With a cast of thousands in and around Rome, director Mervyn LeRoy's 1951 adaptation of Henryk Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis was widely promoted as the most lavish screen spectacle ever released but it now remains most memorable for its over the top performance of Peter Ustinov, who has firmly implanted the image of crazy Nero on viewers forever. Although Jerzy Kawalerowicz's 2001 television mini-series production can never erase MGM's extravaganza, his 6 part, 2 hour 45 minute film rendition offers a far more nuanced portrait. With more development of the relationship between Roman officer Marcus Vinicius (Pawel Delag) and Lygia (Magdalena Mielcarz) and the role early Christians play in first century Rome, the newer version offers a more serious story of forgiveness and redemption. It's just not as fun without Ustinov torching Rome and chewing up his every scene.

Those who've seen LeRoy's 1951 film will find the plot and structure remain essentially the same; Petronius (Boguslaw Linda) once again is the most developed character. But here he's far subtler in the beginning as he skillfully serves as Nero's must trusted adviser, frequently convincing the emperor to alter his most outrageous plans by appealing to his artistic aspirations. Demonstrating great acting range, Linda dominates every scene he's in—and this is fine since his character is the most interesting in the novel itself. Highly literate and intellectual, Petronius continually balances Nero's whimsy with pragmatism until the emperor completely breaks with reason. A study in restraint, Petronius emerges as an ultimately heroic character.

Marcus initially comes across far more passionate, obsessed, and shallow than he does in the 1951 adaptation (well, maybe not shallower than Robert Taylor). Having witnessed young Lygia's beautiful naked body, Marcus lustfully declares that he must have her and blunders by striving to make her his concubine and trying to disrobe her during an orgy. Although she likewise is attracted to the handsome officer, she is a committed Christian and could never accept such an arrangement. Kawalerowicz takes his time developing this story as it evolves from lust to love to eventual spiritual conviction and union.

For a television production, the set pieces are remarkably elaborate and convincing (excluding the burning of Rome sequences where stock footage is combined with smaller sets). The ones that really mesmerized and blew me away are the realistic Colosseum scenes featuring the Christians and lions. Those may be a bit strong for some viewers; just note that it is NOT a good strategy to attempt running away from the hungry carnivores and not even children or babies are immune to being devoured.

Even though Mical Bajor's Nero doesn't provide the same campy fun, he still conveys the emperor's weaknesses effectively enough and doesn't dominate the movie's greater themes of religious conviction and ultimate redemption. Thus, some of the most memorable scenes from this lesser viewed adaptation are actually quite poignant and take on a more spiritual meaning. Without Ustinov, Henryk Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis is far less memorable but the movie stands as a far more serious and stronger interpretation of the Polish novelist's classic novel.