Add a Review

  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having seen lots of epics on ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome, the viewer is bound to be attached to some favorable depiction/depictions of a story and, consequently, make comparison. Moreover, what we can observe in the genre is a selection of historical material. It's clear that some stories are put to screen many times while other ancient or medieval events, which could be equally entertaining, are entirely ignored. And that is what we find here - another film adaptation about the rise of the Roman Empire. Consequently, a question could arise: "is there any point in making yet another movie about Augustus' reign?" It seems that the persona of Augustus Caesar has been widely developed in lots of film versions from spectacular CLEOPATRAs to brilliant novel-based drama I, CLAUDIUS (1976). In other words, does AUGUSTUS (2003) by Roger Young offer us anything new?

    At first sight, it occurred to me that the movie is practically yet another revision of what has already been said. What is more, being watched by some historian, it can appear to be discouraging for a person who notices quite a few serious inaccuracies. Just to note the fact that Octavian is depicted as a villager who finds himself once in the great world that Rome was and sacrifices everything to join his noble companions. Other errors include the depiction of deaths of Augustus' grandchildren Cassius and Lucius and the attempt on Augustus' life. The Battle of Aktium is skipped though it was so decisive for the events to come, for Octavian and Agrippa. So we soon realize that the aim of the director was no history lesson since he takes much liberties in this case. However, while looking deeper at some aspects of this film, you realize that the point lies somewhere else.

    Roger Young's movie's strength lies in the the psychology, the insight into the personal struggles of Augustus. Since it has a powerful tale to tell, the director uses the tool to tell the story according to his own vision: a story of a man who ruled the world but could not rule himself, his own life; a man with all his strengths and weaknesses, a father who was forced to send his beloved daughter to exile, a brother who had to sacrifice the happiness of his sister for Rome; a husband who could not foretell the wickedness of his wife; finally, a 'god' (worshipped by some people within the empire) who could not avoid the necessary fate of death. What comes in the end is one man, one life, one death...

    All this is presented memorably thanks to flashbacks and Augustus reflecting on his own decisions, deeds and consequences. And you as a viewer will feel empathy with him due to precious modesty portrayed in the end. But as far as the psychological reflections are concerned, I would like to highlight briefly one more aspect...

    You can have some doubts as for the authenticity of some thoughts due to their Christian, or as some people prefer 'modern' nature. There is a mention of love over power, of forgiveness over revenge. There is Julia at dying Augustus to represent forgiveness. Even Augustus himself mentions the birth of a Savior while denying his own divinity... Strange... The story is set in pagan Rome where there was no room for Christian ethics. What does the director want to convey? What does he want to tell us by that? Could people who did not know Christian values consider them so seriously? Perhaps the universal presence of God's Spirit within humanity?... This is a dilemma that I tried to figure out and could not find most adequate answers to these questions.

    Other stories, other plots are there as rather historical than historic. Yet, there is a need to mention some of them. We have the aforementioned Julia portrayed by Vittoria Belvedere, a tragic woman striving for happiness of love by means of decadence of lust. There is Livia, Augustus' wife portrayed by sweet young Martina Stella and later by Charlotte Rampling indeed not that memorable as Sian Phillips in the famous TV series but giving quite a decent performance. There is beautiful Anna Valle as seductive Cleopatra and pathetic Massimo Ghini as Mark Antony. There are supporting cast worth attention like as Cicero. But no performance can equal to Peter O'Toole's in the lead. He crafts the difficult role perfectly making it possible for the viewer to understand Augustus, to get his point, to see the events in his way, from his point of view.

    All in all, does the movie play its role well? Not so much as an epic but it was not meant to be a spectacle whatsoever. It's worth seeing as a biopic of a powerful ruler and a simple man convincingly portrayed by a talented artist and a terrific actor. Applause Augustus Caesar! Applause Peter O'Toole! 7/10 for the whole movie
  • My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

    First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the "burden" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

    Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

    Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

    I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, though—both in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

    Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall "feel" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.
  • gradyharp11 September 2005
    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
  • ktruane22 March 2011
    It's so bad that I have nothing good to say about either Peter O'Toole or Charlotte Rampling, who have both risen far above bad material in the past. But there really no material here that's less that excreble above which to rise--O'Toole plow through his repetitive mononlogue for HOURS, while Rampling wears what I suppose was the matron version of the Stoic mask.a Young Octavian and young Agrippa remain mercilessly forgettable, but such is not the case with Maecenas--he is so over-the-top that he makes Richard Simmon's at the height of his fame look like a Sloth on barbitutuates. And their costumes .. . oh, my! hBut wait, everyone's costumes are either bizarre, borrowed from Walmart's Linens and Bedroom shop, or come from a Euro/Pound/or Dollars store. Poor actors! he The scenery and set dressing's no better, for it would seem Rome only had one dark, dirty, and dangerous alley, which also served as its only daytime sunlight-filled, clean, and jolly alleyway. And all the marble stuctures look like chalk, which is better than the wooden Julius Caeser who inspired this utter banality. never
  • 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.
  • pninson15 January 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...

    Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.

    There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.

    Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.

    Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.

    There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.

    The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.

    Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."
  • Vincentiu12 April 2015
    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.
  • This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.

    There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).

    The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.

    The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).

    Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.

    There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.
  • AUGUSTUS isn't the best it could be, lacking the historical accuracy that previous reviewers have been kicking a screaming about; it is because of the pointless stereotypical Julia, who is always made out to be a villain and Augustus a wounded. However, the tales of Augustus daughter Julia are mainly made of rumours, the likelihood she was a prostitute is slim and chances are Iullus was one of her only, if not only, lover. Read your historical notes and what historians say today, chances are you'll find her in a new light. AUGUSTUS shows Julia as the wounded daughter she was; mistreated and thrown around just for her father's own delights. When you consider that he treated her like that and that she had a father who led a far kinkier and scandalous sex life, is it any wonder his daughter, who apart from her adulteries had no bad vein in her body, ended up the way she did?

    Augustus (Peter O'Toole) is on his deathbed, overlooking how he "played his part in this comedy called life," and he takes us back several years to the high point of his rein. His daughter Julia (Vittoria Belvedere) is married to his beloved friend and ally, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and together the two have had a pair of lovely sons, Gaius and Lucius, who are "just like their grandfather" and running around in army gear, rather like how Julia's daughter Agrippina (oddly missing from the movie) would do for her youngest son Gaius, or Caligula, thirty or so years later. Of course, the bubble bursts when Augustus is nearly murdered by an assassin, only saved by his leather breast plate, and Julia receives dreadful news: her husband Agrippa has died. He tells her of his earlier days when he was a sickly eighteen-year-old, who one day gets a letter from Julius Caesar, despite the pleas of his mother, "Your father would forbid it!" Octavius (Benjamin Sander) reminds her that, "only your uncle treats me like a son," leaps on a horse with Marcus Agrippa (Ken Duken) another eighteen-year-old, who dreams of becoming a soldier, to join the army. The story seems to take us through a romanticised view of Octavius growth into manhood along side his two friends Marcus Agrippa and Gaius Maecenas (Russell Barr), a man who is clearly thrown in for a giggle.

    Agrippa represents the world that we all want to be apart of, yet he doesn't live in a fool's paradise like Octavius does, and towards the end of the flashbacks he finally pulls his friend out of belief that sticking to the nobles will save him; he has to suppress them. Interestingly, they show us how Agrippa built the great aqueducts, proving himself not only to be a great soldier but also one of history's great architect. Ironically, Maecenas mocks him by saying, "At least we'll be able to get some lovely fountains out of it!" Cleopatra is just as she should be, not a Liz Taylor but a real malicious mastermind. Julia does as she's told but is so trapped that she can't help but loom for ways out. Tiberius is a pig and his mother Livia too ambitious, and it's refreshing that Augustus actually "gets" that Livia wants Tiberius to be emperor. Iullus Antonius, who wants revenge for his father's murder at first, uses the vulnerable widow of Agrippa to in his plan. The irony being of course that lovely Agrippa warned Octavius when he saved Iullus' life that this would one day come to pass. In a way, Iullus cheats both his saviours, not only seducing Augustus' daughter but also taking Agrippa's wife and using her against the man he spent his whole life protecting. Of course the plot falls through when Iullus ends up falling in love with her proving himself a true Antonius boy—"a woman changed Antony, you could change Iullus" Augustus says and by god, Julia does.

    The acting is still great, though many see O'Toole as the best: the desperation of Belvedere's Julia, the cunning of Rampling's Livia, the nobleness of Duken's Agrippa and the deep love that Barr's Maecenas has for Augustus really does touch you and makes their characters come alive.

    The only thing that is disappointing is that it didn't cover the whole of the history, the Battle of Actium was rushed, we never see two of Augustus wives and we don't know what happened after the civil war was over, which is probably some of the most interesting part. Various other characters were clearly cut to save time for the film, Octavia's first husband, her children, Fulvia, Sextus, Drusus, who was Livia's other son and various others. If anything, this show would have been better off as a mini series and covering other important parts of history like the self-exile of Agrippa because of Marcellus, and how his death resulted in Agrippa's marriage to Julia—that would have been a story worth hearing.

    If you're not interested in history, then you could just watch it for its soap opera feel, with the drama, attempted assassination and Julia's affair with Iullus Antonius driving her husband into raping her, we might as well have been watching an ancient rendition of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, only it's much better! Boys will also be happy to see that they get a hot babe to stare at in the form of Augustus' daughter Julia for half of the film. Don't worry, fear not girls, because in the other half, ladies such as us, also get a hot and handsome treat in the form Agrippa. My point being is that there is something for everyone. Filled with comic relief, a few wars, a few scandals, a troublesome wife, a few hot wild affairs, a hot chick for the boys and a cute guy for the girls, it pretty much does have everything you need to make history come alive.
  • These are oddly generous reviews for an awful movie that could have been great. It is painful to see the great Peter O'Toole and Charlotte Rampling surrounded by so many high school-quality actors (with the possible exception of Benjamin Sadler) and especially the other two main actresses. And yet, if you are interested in Roman history, it is worth a look.

    Pacing is generally good. But the overall tone is too melodramatic. Everyone but O'Toole and Rampling are just declaiming their lines. This is made worse by the awkward and unnecessary dubbing. In the hands of a better film director, and a better casting director, the plot and attention to historical accuracy gave it potential.
  • This movie's historical accuracy was matched by it's overall quality of performance and filming. Peter O'Toole is an extremely talented actor and the rest of the cast, though unknown to me, did an equally fine job. The sets and costuming were impressively accurate as were the battle scenes and no one threw a single sword! Truly, a gem which I discovered quite by chance and sincerely recommend to anyone sick of attempts at historical movies that get butchered by film-makers that haven't got a clue and are just worried about making these historical figures into comic book super heroes. A must-see for the serious history buff.
  • mlynch518719 July 2021
    I've never left a one star review, but this was unwatchable. Between the soapy acting, cheesy plot, overbearing music, and massive inaccuracies, it's just insulting.
  • hgrty19 February 2019
    Writer Eric Lerner and director Roger Young find it hard to disguise their disdain for Roman history or perhaps their relish for pastiche as a means to an end. From the acting to the sets to historical accuracy, Augustus was irritatingly bad for anyone familiar with the magnificence of the real city, real people, and actual history. O'Toole and Rampling did their best to prevent a complete train wreck, but no one seemed to care that O'Toole appears as an octogenarian in events where he's supposed to be barely middle aged. Rampling was quite good as Livia, and while suspected of doing away with Julia's two sons, she would never have broached a what-if to her husband about their demise, knowing his unabated devotion to them.

    Historically, Augustus was never stabbed in the forum as is done in the first scenes, he would have disdained the very idea of a fatherly chat with Julia at the scene of her nightly debaucheries.

    And then the sets. The forum was an adolescent attempt at resemblance. The real rostra did had commemorative columns (which would have been easier) but never those hideous cross-beamed monstrosities we see. And why was the rest of the forum and ancient city behind completely gone? As if the city ended there with open, vacant land. And no one thought to at least clean up the visible traces of earth moving tractors used to prepare the set behind the rostra, which tells you just how rushed this was to get the whole thing "in the can."
  • Let us paint the scene: The year is 12BC. The republic has been replaced with the imperial family, the rebels are gathering and the fight for the succession is on. Frankly, it is like THE WAR OF THE ROSES, Ancient Roman style! The side most are routing for is the current emperor Augustus, and Julia, his beautiful, clever and liberal daughter. They stand for rights for the plebs and responsibility of the nobles, rather then for them to lay around on their backsides in litters. The father and daughter are at war against the cunning, merciless and sly Livia Drusilla, who has a strong desire to see her own son, Tiberius, on the throne. A believe so strong that he should be the next man "worthy of the name Caesar" she even tries to sway her husband Augustus into it. He of course always says no.

    This is the first point of greatness in this moderately made TV drama: Augustus is not a dolt like he is in I, CLAUDIUS, he is as he should have been: knowing, ruthless and in league with everyone. Augustus did know everything and wasn't at all as stupid as Robert Graves wanted us to believe he was. He knew how Livia's mind worked and knew how to take care of her. Despite all arguments from both parties, they don't really love one another, they are like friendly rivals who both want their children to become leader of some big corporation.

    Of course the victims in the war against each other are Julia and Tiberius, who both hold the love or their father/mother, but have different ideas on how they'd rather spend their day. Augustus wants a baby-making, obedient daughter and mother-of-Roman-future in Julia. What Julia wants is to live up for a lot of lost living, marry Iullus Antonius and settle down nicely. Also, despite what Livia wants, Tiberius would be more content matching in the army, sleeping out in the open and throwing stones into the sea.

    There are historical tidbits about his show you might want to know. For example, Marcus Agrippa and Julia are lacking three children in this show! They were baby-making machines in reality, having one child back to back with each other. Also, Julia was banished in 2 BC not 12 BC, and her sons died in different years, not the same year.

    Nonetheless, I'd give it a watch if you want a bit of fun. It's long but certainly worth a rent-it or even buy-it cry. The DVD doesn't cost much, so give it a go.
  • geoffwdunn13 February 2016
    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.
  • vishal_wall23 November 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Augustus is a great movie. The range of the movie is wide. The movie depicts his role in the Hispanic war along with Caesar until his death. There are certain sections in the movie which are very true to history. Some of them which are not true to history are not very important as well. Movie begins with old Augustus mourning the death of his friend, son in law and General Agrippina with his daughter. Movies keeps going back in to long flashbacks. The transition is brilliant. This movie works for me at all levels acting, camera, characterization, range and above all facts. I prefer an 'Augustus' over 'Lawrence of Arabia' for the simple reason it shows what happened and not an interpretation of the director. Some of the important details are missing from the movie which in my opinion is OK even if they are missing like Augustus butchered the son of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar; Augustus's daughter was first married to Mark Anthony and Augustus's sister's son. I think movie wasted the character of Cicero but its OK as the movie was only about Augustus. The characterization was convincing. The whole section where Augustus assimilates power is very well done. Peter O'Tool as Augustus is quite good. Benjamin Sadler as Octavius is OK. Massimo Ghinni as Mark Anthony is very good. All the senate scenes are done in a very good taste. Good movie.
  • What can I say about this? Such a big Prestige-Production - but in the End? Wasted Time, wasted Money.

    This work a disaster is historically seen. Only some examples:

    * Augustus often is named 'Gaius' - his First name (Pronomen). But the old Romans don't used this Name. Correct would be the Surname (Nomen Gentile and Cognomen) or the 'Octavian', 'Caesar', 'Augustus'.

    * Livia was shown as tyrannic Wife. But this historically wrong.

    * Iulia was shown as nice young woman - but she wasn't one. Adultery and (maybe?) Prostitution and arrogant behavior was the cause of her banishing.

    * She wasn't at the dying bed of her Father. She never was allowed to leave her banishing. And she was at this time around 50 years old! Not as young as she was shown. In the same Year Augustus died she committed suicide, because Tiberius stopped giving her a Pension.

    * Augustus was much more scruplesless then in this Movie shown. But Author and Director seems to believe Augustus' own 'Res Gestae'.

    What remains? Historically extremely doubtful, bad acting, bad built and equipment - 2 Points out of 10 - one for Peter O'Toole.
  • August19911 June 2005
    2/10
    Avoid
    For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.

    There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.

    The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.
  • One of the best movies I've seen since Lion of Winter with Katherine Hepburn. Peter O'Toole's performance is on par with her performance. Altogether a magnificent movie with lush sets and sterling acting from a host of actors unknown in the United States. I'm particularly enamored of Ken Duken as the you Agrippa and would like to see more from him.

    A great blend of the full range of human emotions humor included at just the appropriate moment to keep it from becoming depressing.

    I highly recommend this movie - do be aware, however that it is very long - although worth every minute.
  • What a stupid waste of money! 30,000 square feet of rebuilt ancient Rome, 2 millions cubic meters of 50 feet tall buildings, 10,000 costumes, 2 years of works, an International Ancient History Committee (sic!), some first class actors and actresses . The final result? An empty TV-movie for a single-digit IQ attendance.
  • 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.
An error has occured. Please try again.