Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

kfarrington48 The Sign of the CrossThe "Sign of the Cross" is a Hollywood film made in 1932. Fredric March plays Marcus Superbus, possibly the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, who falls in love with Mercia (Elissa Landi) a Christian. At the end, they go to their deaths together in the Colosseum. Claudette Colbert plays the empress Poppea. Nero is played by Charles Laughton. It's a fairly spectacular film. There is an orgy at which Marcus tries and fails to seduce Mercia away from Christianity and into sin. Then there is the games in the Colosseum that end with the Christians being fed to the lions. Near the beginning there is the famous scene of Poppea bathing in milk; you may or may not get see a little more, a very little more, than was normal in Hollywood films of the time. The weakness is in the characterisations. When Marcus and Mercia first meet there is absolutely no chemistry between them and it is absent throughout the film. March is too lightweight for a senior Roman officer. He is neither Russell Crowe nor Stephen Boyd. Colbert's Poppea is no more evil than Amanda Barrie's Cleopatra. Colbert's Poppea comes across as being flirtatious and rather vacuous, but far more seductive than the Mercia of Elissa Landi. Although Nero was mad, I always imagined him to be far more dynamic than Laughton's version.

David Atfield How did DeMille do it? How did he make a film that is wildly decadent, revelling in the debaucheries of Ancient Rome, while still making it a moving tribute to the Christian martyrs of the time? The way he balances spectacle, comedy, drama, moralising and debauchery is pure genius! If you've never seen a pre-Hollywood-production-code movie before you may be surprised to see a glimpse of Claudette Colbert's nipples as she's bathing in milk, to see an erotic lesbian dance sequence, to see a naked young man sitting next to the very gay Nero of Charles Laughton! And then DeMille joyously recreates a whole day of gruesome spectacles in the arena in all their gruesome detail. But then, somehow, he switches the whole mood and, thanks to excellent performances from Fredric March, Elissa Landi and young Tommy Conlon, creates a deeply moving finale, that tragically anticipates the horrors of the Holocaust. An amazing film in every way, and so much better than "Quo Vadis"!

tonyodysseus This is an interesting movie. The similarities with Quo Vadis are striking and the ultimate provenance of the script may owe something to that other book/movie. I find it interesting to see how two movies made at different times deal with similar material. TSOTC has the piquant tang of Hollywood pre-code, with over-the-top depictions of Roman depravity. QV has a wild-party scene but nothing like that. QV has the technicolor look and feel of Ben Hur and basically conforms to standards of conduct which would not be challenging in America after the Second World War. Robert Taylor and Fredric March play parallel roles of the Roman aristocrat in love with a Christian woman. March was a much better actor than Robert Taylor, who was at times wooden (not exactly Richard Burton in The Robe). Taylor was a great deal older when he played this role and he seems kind of a strange choice for the "love interest" opposite Deborah Kerr. March was young and his performance was not as nuanced as what would evolve in A Star is Born and The Best Years of Our Lives, but he is still extremely good to watch; he never throws away a line. The sadism of the TSOTC colosseum scene beats anything in QV; the most interesting aspect is the expressions on the faces of the crowd. Ustinov versus Laughton as Nero is instructive. U. must have known L's performance and riffed on it; there do seem to be correspondences, but U's performance is more nuanced. TSOC seems to suffer all around from the newness of the talkie medium; the acting seems out of silent films with much wordless gazing, either love- struck or in horror. Elissa Landi's articulate Christian conviction may owe something to the first-generation of mass-media evangelicals (e.g. Amy Semple McPherson) who were making a big splash then. All in all, TSOTC is fine specimen of the toga picture.

ccthemovieman-1 This was a powerful and shocking movie, at least for people who see a lot of classic films, including movies from the '30s. I haven't seen this in quite a while but I never forgot seeing a nude Claudette Colbert taking a milk bath!However, seeing Christians persecuted was not entertaining to me. Although there is no gore, it's pretty brutal to almost see lions eating people, elephants crushing them, alligators ripping them apart, gladiators being speared, stabbed, torn up, etc., etc. And some wonder why a morals' code was instituted several years later?! I'm sure there were some outcries after this was released.The Christians, led by Elissa Landi, are inspiring in their bravery in the midst of all this persecution. One wonders how - in real life - they did it. In addition to the torture, violent scenes, this movie was shocking in its day for the nudity. For a classic film, to see all these bare breasts is indeed shocking.Regarding other actors, Charles Laughton was convincing as the sick, sadistic "Nero" but Frederic March looked more like a silent film star with all the eye makeup.Of a final note, it was interesting to see an "intermission" in this film, considering it's just two hours, but that was a long time for a film in 1932.