Those Biblical "epics" of the 1950's and early 1960's usually fell into two categories. There were the lavish, big-studio productions such as "Quo Vadis" and "The Robe" and then there were the lesser, sword-and-sandal productions exemplified by the "Hercules" movies.

"Revolt of the Slaves" is one of the few productions to fall in between these two categories. It has the big-budget look of a Hollywood spectacle -- sharp wide-screen photography, handsome sets and costumes, etc. -- coupled with the kind of script and direction more closely identified with those made-in-Italy mini-epics.

Even the star of the show, Rhonda Fleming, is something of an "in-betweener." She's not quite up in the Deborah Kerr or Jean Simmons league but she's clearly a notch above, say, Sylva Koscina. Unfortunately, she's about ten years too old to be playing this part, especially since she's matched with an obviously-younger Lang Jeffries. (Though about to be married in real life, there's not much on-screen chemistry between these two.)

As is often the case with these pious-Christians-vs-pagan-Romans affairs, the plot works best when it's content to be an adventure or a romance but turns stilted and even a bit cloying when the religious angle is stressed.

One item of note: the scene early in the movie when slave-boy Lang Jeffries is whipped across his bare chest is unusually well-staged, especially in terms of the physical relationship between the whipper, the whippee, and the camera. Seeing this scene on TV without the benefit of letter-boxing will not do it justice. (It ranks 2nd in the book "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies.") Jeffries also feels the sting of a whip in "Alone Against Rome" but this time on his bare back, thus making him one of the few actors in screen history to be flogged on both sides of his torso.

This is the kind of film , as a theatrical designer, I fast forward through to see if it's visually worth looking at--- I should say, I will watch a film no matter HOW BAD it is, if the sets and costumes look interesting ( and this is NOT a great film)--BUT--- This film is OUTSTANDING visually for it's over-the-top costume and set design (God, those Italians know HOW to do it RIGHT!) It was made in the, shall I say, "Golden Age of Sword & Sandal Epics" from the mid 50's to early 60's-all with bad scripts, bad overacting, bad dubbing, battle scenes-usually with someone revolting against a tyrant, some has-been American actors, lots of muscle guys and busty babes!--get the picture? Rhonda Fleming was one of the most gorgeous American actresses and looks fantastic in these luscious costumes and hairdos- 6 out of 10 just for the EYE-CANDY!

I could never quite put my finger on what seemed ''off'' about the acting in Christian persecution films (usually disguised as sword-and-sandal movies). Any time they're talking about Jeevus or attending mass in the catacombs or looking up to the skies to be saved from some calamity, the characters always look zonked out, like their eyes are open by no lights are on in their brain pans ., They all walk around in their state, barely showing any human emotion, pledging their affinity for some fairy tale being. How is that different from zombies, barely showing any human emotion, looking for brains to eat? Watch Quo Vadis, Ben-Hur, The Robe, Barabbas. They're all zombies wearing loin clothes. You read it here first.