Nero - Die dunkle Seite der Macht

The miniseries made of television that examines the highlights of the Roman Empire ('Imperium: Augustus' was the first). While the sets and costumes and flavor and atmosphere of that phenomenal period in history is well captured and the production qualities are strong, the historical accuracy is diminished by 'cleaning up' the facts and rearranging dates and incidents to make a 'Hollywood version' of the Roman Empire.

Given the fact that this is not a biopic but rather an entertainment, IMPERIUM: NERO is interesting, if long at 192 minutes, to watch in continuity. Nero was born in 37 AD and died in 68 AD and during those 31 years much changed in Rome. We first met Nero as a child 'abolished' to a life with the slaves by the infighting among the Emperors - Caligula (John Simm) and Claudius (Massimo Dapporto) - and the Senate - namely Porridus (Simón Andreu), Burrus (Maurizio Donadoni), and Septimus (Ian Richardson). While living among the people we are informed that Nero (a fine Hans Matheson) falls in love with commoner slave Acte (Rike Schmid) and when misdeeds in Rome call him back to power (through the wily and devious guidance of his mother Agrippina (Laura Morante, the true star of this film), Nero is forced to marry well and forswear his love for Acte. Once proclaimed Emperor, Nero does some bad things such as having his brother Britannicus (Francesco Venditti) killed, etc and begins to descend into madness instead of fulfilling his vision of creating an empire for the people. His teachers include wise Seneca (Matthias Habich) and commoner Etius (Jochen Horst) and his loyal friends include Tegellinus (Mario Opinato). Once on his downward spiral Nero begins to murder and destroy those close to him and finally burns the city of Rome to prepare the ground for his grand palace and city, all the while playing on is lyre.

If this all sounds wicked and cruel, then it is probably better that the story didn't 'flesh out' the true obese, schizophrenic, megalomaniacal, sexually dysfunctional creature that was Nero. You need the history books to see what a hideous tyrant he was, a man who placed his acting and circus skills above all else, castrating young boys who resembled his mother to marry while also marrying the prostitute Poppea (Elisa Tovati). But the major problem with this version of Nero's tenure is the emphasis on the new sect called Christians. Indeed, even the apostle Paul is brought in to cleanse the proceedings and seep evangelicalism into the story to help it end! But for the script as written (by Paul Billing and Francesco Contaldo) director Paul Marcus brings off a fascinating though long image of the Roman Empire. Not for Roman scholars perhaps, but for those who enjoy historically based epics, this NERO should do nicely Grady Harp

OK, we all know that historical movies are full of inexactitudes, the list is so long, Troy was a disaster, and Brad Pitt acting was horrible, any movies done on Joan of arc was to laugh about, and so on and so on, so why review them pointing on how bad they are with respecting the real story? Sure I don't retain this movie as being Oscar material (then again I saw some winners worst than this movie), but it was entertaining, the set and costume were nice...The only shame was that it was entirely voiced over even for the English speaking actors, and I never get used to hear somebody familiar speak with another voice......

This movie was good. It was both entertaining (although long at 3 hours) and refreshing.

I have seen a lot of movies on the Roman Empire, including Augustus (to which I also found great). Although I only have mild university level knowledge on the history of the Roman Republic and Empire, I know very little of Nero, so I watch Nero from an ignorant point of view.

Gladiator had little historical background yet was hailed and given high ratings and great reviews. Although that is a story, one would assume Nero (as well as Augustus) to be an accurate day-to-day recount of the lives of these Emperors. True, there are some parts that seem out-of-date, far-fetched, and alienated from what seems to be 'truth', but you can't hide that this is a story.

I found huge gaps in Augustus, Rome, and Julius Caesar, but I loved every second of them, and as far as I'm concerned, Imperium: Nero is better than Augustus (even though I studied him for quite some time).

If you haven't seen Nero, it's a good movie, and a great night at home with some ice cream, or popcorn! Most of the reviewers cast "hog-wash", but use Historical Inaccuracies as their main attack, then again, "Gladiator" wasn't the most historically accurate film ever made either.

6.7/10

This is entertaining enough, but you can't ignore the things about Nero that were left out of this story. History has said that he was cruel and depraved as emperor from the get-go. Contemporary historians documented this. Yet, this film would have us believe that he was gradually manipulated into that selfish, blood-thirsty personality by others around him. Some of his most notorious actions (incest, debauchery, arena killings, etc.) may be quietly implied but they are never clearly stated in this version of the story. For all intents and purposes, this is more a story about Christianity in Nero's Rome, than it is about Nero, and even this is somewhat sugar-coated. Again, this meets the criteria for fair entertainment but you can find better representations of this history elsewhere.

"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.