Imperium: Augustus

AUGUSTUS (also known as IMPERIUM: AUGUSTUS) is a film made for television, which could explain how its three and one half hour length would be spread over at least three nights. This movie was made with an obvious plentiful budget, sponsored by the Italian government and US filmmakers, and the result is a complex and nicely detailed biographical study of the first Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar, the man whose reign spanned the BC/AD time frame with all the attendant changes in world geography and history and religious orders. It was a time of Rome's greatness and a time of Rome's disintegration.

Writer Eric Lerner and Director Roger Young wisely elected to tell this tale as a series of flashbacks as recalled by the aged, dying Augustus brilliantly portrayed by Peter O'Toole. His very presence gives the project credibility and dignity and helps the viewer forgive any of the many shortcomings that dot this epic. Augustus is attended by his wife Livia (again, a wise choice in casting the always superb Charlotte Rampling to bring this odd woman to life). With some adroit camera superimpositions of the old Augustus' face the story goes back in time to the death of Julius Caesar, the one who appointed the young Augustus (Benjamin Sadler) to be his successor. It is 42 BC and the young Augustus, together with his sidekicks Agrippa (Ken Duken) and Maecenas (Russell Barr in a foppish turn), struggle through the Senate, the noblemen, and the poor people of Rome who all have been ignored during Julius Caesar's infamous wars to expand the Empire. The complicated lineage to the 'throne' of Rome is manipulated by Julia (Vittoria Belvedere), Marc Antony (Massimo Ghini), Tiberius (Michele Bevilacqua) and Iullus (Juan Diego Botto), the son of Marc Antony, among many others.

Along the way we meet Cleopatra (Anne Valle) and Cicero (Gottfried John) and many of the other casually dropped names of Roman history. Though the names and the changes of who is ruling who at any one time can be confusing to even the most astute Roman historian, the writer and director do their best to make this story flow so that it all is of a piece. The acting is superb for the leads, adequate for the secondary roles, and the camera work manages to make the numerous battlefield sequences seem cogent.

In the end is the beginning: the death of Augustus. A casual mention is made that during his reign there was born in the land of Judea a child whose name was Jesus...and suddenly the whole lengthy film gathers more meaning. This is a fine overview of Roman history and civilization and thanks to the fine work by Peter O'Toole and Charlotte Rampling the result is very satisfying. Grady Harp

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.

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.

This movie is based on the life and achievements of the first emperor of Rome, Augustus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar. Augustus, a fascinating and controversial man, may have been the most important figure in Roman history. Through his long life (63 B.C. - A.D. 14) and deeds, the failing Republic became an empire which endured for centuries, thus preserving and advancing the civilization of the day.

Particularly noteworthy is an outstanding performance by Peter O'Tool as Augustus, possibly his best, both captivating and very enjoyable indeed. The film brought to life the struggle that civilization faced to survive against threats from all sides. Peter O'Tool masterfully uses a full repertoire of emotions to tell the story of Augustus as he seeks to preserve his Rome.

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.