Imperium: Augustus

The movie deals with Octavio Augusto's (Peter O'Toole) epic life from first triumvirate : 'Craso , Pompeyo and Julio Cesar' . Julius Caesar (Gerard Klein) and Augustus -nephew and heir of Cesar- fight against Pompeyo who's vanquished in Munda and Farsalia . At the 'Idus of March' Julio Cesar is killed by Bruto and Casio . Marco Antonius (Maximo Ghini) and Augustus (Benjamin Sadler as young Augustus Gaius Octavius) defeat them in Filipos . The second triumvirate is formed : Marco Antonio rules over Egypt , Lepido in Africa and Augustus governs over Rome and Hispania where he defeats Cantabros and Astures . Marco Antonius is married to Octavia (Elena Ballesteros) , Augustus's sister . After that , Marco Antonio was wedded to Cleopatra (Anna Valle) . Augustus declares war on both of them and after a successful military campaign , they are defeated by Augustus in ¨Actium¨ and he becomes the sole ruler of the Roman Empire . During his rule , Rome not only experiences a period of peace and prosperity , it is also an age in which both art and culture flourish . Augusto married Livia Drusilla (Charlotte Rampling) who becomes his most important political adviser , she had formerly given birth one son , named Tiberio . Julia (Vittoria Belvedere) , who was born in a previous marriage of Octavio , marries general Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (Ken Duken) and had two children : Cayo and Lucio , early deceased . Tiberius will inherit the Roman Empire .

The movie runtime is overlong , it results to be a bit boring but it will appeal to history buffs . It's an European co-production made by some countries to put money in this lavish TV picture : Germany , France , Spain and England . The dialog , photography , costumes and art direction combine to cast a potent and powerful TV movie . Imposing sets , lavish gowns , good stars , opulent interiors , including great spectacle of crowd scenes well staged . As part of the contract deal , the British/Spanish/Italian/German productions hired players from each of the nations that financed the big budget for the making of the film ; as Spanish actors : Juan Diego Botto , Elena Ballesteros ; German : Ken Duken , Gottfried John ; Italian : Anna Valle , Vittoria Beldevere , Valeria D'Obici , Michelle Bevilacqua ; French : Charlotte Rampling , Gerard Klein ; and British : Peter O'Toole ; some of the players spoke good English with fluent accents , others were dubbed .

First-rate set design by the production designer Titus Vossberg , whom the movie is dedicated , the film is very atmospheric , Roman time is well designed . The appropriate sets are based on actual Roman decorations and evocative villas . Scenarios are overwhelming : the Roman Forum , Roman Capitol , the temples , atrium...the settings are spectaculars . The wall painting of the study , Augustus' bedroom , corridors , Julia's lounges , Cleopatra's galleries were all inspired by the authentic wall paintings that originally came from villas and palaces belonging to high aristocracy and emperors . Giovanni Galasso's cinematography and Pino Donaggio's music are excellent. Direction by Roger Young is nice and adequate . Rating 6.5/10 . Charming , well worth seeing.

The above comments are too harsh, but the film is by no means great.

The bad parts first. The CGI - if thats what it is - is very poor for audiences raised on "Gladiator" and the rest of the sword-and-sandal epics, to say nothing of contemporary TV productions like Channel Four's "The Ancient Egyptians". All of the battle scenes suffer as a result, and this is worsened by some shots of legionaries being hit by arrows and pila that are utterly laughable - one soldier can be seen to pull the spear into his body, others are already grabbing the part the arrow hits before it hits. Moreover, the battles they represent are meaningless, as they neglect to show either Phillipi or Actium in any detail that could do them justice.

The script is a bizarre mishmash of historical accuracy and modern elements, the most obvious being the character of Maecenas, brought in for some reason to be both comic relief and "the only gay in the village". The continual harping on about Rome also grates somewhat, though this tends to die out towards the end; for that matter the original insistence that Octavian and Agrippa were "country boys" is incorrect - Octavian's father had been praetor.

The filming location - in Bizerte - is also very obviously not Italy, and since a recurring element of the film is the activity in and around the forum, this is noticeable more than it would have been if the activity was focused in the senate.

Despite all that, there is still an OK film lurking beneath the surface. Peter O'Toole does a good - if bored - turn as the elderly Augustus, Livia (who the historical sources believe was as manipulative as she is portrayed here Marcus - Caligula was to call her "Ulysses in petticoats") is played well by both actresses, with exactly the right amount of malice; Michele Bevilacqua's Tiberius is suitably reluctant to assume the burden of the Empire and Julia, as well as nagged by Livia (though he shunned Julia, and appealed against her banishment - so the rape scene was unjustified).

Despite what Marcus wrote above, the treatment of Julia in this film - aside from the rape - is justified by the extant evidence, she was banished for adultery, after a complaint by her father using a law he had brought about with Iullus.

Its also much more historically accurate than most films - it sticks closely to Suetonius's "Life of the Deified Augustus" (aside from the gripes mentioned above) and far better than more expensive films (King Arthur bow your head in shame), and is well worth watching for anyone who is prepared to accept some bizarre script moments in order to learn something of history.

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.