Demetrius and the Gladiators

c

source: Demetrius and the Gladiators

In a way it's strange that Victor Mature was so often regarded-- not least by himself-- as a leading graduate of the Cigar Store Indian Acting Academy. His normal expression is anguished, like Van Johnson's, but not a blank slate; he usually moves athletically, and his delivery of the Hollywood Higher Idiocy style of period-piece dialogue compares adequately with, say, Richard Burton's. Admittedly Mature's tones are less resonant but could, say, Robert Mitchum, have made more of the part of a Crucifixion witness turned Tribune of the Guards in wicked old Rome? In this particular slab of Trash Romana, Big Vic winds up slaying Caligula and enabling Claudius to become a rather better class of emperor, an incident which escaped Tacitus and Robert Graves. This climax (rather less dramatic than the destruction of the Temple in De Mille's "Samson and Delilah" which led to Mature becoming typed as a skirt-wearer and sword-wielder) follows two hours of typical early Cinemascope. Shot after shot parades nearly static groups of figures in medium close-up, on the presumption that the giant screen obviated the need for montage. This visual staidness and the faded colour make "Demetrius" hard to watch on TV. By 1959 and "Ben Hur", action was back with a vengeance, but here the stately direction by Delmer Daves does not quicken the pulse. Daves, who had started as a writer, always seemed more at home with talk than movement in his movies; trying to be "intelligent", he lacks the toppling absurdist grandeur of De Mille, so this sequel to "The Robe" is neither as pious as that Bible Belt-pleasing rediscovery of the anamorphic lens (which Hollywood briefly tried c. 1930) nor as gaspingly grandiose as "Cleopatra". It did not replicate "The Robe"'s success. Hayward, who rarely rose above her material, is insipid as that alleged nonpareil of wickedness Messalina: she escapes at the finish without even having to see the Christian light. The chief consolation is the screaming-queenery of Jay Robinson who returns as Caligula, America's answer to Kenneth Williams; but his meagre credits subsequently show that the Hollywood of the conformist 1950s found him hard to handle.

OK lets face it, this is not the Robe, but its a lot of fun. More action than the Robe and with the wonderful Anne Bancroft, and Ernie Borgnine in small but wonderful roles, it does have a lot going for it.William Marshall is wonderful (as always), as Glycon. Susan Hayward is aloof as the royal * who woos Big Vic and you can see her coming a mile away. Susan was overrated, she rarely gave a great performance despite some great roles. The biggest treat is Jay Robinson, who gets more screen time in this flick and is even better than in the 1st film. Of all of the Demented leaders of Rome, Love his performance or hate it, he will not be ignored. I think he was prefect for the mad, over the top Caligula. The guy just chews the scenery, and there is a ton of it! Its too bad drugs ruined Jay's acting career, as he had been on Broadway with both Boris Karloff and Kate Hepburn before this role, and he was only 24 here...

It's a pretty good story, actually, this sequel to "The Robe". As entertainment, it has plenty to offer. As history, however, it falls flat on its face. The only accuracy in the story of Caligula is that he was assassinated by one of his own guards. He is also played so outrageously hammy that it is hard to take him seriously. Caligula also wasn't the slightest bit concerned with Christians or Jews, and in real life largely ignored them. His successor, Claudius, played here as a fine old Roman gentleman who wished the Christians well at the end, in fact found them and the Jews both to be a bother, and showed them the doors of Rome at every opportunity. (Please note: with the one politically motivated action of Nero, real persecution of Christians did not occur until much later, under the Emperor Diocletian) And let's not forget the Empress Messalina, probably the most notorious loose woman in Roman history, who comes across here as just a cheating wife. But then - hey, I'm a history buff. The point is that despite these little problems, it is still a good movie, and Victor Mature is perfect as the toughened gladiator. It's a classic and still a favorite

If made today, they'd call this The Robe II. Mostly a beefcake fest and spectacle rather than a first class religious drama--which is what "The Robe" was. This one has lots of gladiator fights in the arena and "a day in the life " at gladiator school stuff. The action is quite excitingly staged, but lessened by the handicap of early Cinemascope, where close ups and even medium closeups looked distorted and were very seldom used. Susan Hayward is fun to watch as a sexually ravenous and manipulative noblewoman. Victor Mature confirms his acting chops (see "My Darling Clementine") by making a the struggling hero part believable, in a part that could have been cardboard rendered by many an action hero actor. The video quality on this DVD is disappointingly mediocre; Fox obviously didn't spend any money on restoration, as they do with many of their titles from the 1950's. Colors are muddy, and the print, while perfectly watchable, is scratched. Stereo sound is so-so, and at least on my system, I didn't hear any surround sound, which this movie certainly had (this was a significant aspect of early Cinemascope presentations). The actor playing bad guy Caligula gives one of the most hammy, over the top performances I can remember; he seems to have studied at the Simon Legree school of melodrama.

I thought it might be fun, with Jay Robinson over the top and Susan Hayward chewing scenery...... it really wasn't. The only sparkle came in seeing Ernest Borgnine, Anne Bancroft and Richard Egan in small character roles. Cheesy and boring. Skip it.

I am not a huge fan of the religious epics of the 1950s. For every good one, such as "Ben Hur", there seemed to be two turkeys--such as "David and Bathsheba" or "Samson and Delilah". Because of that, I have avoided watching "Demetrius and the Gladiators" for many years. However, after completing the task, I am surprised that I actually enjoyed the film very much. When Twentieth Century-Fox filmed "The Robe", they already knew that it would be followed up by "Demetrius and the Gladiators". In fact, the movies were filmed like one huge film and then separated into two as the studio was THAT confident that "The Robe" would be a big hit--which it was. And, for that matter, so was its sequel. Fortunately, you can watch either without watching the other. The film begins with a clip from the previous film--just before the two main characters (Richard Burton and Jean Simmons) were executed. Soon you learn that the Apostle Peter and his followers (including Demetrius--Victor Mature) are the keepers of the robe that Jesus wore to the cross. Oddly, however, the Emperor Caligula is very fascinated by the robe and insists he must have it. When Demetrius tries to hide it, he's sentenced by this loony emperor to become a gladiator--a sure death since Demetrius has vowed never to fight now that he's become a Christian. However, the lure sexy Messalina (Susan Hayward) and his own desire to live make it difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill this oath. What's next? See for yourself. There's no doubt about it--this film is a spectacle. It has huge scenes, huge gladiatorial fights and lots of beautiful sets and costumes. While it's not a fantastic film, the action is there and the film is fascinating. Part of this is due to the supporting performances. William Marshall shows what a wonderfully unsung actor he was. Had he been born later, his wonderful voice and acting skills would have made him a top star--something not possible for a black actor during this age. Additionally, while Jay Robinson's version of Caligula is not in the least bit subtle, it IS very entertaining and fun to watch. All in all, a decent film that is far better than I'd suspected. UPDATE: Since this review, I've finally seen the precursor, "The Robe", and was surprised just how bad it was compared to "Demetrius and the Gladiators. It's an odd example of a film whose sequel was better--much better.

This movie was broadcast this evening on a local "Christian" channel. I feel it's a public service to inform readers that this might possibly be among the worst movies ever made. Don't listen to the "opinions" on Amazon.com or other sites. While there may have been a serious budget for this film, the directorial inspiration is no deeper than that of a movie made by Ed Wood. The director was Delmer Daves, and he's as plodding as they come. He only uses medium and long shots, and this is guaranteed to drive the viewer mad. You never get a close-up—of anybody! He plops the camera in front of an ornate "ancient" set—about 50 feet away—then just keeps rolling, while the actors stiltedly declaim the most wooden dialogue ever written. Then there's the acting: Victor Mature, just horrible; Susan Hayward, a decent actress who only makes things worse trying; some fool named Jay Robinson, who minces through his lines like a pre-menopausal Boston fishwife. Then, of all people, Ernest Borgnine, traipses through the set dressed as a Roman tribune or such. What's most amazing is that all of these things never let up. Daves never tries a different camera angle: he moves to the next set, plunks down the camera, cries "Action!' and the actors perform each scene as if in a play, while the camera never moves...not anywhere. The continuity is nonexistent, to boot. The movie's highest redeeming factor is only that it could be used in a college unit on how NOT to make a movie. And it's not just that it's bad—it's that it keeps getting worse with every passing moment. In fact, the preposterous plot and the historical inaccuracies actually look good compared to the production values. It's Hollywood at its nadir, in a film that was later "sold" to the public as a piece of valuable religious history. Avoid this movie at all costs, unless you are on an LSD trip, in which case you might be able to follow the story and can get a lot of comic entertainment value out of the performances. Yet another bit of evidence that Hollywood is not a meritocracy; it is, instead, a "luckocracy"—anyone lucky enough to cash in is who gets opportunity. A vile film. Watch at your own risk.

Once you have seen this movie you will never ever forget Jay Robinson's performance as deranged but cunning Caligula.Is it great acting or just one of the greatest slices of ham ever put on film?I don't know but it proves the maxim that one actor can make a basically routine movie into a personal favourite."Demetrius" is in some ways superior to its predecessor "The Robe" -it lacks the ponderous religiosity,theres more action,and Caligula moves into centre stage.