Any thoughts on how these two films compare? FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE was an expensive late 60s epic that flopped and some say killed the historical epic. GLADIATOR on the other hand is said to have revived it. Oddly enough, they both have roughly the same plot, or at least the same historical inspiration-They both deal with the death of Marcus Aurellius (Alec Quiness in FALL, Richard Harris in GLADIATOR) who death is hastened (poison in FALL, smothered in GLADIATOR) allowing his corrupt son Commodus (Christopher Plummer/Joaquin Pheonix) to become Emperor. However Marcus had intended another heir, a general (Livius/Maximus; Stephen Boyd/Russel Crowe) who was a friend of Commodus, but now seeks to oppose him-although this is where the story really changes, as Maximus's family is killed, he is sold into slavery and eventually becomes a Gladiator, Livius is more fortunate. In both cases the hero has a fling of sorts with the Emperor's sister Lucillia (Sophia Loren/Connie Nielsen; Although Maximus is clearly more in love with his dead wife). Gladiator interestingly enough ends on a positive note, even with the hero dead, he's gone to join his family in the afterlife, and sanity might be restored to Rome; Fall of the Roman Empire, on the other hand, has the hero survive but he's rather disgusted by the state of things and the Roman Empire is up for the highest bidder-literally. Of course neither is truely based on historical fact; Commodus ruled for a much longer time than either film potrays, there was no rogue general openly opposing him, although he was really was quite nuts.