Plots(1)

Set before and during the Mount Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD, the film follows the plight of slave-turned-gladiator Milo (Kit Harington) who falls in love with Cassia (Emily Browning), the daughter of a wealthy merchant who has recently become engaged to Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland), an influential Roman Senator. As the mountain erupts and quickly destroys the city of Pompeii as well as its surrounding communities, Milo must track down his one true love before all hope of survival is annihilated. (Entertainment One)

(more)

Videos (2)

Trailer 2

Reviews (10)

3DD!3 

all reviews of this user

English Flat like a week-open can of Bud. This time it isn’t Anderson’s fault alone. A screenwriter’s mishmash of Gladiator, Spartacus and Dante’s Peak suffers from inane dialogs and mostly predictable plot. Jon Snow is a bit stiff, but if he doesn’t attempt any romance, he’s bearable. Kiefer gets almost perverted enjoyment from playing the villain from the Reich, but that doesn’t make the end result much better. The only really good thing is Shorter’s music, the volcano action in the finale, and I was surprise that it was all over. Do you like sport? ()

kaylin 

all reviews of this user

English On the same day, I also saw the movie "Hercules: The Legend Begins" and I can't help it, but that "Hercules", even though it's a big nonsense, entertained me a little bit more. Not much, but still, you didn't expect anything and didn't get anything. In the case of "Pompeii," expectations could have been a little higher, but they were not fulfilled. Stupid romance screwed onto a disaster. Even if it wasn't related to a historical event, the effect would be the same. Only the eruption of Mount Vesuvius is worth it. ()

Ads

Malarkey 

all reviews of this user

English Pompeii is exactly that kind of movie about which I’ve read bunch of opinions from the self-proclaimed experts that the movie is going to suck before it was even released. It is created by Paul W. S. Anderson and he has never shot a good movie. The local reviewers and know-it-all experts had a clear opinion even before they watched the movie. What else should I expect? For a change, I kept my mouth shut and waited until I actually saw the movie. And I have to say I was surprised by decent filmmaking, which was however not set in the ancient Rome, but in the ancient Rome modified by the Americans. But I can get over that. I liked the actors, I liked the story and most of all I liked the second half of the film, which turned the locations into an absolute hell. So I can’t really find any flaws with Anderson’s work – this is just exactly what I was expecting from him and what I also truly enjoyed. ()

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English Although Paul W.S. Anderson has made a number of downright stupid films so far, most of them have at least entertained me in some way. Not Pompeii, though. The wait for the special effects frothing was extremely long, and when I got it, I felt that it should end again. I wasn't impressed with the central duo either, but Kiefer Sutherland was clearly having a good time. At least someone was, right? ()

Stanislaus 

all reviews of this user

English Pompeii is a film that was made primarily for its spectacular depiction of one of nature's most famous disasters, which was achieved with great audiovisual effects. The story itself is one big and predictable cliché, but I have to commend the very end, which indeed pleased me in terms of the script. The cast was mostly likeable, except that I had trouble understanding at times because I saw the film in the original and without subtitles. But I went to the cinema to get a proper dose of effects, which I got, so I was satisfied after the screening. In short, a "popcorn movie" that fits and needs to be seen on the big screen, otherwise its primary purpose is completely lost ()

Gallery (52)