Imperium: Augustus

Yes, so many historians out there complaining the movie was not historical correct, but it never claimed to be. The movie was made for entertainment purposes and showed great battle scenes as like those in the days of yesteryear. It didn't claim to be a docudrama, for those who want the correct history i'm sure there's plenty of material out there for those. To me as long as it was close to the actual events of it's time, which it was, that's good enough for me. So many other movies like the latest version of "The Alamo" had a lot of correct history but also showed things that no one could really verify like Davey Crockett yelling at Santa Anna commenting how short he was and before they murdered him he warned them he was a screamer.Fact or Hollywood? Just take Augustus for what it is and enjoy this epic with great battle scenes and done in the same manner as past greats like "Ben Hur" and "Cleopatra". I think you'll enjoy it much better this way. You can always go to the library or get the actual facts later. Take it for what it is, an entertaining movie.

I don't know what movie the first reviewer saw but it sure isn't the one I saw or (actually) he is ignorant of Roman history because it was seriously inaccurate. For one, Soldiers in Rome were not allowed to carry weapons within the city walls nor did they work as police detachments to protect the citizens (there were no police, they had gangs and wards and mob bosses who were manipulated by the politicians). The battle scenes against Sextus did not portray standard Roman army tactics. There's no way an entire Roman battalion would be taken down by arrows as the movie shows. They used their shields like tortoise shells and had far less deaths by arrows that way. Also they wouldn't have thrown their spears at the approaching enemy rather they would have marched in strict formation with the spears sticking forward and move like a tank. Then they make Caesar and Octavian out to be peaceniks who only really wanted everybody to be happy and get along (far from it). Pretty much at that point I gave up on the movie. What a waste of Peter O'toole's talent. I can stand a little historical rewriting in any movie but the producers obviously said, "to heck with historical accuracy, just make a movie that will sell lots of tickets." But I'd be surprised if this made a lot of money because as a stereotypical ancient war movie it didn't even do that.

it could be boring, strange, chaotic, sketch of a coherent story. in same measure, its pillar is Peter O 'Toole and that fact is one of virtues. portrait of the first emperor, it desires to present all the elements of his reign. and that ambition has almost good results. the battle scenes - not inspired but nice, the characters created by good cast, the decisions as fruits of period's crisis, the crisis as forms of ambiguous search of sense. a fresco. not the best but interesting for rediscover old pieces of the roots of Europe. a film with Peter O'Toole. that is the perfect recommendation for see it. because his old Augustus has the flavor of a profound experience to use the possibilities of the role.

Well I have not the faintest idea how accurate this mini-series is historically but it's not as bad as previous IMDb reviewers have suggested.

It is a talk-athon and some of the dubbed actors are really out of their depth. The young Augustus is played well, multi-layered and rather complex and unpredictable. Mark Anthony and Cleopatra are an aside, and performed in a bland obvious manner. Charlotte Rampling is frighteningly real.

But it is O'Toole's show all the way as the older Augustus.

After 30 years of "wafer thin ham" acting this and his performance in "Troy" show what an experienced actor can do with a good part. It is a grand part for an actor and makes the 3 hour journey quite moving at times. So the grand total as an entertainment experience is....6/10

I disagree with other reviewers who were quite negative on this production. I quite enjoyed it and will recommend it for anyone interested in classical history. Admittedly, some of the acting was not first-rate, especially among the non native English speaking actors. I had the feeling their lines were dubbed in.

That aside, I liked the way it recounted the life of Augustus in the form of a long conversation with his daughter Julia with flashbacks. Yes, some of the historical details were a bit off. But it's tempting to compare it with other productions such as I Claudius and Cleopatra (the latter played even more loosely with historical fact). This production explored why Augustus, Julia, Livia, and others did what they did.

Others complained it was too long; on the contrary, I would like to have it longer and fill more detail in some of the years in Augustus's life that were not covered or glossed over.

The recreations of the Forum, the Curia, and other locations were the best I've seen. Unlike other productions such as Gladiator, the producers strives for accuracy rather than a Rome of the imagination and exaggeration.