Quo Vadis [Blu-ray] [1951] [Region Free]

Having read some of the reviews before I purchased, I'm writing this review based on my own experience. I purchased the Blu-Ray version – basically because I have a Blu-Ray player and the Blu-Ray is a development from DVD.My reason for buying the film was that I had seen it on TV in the mid 1960s when I was a child. It's not something a 10 year old boy would normally watch but I seem to remember it was around Christmas time and it was my parents who wanted to watch it. I do however remember the fil and it was that memory that prompted me to buy.Having looked at the Blu-Ray disc, I decided to purchase the DVD. Why? Because whilst I bought the Blu-Ray new though Amazon, I bought the DVD second-hand for little more than a couple of quid! It was no big deal. If the DVD was rubbish it was no big deal. As it turned out the DVD was very far from rubbish! So this is a review of both media:The Blu-Ray picture is sharper. The contrast definition is better. This is clearly due to the technology. Does this mean that the DVD sharpness and contrast definition is poor and spoils the enjoyment of the film? No.There are however some differences that are more immediately noticeable and will affect viewing.Firstly, the aspect ratio. The Blu-Ray is how it appeared on my parents TV in 1965. That TV has long ceased to exist. The TV I viewed the film on was a late model Sony 55 inch near the top of the range. The Blu-Ray player was Sony again, near the top of the range. I'm not bragging but mention it to set aside any deficiencies in playback – there weren’t any. In contrast to the Blu-Ray, the DVD's picture filled the entire screen. What this means is this:You pay's your money and takes your choice! You can opt for the Blu-Ray and have the improved image OR you can opt for the DVD and for a very small degradation in image quality have a full screen picture. I am not going to recommend either as this is a choice only you the reader can make.However: There are a couple of other points to take into consideration!Whereas the film is one a single Blu-Ray disc, it is on two DVDs. This of course is entirely down to the technology differences. Another fact that should be taken into consideration is the length of the film! It is approximately 2 hours 47 minutes! Having such a film on two discs as opposed to one is IMHO a definite advantage as one can more easily view the film in two viewing sessions. The other factor to consider is the cost; the DVD is cheaper than the Blu-Ray.I'll now make some comments about the film itself: This 1951 epic film was in fact based on the novel “Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero” written by Henryk Sienkiewicz in Poland (at the time part of the Russian Empire). As is not uncommon, the later film differed from the original book. The biggest deviation was in the final ending of the story in the Colosseum in Rome. I'm not going to spoil things for those who have not seen the film, however, were they to do a remake today the availability of CGI technology will enable different choices to be made that were unavailable in 1951.

Polish author Henryk Sienciewicz (pronounced I believe shee-en-kay-evich) published his novel Quo Vadis in 1896, and like The Last Days of Pompeii and Ben-Hur it met with instant and enduring international success (Henryk went on to win the Nobel Prize) both literary and cinematic. The story is set in ancient Rome during the reign of emperor Nero. The centurion Marcus Vinicius falls in love with christian girl Lygia but Marcus has caught the lustful eye of Nero's feline empress and when the mad emperor sets Rome on fire she suggests that the blame should be placed on the christians who are then rounded up and thrown to the lions. Sienciewicz weaves the characters of the apostles Peter and Paul into his story and the novel's title derives from the legend that as Peter is fleeing the persecution in Rome he encounters along the Appian Way a vision of Christ and the apostle asks the question "Quo Vadis Domine?" or "Where are you going Lord?". It is the answer to this question that convinces Peter that he must return to Rome and face matyrdom.Movies based on classical or biblical subjects were a staple of the silent cinema from the earliest days and there were at least two silent versions of Quo Vadis.Indeed the first version of 1912, followed by The Last Days of Pompeii and Cabiria, all made in Italy, can be credited with establishing the cinema as a serious art form. But with the advent of the talkies the popularity of the genre started to wane. Cecil B. deMille attempted to revive it in the early 30s with The Sign of the Cross (the storyline of which closely resembles that of Quo Vadis)and his risible Cleopatra and the team at RKO who gave us King Kong had another stab at The Last Days of Pompeii in 1935, but these movies enjoyed only limited success and after them the genre was pretty much stone dead. A revival started in the late 40s, first with Fabiola, a Franco-Italian production, and then in Hollywood with deMille's Sampson and Delilah. MGM had had Quo Vadis on the back-burner for a number of years and it was probably the success of Samson and Delilah that spurred MGM on to have another bash at it in 1951 with no expense spared, and the result was a lavish, jaw-dropping spectacle which even in our age of CGI effects has few equals. The movie in fact was made in Rome, MGM figuring they could get double the value for their dollars in impoverished post-war Italy - hence the cast of thousands. The success of this blockbuster led to another 15 years of epic productions (and not-so-epic in the case of Italian sword-and-sandal productions of the 50s and early 60s) before once again fashions changed and the genre fizzled out until Gladiator inspired a brief revival in the late 20th century.The movie holds up remarkably well. The production values, the musical score by Miklos Rozsa and the casting are all superb (only Robert Taylor as the hero Marcus Vinicius is perhaps a tad too old and stodgy for the part). The one actor who leaves an indelible impression is of course Peter Ustinov at the beginning of his career who gives an enjoyably OTT performance as Nero, both hilarious in his deluded belief that he is a great musician and fatally susceptible to the malign influence of his empress Poppaea (the fabulous Patricia Laffan) and the flattery of his suave courtier Petronius (the uncle of Marcus played by Leo Genn. Petronius and Poppaea are based on real historical characters.)The technical quality of this 2-disc release is excellent, the digital remastering has resulted in a crisp picture with vibrant colour and Rozsa's brassy score sounds wonderfully sonorous. Some nice extras too including a documentary on the making of Quo Vadis from which I learned that at an early stage MGM were eying up Orson Welles and Marlene Dietrich(presumably to play Nero and his feline empress) and rather more seriously considered Gregory Peck for the part of Marcus Vinicius (another stolid actor like Bob Taylor, but he might have looked fresher and younger.) The documentary also gives an insight into how those monumental sets of imperial Rome and Nero's circus were achieved. A highly recommendable release then and the Amazon price makes it a bargain.There are two other versions of Quo Vadis you can consider. "It was longer than Quo Vadis" was an Aussie joke I once heard, the reference being to the MGM version. The 1980s TV mini-series, in which Klaus-Maria Brandauer gives an outstanding performance as Nero, actually manages to be twice as long, has none of the great dollops of spectacle and over-the-top performances that fitfully enliven the MGM version, and it's slow moving and a tad cerebral, one might almost call it an "arthouse" Quo Vadis. Hence this production often receives a rather negative critical reaction but unfairly so in my opinion. Its recreation of the Roman world is more authentic than MGM's and historically it's more accurate with the writers skilfully weaving into the plot of Sienciewicz's novel additional material from the ancient historians. The empress Poppaea is also correctly portrayed as a hapless victim of Nero's brutality rather than, as in the MGM version, his evil genius. Brandauer portrays Nero as a slimey psychopath, you don't dare laugh at this guy as you do at Ustinov's Nero.Rather closer to the MGM version is the recent Polish production which you may find difficult to track down with subtitles but if like me you persevere you'll be rewarded. It's a mighty impressive production and the final scenes in the amphitheatre are as impressive as anything you'll see in the MGM version or the more recent Gladiator. It suffers from a rather underpowered Nero but of the three versions it has the best-looking Marcus Vinicius and Lygia. In my opinion all three versions are worth watching, but maybe not one after the other.Finally, you may care to take a peek at the Sign of the Cross from 1932 which is available in the deMille collection (also reviewed by me.) Wilson Barrett's play, which he later turned into a novel, appeared almost at the same time as Quo Vadis was published circa 1896 and has a remarkably similar storyline, but the suspicion has to be that he engaged in a bit of nifty plagiarism. DeMille turned it into one of his most impressive movies with Charles Laughton giving a splendid performance as a pampered and blubbery Nero, likewise Claudette Colbert as a mean and evil Poppaea, and the climactic bloodbath in the amphitheatre is even gorier than MGM dared to attempt 20 years later.