Very disappointing...

One of my all time favorites.

i must have seen a different film!!

good back-story, and good acting

NOTES: A sequel to "The Robe", this movie was nowhere near as successful at the box-office with a domestic rentals gross of just over $4 million compared to the previous picture's $17½ million. In Australia, the movie came in 18th at the ticket-windows, which is probably its position in the U.K. and North America as well. Certainly it took good money, but considerably less than its predecessor.REVIEW: Competition is the key word here. The movie is competing with "The Robe". It fails of course. And the players are competing with each other as to who can give the most over-the-top performance. Robinson wins easily, though he has the advantage of all the best lines. Mature's hamminess in fact seems often embarrassing, but at least he's a trier. Michael Rennie is a dead loss. So is Barry Jones. And naturally, Richard Egan. I don't even remember Anne Bancroft. But good to see Ernest Borgnine in a villainous role.The budget is not as full-blown as "The Robe", though good use is made of standing sets. Daves' direction appears stolidly routine. And photographically the film shows up early CinemaScope's defects (fuzziness, distortion, blurring) even more than "The Robe" Obviously, less care was taken as the movie was hurried into release.

Talk about guilty pleasures. I saw this film for the first time when I was about 8-years old. Back in those days you really only saw movies once - with mum and dad at the local cinema on Friday night. But my memory wrapped around this film almost as if I had a rewind button inside my head. It was one of those big-screen epics that made an impression on me.With your Roman Empire movies, your best bet is to set the story in the reign of one of the three mad emperors - Nero is tops, but Caligula and Commodus are the next best thing. Someone like Augustus with his stable, 40-year reign is just a little too sedate when it comes to drama - a bit like the Eisenhower era.Set in Rome during the reign of Caligula, all Demetrius (Victor Mature) wants to do is hand over the robe of Jesus to Peter (Michael Rennie), and lead a quiet life as a potter. Instead he has his faith shaken, and ends up in the arena where he dispatches many opponents and a streak of tigers. Along the way his most dangerous enemy turns out to be Messalina (Susan Hayward), the wife of Caligula's uncle Claudius. It takes Peter and a good buddy from the arena, Glycon (William Marshall), to guide him back to the light.Well that's the story; the script is there to keep the spectacular arena scenes apart, and clear the set for Jay Robinson's viperish and eye-poppingly campy interpretation of Caligula. Despite tigers, dancing girls, oiled muscles, nets, tridents and short swords, the movie would have been pretty heavy going without Jay.Victor Mature is on screen for just about the whole movie and for the most part is either angry or anguished. I've always thought he was pretty good for a guy who once told a club, which did not accept actors as members, that he wasn't an actor and he had the reviews to prove it.One actor who was perfect in his role was Richard Egan. He plays Dardanius, a gladiator with attitude, and he looks the part with more muscles and teeth than Burt Lancaster.Susan Hayward gave Messalina some of the same medicine Jay Robinson gave Caligula; together they keep the movie from getting too serious. I love the way Messalina does a complete turnaround right at the end to wrap the whole thing up in about two minutes flat.Debra Paget is beautiful. Michael Rennie has gravitas and William Marshall is imposing - two great voices in the one movie.Although technical aspects weren't things I noticed much back in the 50's, I can now appreciate how Franz Waxman's score gave the film spirituality and depth. Waxman was a composer who contributed intelligent scores to every film he did without repeating himself.I must admit I still have a soft spot for this film; the arena scenes alone are worth the price of admission.

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.

Filmed at almost the same time, this film was a fitting sequel to "The Robe," considering it did not have the star power of the earlier film. None the less it loses some of the reverence of the first film, as Demetrius, so passionate a Christian in the first film, seems to give in and give up on it all too quickly in this one. The tie-in of the final scene from "The Robe" as the opening scene to this movie was a good advertising ploy, and the musical score of Franz Waxman melded well with the earlier Newman themes. The powerful insanity of Caligula is once again handled well by Jay Robinson, who brought the character vividly to life, as I remember from my Roman History studies. If the Rome of those days was as charming as depicted in these films, I would not have minded living there and then. The performances of the cast, especially the minor characters, was excellent, although Mature was still awfully stiff in his performance. But a good sequel over all.