Las crónicas del liderazgo de Cómodo, el emperador cuya regla marcó el comienzo de la caída de Roma.Las crónicas del liderazgo de Cómodo, el emperador cuya regla marcó el comienzo de la caída de Roma.Las crónicas del liderazgo de Cómodo, el emperador cuya regla marcó el comienzo de la caída de Roma.
- Premios
- 3 premios ganados en total
Explorar episodios
Opiniones destacadas
Ok, so after watching season one and starting season 2, I have a few nitpicks.
Even though the story of the first season was amazing. Of course, it did help that it might be the most interesting emperor of all time, and despite all the bad things I'm gonna write here, the sets of the actual important story elements looked and were quite good.
So, firstly, I must say, the battles they show in the beginning of S2, with scesar, were very inaccurate. Romans fought in organised lines and formations.definitely not in a large battle, without shields in a huge chaos of 1on1 fights. I mean, it's the minimum. You get experts, which aren't so insightful to be frank, and sell this to me as a almost science docu and get that wrong? Idk.
So yeah. Like I said in the title, for some reason all the long shots are weirdly bad In a way that just doesn't make any sense, In any context.
I mean, the regular scens look great, but you just feel your watching two different productions.
One made in India on Redmi 6a and the other, well, an actual film studio. It's confusing and got me really un immersed in scenes switching back and forth. There is litterly no reason. Put a stock photo instead. Anything. It's not complicated .You can get much better phootage in the 50s.
I don't get it.
Even though the story of the first season was amazing. Of course, it did help that it might be the most interesting emperor of all time, and despite all the bad things I'm gonna write here, the sets of the actual important story elements looked and were quite good.
So, firstly, I must say, the battles they show in the beginning of S2, with scesar, were very inaccurate. Romans fought in organised lines and formations.definitely not in a large battle, without shields in a huge chaos of 1on1 fights. I mean, it's the minimum. You get experts, which aren't so insightful to be frank, and sell this to me as a almost science docu and get that wrong? Idk.
So yeah. Like I said in the title, for some reason all the long shots are weirdly bad In a way that just doesn't make any sense, In any context.
I mean, the regular scens look great, but you just feel your watching two different productions.
One made in India on Redmi 6a and the other, well, an actual film studio. It's confusing and got me really un immersed in scenes switching back and forth. There is litterly no reason. Put a stock photo instead. Anything. It's not complicated .You can get much better phootage in the 50s.
I don't get it.
At first I thought this gives game of thrones a run for its money and I wondered why people gave it bad reviews. It seemed normal people give it 1 for not being more exciting while history buffs give it 1 for not being historically accurate. I don't care if they added in a vase, good looking women, or a mountain since going into this show you need to understand its going to take some liberties. If you think it's boring than I doubt there is any version of this that could make you happy. What made me not like it as much is after watching the first episode where they had history experts on and built up this whole thing complaining about commodus being a untrained loser is the fact that he was only 13 years old at the time! The part is being played by a 28 year old man! It's much harder to blame a 13 year old not being ready to be the king of Rome than it is a 28y/o man. Also Commodus's mother either got some sickness and died or committed suicide. The show makes it look like the king killed her with wine. Historically there doesn't seem to be anything to back that up and some people disagree that she even had anything to do with the uprising. After not even hearing the alternate views of these events where Netflix seemed to choose the most extreme version for extra hype this really is making me skeptical about the rest of this show.
You have to really look at this show as fiction, not as historically accurate. Despite the talking head historians, this show is at best loosely based on history, playing up the more scandalous rumours and often just making things up.
That said, it's a fairly entertaining watch. Nothing incredible, but kind of a bored-on-a-rainy-Sunday kind of deal.
That said, it's a fairly entertaining watch. Nothing incredible, but kind of a bored-on-a-rainy-Sunday kind of deal.
A dramatized documentary on the Roman Empire, focussing in each season on one of its most famous, or infamous, emperors.
This series had some potential: a dramatized documentary on the Roman Empire - sort of The World At War meets Rome or Spartacus, right? An edifying documentary mixed with realistic, gritty, action-filled dramatizations.
Well, no. It doesn't even come close.
The documentary side is pretty basic. Sean Bean is no Laurence Olivier when it comes to narrating: he really doesn't have the gravitas or accent for it. The facts presented in the documentary are then sometimes distorted to make for better drama (though some of the original facts were interesting enough, so why change them?). So, as a documentary it is mediocre.
The drama itself is pretty bland. There's a few good action scenes but it is mostly pretty dull. Performances are at best passable and nothing more. Some of the minor actors are quite bad.
So history got rewritten for the sake of drama, and the drama largely sucks. Seems like they should have just stuck with the facts. And got a better narrator.
This series had some potential: a dramatized documentary on the Roman Empire - sort of The World At War meets Rome or Spartacus, right? An edifying documentary mixed with realistic, gritty, action-filled dramatizations.
Well, no. It doesn't even come close.
The documentary side is pretty basic. Sean Bean is no Laurence Olivier when it comes to narrating: he really doesn't have the gravitas or accent for it. The facts presented in the documentary are then sometimes distorted to make for better drama (though some of the original facts were interesting enough, so why change them?). So, as a documentary it is mediocre.
The drama itself is pretty bland. There's a few good action scenes but it is mostly pretty dull. Performances are at best passable and nothing more. Some of the minor actors are quite bad.
So history got rewritten for the sake of drama, and the drama largely sucks. Seems like they should have just stuck with the facts. And got a better narrator.
Although this is tagged as a Documentary under Genre it is just a TV show. Any resemblance between this show and actual history is purely coincidental and no-one should use this show to inform anyone about any aspect of the Roman Empire or any of its inhabitants.
As a TV show it's entertaining, as an historical documentary it's junk.
As a TV show it's entertaining, as an historical documentary it's junk.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAaron Jakubenko and Jared Turner both guest starred on Starz's Spartacus: War of the Damned. John Bach guest-starred on an earlier season, Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Aaron Irvin served as Historical Consultant for the Starz series.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How many seasons does Roman Empire have?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Roman Empire: Master of Rome
- Locaciones de filmación
- Auckland, Nueva Zelanda(on location)
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta