Empire

Like that other gladiator asked of the crowd, "Are you entertained?" Regarding Empire? Heck yeah! Screw history lessons. If I want to learn Roman history then I'll do it the old fashion way and read library books, or take the new fashion route and read the cliffnotes on the internet or watch the Hitler Chan....er, I mean the History Channel. ABC's Empire is gloriously bereft of CGI and instead we are treated to beautiful sights of the Italian countryside and forests and the lively cities caught in the crossfire of a power struggle, even the stones seem to breathe. The Roman pageantry allows the viewers to feel that they are part of an ancient civilization on the cusp of greatness. The beautiful soundtrack and singing helps too.

I found myself easily forgiving the many historical liberties taken with Empire, probably because it is not difficult to explain away the discrepancies: Octavius present in Rome during Creaser's assassination and funeral? He was shown hiding in the shadows and out of the mobs' eyes. Tyrannus the recently freed gladiator turned bodyguard? Rarely shown publicly with Caesar and so far never with Octavius, thus one of the many background characters that history does not record. Fictional bodyguard for Octavius? History cliffnotes said the family begged Octavius to renounce the adoption and the inheritance in fear he would be target for possible assassinations. Octavius' status as the unfavored nephew of Caeser? History claimed people were genuinely surprised that Octavius turned out to be Caesar's heir and historians are constantly combing for clues of when Ceaser decided that Octavius was the real deal.

And folks, stop advertising HBO's Rome already, some of us don't get HBO and have no plans to fork over the $$$ to do so.

Watching and taking EMPIRE seriously after having seen ROME is a near impossibility. EMPIRE is a TV miniseries charting the rise to power of Julius Caesar's nephew, Octavius (isn't it Octavian?), in much the same way that ROME did, except the two productions are totally at odds. ROME was lavish, expensive, expertly made and very well written. EMPIRE is silly, generic and more often than not, derivative.

The main source of inspiration is Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, thus we have the presence of a gladiator in the leading role. It's not just that Tyrannus is out of place - what's a gladiator doing having one-to-ones with Caesar, for goodness' sake? - it's that he's so bland. The producers picked a good-looking guy to make the housewives swoon and do zilch with his character for the entire running time. It makes for a highly boring production. His character arc is non-existence and he feels like a male model simply acting as a clothes horse throughout.

Not that the rest is much good, either. I'm no stickler for historical accuracy, I'd rather a historical series or movie be entertaining rather than realistic and deathly dull. But EMPIRE takes the biscuit, throwing in sub-plot after sub-plot that never happened, and ludicrous situations like a romance with a Vestal Virgin. There's far too much senseless combat featuring the aforementioned gladiator hacking his way through various foes, and of course as this is a TV production there's no real sex or violence to offend anybody.

Some of the cast members ARE good, it's just that their characters aren't. Vincent Regan was excellent in 300, but his Mark Antony seems a bit impotent, lacking in menace and failing to be larger than life as the role requires. James Frain seems to be doing a dry run for his turn in THE TUDORS but is underutilised, as are Michael Maloney (TRULY MADLY DEEPLY), Michael Byrne and RAMBO's Graham McTavish. The women fare less well: Emily Blunt, on the cusp of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA and stardom, fails to convince and the horrendous Trudie Styler is little more than a walking advert for Botox (who knew the Romans invented it?). The effeminate Santiago Cabrera might as well be listed under the female parts, so weak and weedy is he.

Lack of a decent budget means that there are no real set-pieces or memorable moments, just a couple of CGI-enhanced backdrops here and there. However, the production does seem to have been made in Italy with an Italian supporting cast and crew, which counts for something, and the episodes are fast paced and have stuff going on. It's just a shame that the stuff that does happen is so familiar, made up, and derivative of what's come before. This TV stuff can be good - I liked the recent version of BEN HUR for instance - but EMPIRE misses the mark by quite a bit.

After all the teasers, I watched the pilot & found it typically Disneyfied. It takes historical characters of late first century BCE and early 1st century CE and weaves a majestic tapestry of fabrication. It then hangs it on a few pegs of historical truth and expects you to swallow the whole story as fact, when it's mostly fiction. Some of this lack of fidelity to history has been pointed out by others already, so I shall not belabor the point. Having the adequate & comely Santiago Cabrera play Octavian or Octavianus, NOT Octavius! is a stretch. The future first emperor of Rome was 18 not 28 in 44 BCE. Given the state of cultural/historical illiteracy today, I am not surprised by 'Empire.' Afterall, it's Disney/ABC and not the History channel or PBS.

Although there are some complains that this show is not a true reflection of history, I think it is still a good show. Anyway, it may not be necessarily a history show and the point is, we can enjoy it!

There are some good scenes, including some good actions. The actors and actresses are excellent, especially the role played by Cake. We can even find a little bit similarity between this role and the one in the movie 'Gladiator' !

Anyway, I hope ABC can present more than one season of this. Is it a mini? By the way, I just can't wait to see the new show 'Rome' of HBO in August.

Other commentaries have criticized this series for its historical inaccuracies. Well, it was not presented as a documentary. The critical question in reviewing any film or mini-series is "Is it entertaining?" This series is entertaining. It is presented well. The sets are excellent. The acting is far better than most television fare. The two most engrossing character portrayals are Cassius (Michael Maloney) and Tyrannus (Jonathan Cake). Those two and some of the lesser roles carry the film. Cassius is the most believable villain since Hannibal Lecter. If you enjoy good acting, Mr. Maloney's performance alone makes the series worth watching. The central character, Octavius (Santiago Cabrera) is not strong enough to create an interest for the viewer, think of Colin Farrell in Alexander. The viewer will be far more concerned with the fate of Tyrannus than that of Octavius. Other performances are so strong as to emphasize the weakness of the lead. However, only the first three episodes have been shown to date, and at this point Octavius is only a 17-year-old kid. Perhaps the weakness is an actor's or director's choice and should not be mistaken as a weak performance. As the character grows into Augustus will the performance seem stronger? Time will tell. Until then, pop some corn and enjoy the entertainment.