most escapes before they can even get outside the barbed wire. His friend and fellow prisoner John (Anthony Steel) comes up with a plan just desperate and idiotic enough to work.  Building a movable gymnastic vaulting platform with a hollow bottom, the prisoners will sneak someone out underneath it into the compound. Then, while other prisoners use the platform as a means of exercise, one prisoner under cover of the platform will dig straight down and then out to the other side of the barbed wire. With some help from their bunkmates, including resourceful Phil (David Tomlinson), they go to work, the slow, dangerous work of moving hundreds and thousands of pounds of sand one bag full at a time. With the slow-going work proceeding at a snail's pace, will the German guards figure out their plan before the tunnel is complete?

There is a whole sub-culture of prisoner of war movies, a culture and knowledge I might take for granted as I write this review or even just talk about the POW movies in general.  Director Jack Lee doesn't have the time, sources, or budget to spend a lot of time giving background on the camp, a few title cards quickly explaining the situation. With nothing to do but sit around, these prisoners had countless hours to come up with plans of escape, and that's what they did.  These German POW camps were built specifically to hold them, the huts built hundreds of feet from the barbed wire so tunnels would be nearly impossible. The huts were built off the ground so sand from said tunnels couldn't be dispersed there. As desperate as it sounds, the 'Wooden Horse' plan was ingenious, and in reality the tunnel under the platform wasn't found until after the escape.

Like a lot of POW movies, it could be easy to get lost in the details of these highly involved, ridiculously detailed escape attempts.  But for 'Wooden Horse,' that's the strength of the movie. One scene shows the tunnel -- moving quite along toward the wire -- collapsing, a small hole opening up in the compound above. The prisoners must frantically think of something to cause a diversion to fill the hole, save their buried bunkmate, keep the German guards away, and do it all just seconds and minutes before roll call.  Perfectly simple in its execution, the scene is a prime example of how to build tension without any gimmicks, just a good twist.  The movie is at its best while in the camp as the tunnel digging gets underway.  A few montages show the tunnel proceeding, a process that ended up taking quite a few months.

What was disappointing is the second half of the movie after the actual attempt -- yes, three prisoners successfully escape.  The trick with these stories is that even getting out of the POW camps was a victory, but a small one.  These camps were hundreds of miles behind enemy lines in Germany and all over Europe.  The escapees now had to get out of a country full of military and intelligence officials frantically searching for them.  Unfortunately, none of the tension was really here after the trio of prisoners escaped, the story following Genn's Peter and Steel's John.  As they search for some means of reaching Sweden, the story even borders on boring when the momentum should be picking up, driving the story forward.  'Horse' limps to the finish, not quite sure where it should end, finishing on a note of dry British humor that didn't hit me right. It seemed too jokey for this type of movie.

No big names here in the cast although I've seen Genn in a few movies and know Tomlinson mostly for his acting in Disney movies, especially The Love Bug and Mary Poppins.  Without any particularly fascinating characters, they still manage to be interesting mostly because you're rooting for them to pull off this impossible escape.  Along with Steel as the bullheaded John, some of the POWs helping with the escape include Michael Goodliffe, Anthony Dawson, David Greene, Patrick Waddington as the Senior British Officer, Peter Burton and Bryan Forbes. I didn't recognize him at the time, but even Peter Finch makes a quick appearance as an Australian prisoner Genn meets in the hospital. No stars in the bunch, but several recognizable faces if you've seen any British movies from the 1950s and 1960s.  A good but somewhat disappointing POW story, one that could have been better, but is still worth a watch because you have to see this escape to believe it. It is available to watch at Youtube, starting HERE.

The Wooden Horse <--- TCM clips (1950): ** 1/2 /****

Moby Dick

Just the name of certain books have the ability to send chills down the spines of high school and college students.  War and Peace, The Grapes of Wrath, Moby Dick, and any number of books from authors like Hemingway, Joyce, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, and many, many more.  They're classics and are recommended for a reason, but that doesn't always mean they are good.  Honors English in high school and advanced English/Literature/Composition sure proved that to me.  Want the easy way out?  I avoided it during my high school and college career, but how about watch the movie?  I've never read Herman Melville's source novel, but I'm "halfway" caught up having seen 1956's Moby Dick.

Melville's novel is a pretty good example of a book students are afraid to even go near.  For starters, it's a long book no matter what edition you pick up.  That's not necessarily a breaking point because long books can still be good books.  More importantly though, what style is it written in?  Is it period appropriate? Is it heavy on words and vocabulary readers won't understand without looking up?  I had that problem with director John Huston's movie version of Melville's novel.  A movie with some issues, but a fair share of positives too.  Bear in mind I'm reviewing the movie, not the novel as I jump in.

It's 1841 and a young sailor Ishmael (Richard Basehart) signs up on a whaler named the Pequod with hopes of experiencing and exploring the high seas and making some good money in the process.  Even having sailed before on previous non-whaling voyages, Ishmael isn't quite sure what to expect of the journey that awaits him, but the crew seems a likable enough group.  There's second-in-command Starbuck (Leo Genn), officer Stubb (Harry Andrews) and a multi-international crew with men from all over the world.  For days though, no one sees the captain on deck, a man known only as Ahab (Gregory Peck), a veteran of the sea. When he does reveal himself, he delivers a speech about the success the Pequod's crew is about to have, but he has other plans.  Above all else, he wants to kill a white sperm whale named Moby Dick, and nothing is going to stop him.

Reading the critical reviews of this 1956 version, one aspect of the movie seems to polarize critics more than anything else; the casting of Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab.  I was surprised to read these complaints because I thought Peck's performance was one of the better things about the movie.  The criticisms state that he was too young an actor to play one of literature's most notorious characters.  Ahab was an old, grizzled veteran of the sea, his leg bitten off by Moby Dick, and now he wants revenge.  His descent into madness, his obsession in killing Moby Dick worked in terms of character and story. Peck admitted later in his career it wasn't his best performance, stating there was too much prose from the novel in the film.  For me, that was a problem throughout the film.  Peck's performance? Not so much.

My biggest complaint of Huston's film was the feeling of being talked at, of being preached to.  Many scenes drag on as characters talk in a very proper Victorian sounding conversation.  These are whalers, not exactly upper class, high end sailors so they should talk naturally.  Instead, much of the conversation feels stilted and generally a little off, and there is a lot of it.  Early on, Orson Welles makes a cameo as a priest giving a sermon about Jonah and the whale (ooooohhh, foreboding!) that moves at a pace paint drying would be jealous of.  These long-winded conversations take away from the movie's pacing which is otherwise able to move along at a good rate.  Authentic to the book in terms of being true to the source, but maybe not so much commitment would have been better.

I'll be the first to say that I know little to nothing about whaling and its history.  Seeing the movie's depiction of whaling certainly gives you an appreciation of how dangerous the job actually was.  Men in small boats leave their bigger ships and chase after whales near the ocean's surface, then hurl harpoons and spears at the beast until they're dead.  These are the scenes I enjoyed most as Huston gives us a feel of what sea life had to be like.  Because for every hunt on the waters, there's time where the crew is bored to tears waiting for some action on-deck.  I don't know if it was the quality of TCM's print or how Huston filmed the movie, but a washed-out almost sepia coloring certainly adds to the doom and gloom of this horrific hunt.

For a movie that clocks in at just under 2 hours, one thing I realize looking back is how little actually happens until the end.  I don't know about the novel, but the pacing is all over the place.  Ahab is introduced by face until 30 minutes into the film, Moby Dick doesn't make an appearance until the last 30 minutes, and in the end it all feels rushed, especially the sea battle with this giant white sperm whale.  Behind Peck, the cast is all right, Basehart wasted as Ishmael because he's given little to do while Genn solid as Starbuck.  I liked the movie, but the more I thought about it, the more problems I had.  Still, it's worth a watch, if for nothing else than for you to decide what you think of Peck's performance.

Moby Dick <----trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /**** 

Quo Vadis

Everyone has their favorite movie stars, but what about stars you dislike?  For me, I've never been able to understand Robert Taylor's appeal.  He is as wooden as can be and never seems to actually act.  His lines whether he's content, pissed or in love always come out the same...monotone in his already deep, flat voice.  Unfortunately for me, Taylor was in many westerns, war and adventure movies that appeal to me.  He isn't always bad -- Bataan is a classic -- but I've rarely come away from one of these movies thinking highly of his performance.

One of his more wooden parts comes in the 1951's Quo Vadis, one of the first Technicolor historical epics that include Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra, Fall of the Roman Empire and many more.  This is a BIG movie with a cast of thousands, gigantic sets, and an appropriately large story involving the growth of Christianity in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection.  But with all those positives going for the movie, Taylor is cast as the lead.  I don't believe he was the right actor to carry such a big production.  His stiff performance is the movie's weakest element in an otherwise enjoyable epic.

After a 3-year campaign, Roman legion commander Marcus Vinicius (Taylor) returns home to Rome triumphantly at the head of his army.  Staying at the home of a former general, Marcus is struck by the beauty of the general's adopted daughter, Lygia (Deborah Kerr).  He does everything he can to win her over but ends up driving her further away with his boorish, violent ways.  Somehow, Lygia does fall for Marcus but her Christian beliefs confuse him.  As he tries to win her back, Roman emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) goes about ruling his empire, always teetering on the brink of insanity.  Looking for inspiration, he orders Rome to be burned down, forcing Marcus to find Lygia and her family before the city is destroyed.

Stories set in ancient times have a romantic feel to them that is nearly impossible to ruin in movie-form.  Almost three-hours long, 'Quo Vadis' was a big-budget success that audiences flocked to.  Made in Italy, it is a beautifully shot movie whether the scenes are on the elaborate sets built for the movie or the quiet scenes set in the Italian countryside.  It's a very professional movie without a ton of heart, but so often these epics were about the spectacle.  No CGI in the 1950s so all those scenes of enormous crowds were actually filmed.  I've said it before, but there's always something appealing about a director actually filming something as opposed to creating it on a computer.

Other than Taylor's struggles in the lead, the cast is top notch if not instantly recognizable.  Kerr as the object of Marcus' affections is very good as Lygia.  Her character is a Christian and basically is given no flaws, making her feelings for Taylor's Marcus all that much harder to comprehend.  He basically forces himself on her, and when that doesn't work buys her.  All the while, he doesn't understand why she won't have him.  Other cast members making a strong impression include Leo Genn as Petronius, Marcus' uncle and one of Nero's closest adviser, Patricia Laffan as Poppea, Nero's slutty wife, and Buddy Baer as Ursus, a giant of a man devoted to keeping Lygia safe from trouble in whatever form it comes.

The romance storyline has its awkward moments but is decent enough when looked at as a whole.  The highlight of the movie though is Peter Ustinov as Emperor Nero, a role which earned him an Oscar nomination for a supporting role (Genn was nominated too but neither won).  Ustinov's Nero is often petty and childlike with a vindictive streak that has no bounds.  He is almost cartoonish in his performance of an emperor who fancies himself a demi-god and a portal through which the Roman gods speak to the people.  His performance is mesmerizing, both funny and frightening all at once, and the main reason to watch this movie.  You almost want to feel bad for him at times because he's so easily manipulated, but this is one crazy dude.

Another interesting sub-plot revolves around the growth of Christianity with the story beginning some 30 years after Jesus' death.  His apostle Peter (Finlay Currie) plays a key part in the story when being a Christian was forbidden and punishable by death.  Keeping their faith under wraps, the Christians meet secretly at night in some of the movie's best sequences.  In the finale Nero realizes his burning of Rome did not go over as planned -- who would have thought that? -- and blames this new fledgling religion.  They are burned alive and eaten by lions in the Colisseum in a remarkable sequence late.  It all makes for an interesting subplot when the love angle gets a little dull.

Not the best of the historical studio epics, but one still worth watching, especially for Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero.  I'd recommend watching this one on the TV, but it is available to watch on Youtube, starting with Part 1 of 22.  Get a comfortable chair before you sit down for three hours at the computer.

Quo Vadis <-----trailer (1951): ** 1/2 /****