It is generally entertaining, but the depictions and descriptions of the battlers are not accurate and miss some of the pivotal details. But worse is the depictions of Roman fighting style - Roman infantry fought in tight formations and stabbed with the Gladius! They really needed a military historian on this show. Instead you see Roman infantry hacking and slashing like some Hollywood depiction of ancient warfare - groan.
Add a Review
-
wscurran30 July 2018
-
trap-505814 September 2017At first I thought this gives game of thrones a run for its money and I wondered why people gave it bad reviews. It seemed normal people give it 1 for not being more exciting while history buffs give it 1 for not being historically accurate. I don't care if they added in a vase, good looking women, or a mountain since going into this show you need to understand its going to take some liberties. If you think it's boring than I doubt there is any version of this that could make you happy. What made me not like it as much is after watching the first episode where they had history experts on and built up this whole thing complaining about commodus being a untrained loser is the fact that he was only 13 years old at the time! The part is being played by a 28 year old man! It's much harder to blame a 13 year old not being ready to be the king of Rome than it is a 28y/o man. Also Commodus's mother either got some sickness and died or committed suicide. The show makes it look like the king killed her with wine. Historically there doesn't seem to be anything to back that up and some people disagree that she even had anything to do with the uprising. After not even hearing the alternate views of these events where Netflix seemed to choose the most extreme version for extra hype this really is making me skeptical about the rest of this show.
-
heydiddlediddle00711 August 2018There's definitely a lot of historical inaccuracies but it's entertainment and there's lots to learn for people that don't know anything about that time period.
-
saltpieter25 April 2017Although this is tagged as a Documentary under Genre it is just a TV show. Any resemblance between this show and actual history is purely coincidental and no-one should use this show to inform anyone about any aspect of the Roman Empire or any of its inhabitants.
As a TV show it's entertaining, as an historical documentary it's junk. -
Calicodreamin12 November 2020I'm not really a history buff so I can't comment to the legitimacy of the reports, but I can say it's a fairly enjoyable docuseries. The re-enactments are good quality and add to the series, the interviews at least appear knowledgeable.
-
fleuryest11 August 2018Narrator states that Julius Caesar is stabbed on March 14th, thus reinventing history's Ides of March, being March 15.
Unforgivable error -
This is a reasonably entertaining series that is a little like those History Channel re-enactments spiced up with a touch of HBO's "Rome".
Although other reviewers have highlighted the dumb stuff, the whole thing seems researched to a point, but wisely covered with a disclaimer that states where there are gaps in the historical record they have simply made it up.
It looks like New Zealand is the latest land to erect the papier-mache Forum and put on the crested helmets for a walk among the Ancient Romans. However these days it must be hard to find suitably ripped extras that aren't covered in tats - male or female.
So far there are three seasons featuring Julius Caesar bracketed by Commodus and Caligula.
The trouble with all this is that we have seen some pretty arresting interpretations of these guys over the years and Aaron Jakubenko as Commodus seems just a little too normal compared to the edgier shadings of Joaquin Phoenix and Christopher Plummer - not to mention Ido Drent up against Jay Robinson's high camp turn as Caligula in "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Maybe Aaron and Ido just needed to chew a little more scenery
The dialogue fluctuates between too-modern sounding jargon and some surprisingly literate passages. Much of it is built around the work of ancient writers who could show today's tabloids a thing or two about spilling the goss on the Royals.
Although we learn of Commodus stacking the odds in his favour when he became a gladiator, "Roman Empire" baulks at presenting the really gross things he did in the arena.
The high point in Season One comes when Marcia, the slave girl played by Kiwi actress Genevieve Aitken, causes Commodus plenty of toga turbulence leading to treachery and his demise at the hands of an uber-jock gladiator.
By comparison, Julius Caesar's story is more familiar featuring Vercingetorix and Cleopatra, but with the imaginative inclusion of Spartacus and Crassus - more gaps in the historical record I suppose.
Season Three could almost be called "All in the Family" as Caligula has affairs with his three sisters, but it's fairly sedate compared to Malcolm McDowell's cover version in 1979's "Caligula".
All in all, I enjoyed this series and I think there's room for another season or two. However, if they tackle Nero, remember that Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov have plucked the lyre with gusto and whoever plays the part shouldn't hold back. With a bit of luck, they'll also find another spot for Genevieve. -
It has the elements of both documentary and drama, so I would prefer to call it docu-drama. If you're looking for a pure drama then this is not for you. If you're looking for a pure documentary then this is not for you. The makers of the show have made it a point to keep the content highly engaging without missing out on the crucial turning points. The narrative is quick and yet you don't feel like the makers are rushing. Major details have been explicitly explained without unnecessary drama and actors have done justice to their roles. Of course a full fledged show encompassing the entire Roman History is a magnanimous task, and hence the idea of a docu-drama seems feasible.
-
keisha_anne4 November 2021GOT fans would likely get a lot out of watching this series, it's apparent how much GOT was actually inspired by Roman "history". Sean Bean narration is a touch that sets this mood nicely.
"History" is definitely meant to be quoted here. This show should've decided whether it wanted to lean toward lavish embellishment OR historical accuracy, not both, and make its choice clear. It presents itself as "history", especially when paired with expert testimonies, but fails to warn how misleading this can really be.
You may decide to watch this as fiction, and disregard all inaccuracies and enjoy, but for those with even a basic knowledge of Roman history, they can be greatly distracting.
All in all, it's somewhat dangerous to present the material in such a factual way, when it's really only "factual". The show needed to make its decision more clear on this, instead of masquerading itself as historically accurate. -
NSweetRock12 November 2016For anyone loving the Spartacus series on Starz or any series, movies about Roman days and history, you will like this series. It actually has several actors from the Spartacus series. Commodus is played by Aaron Jakubenko who was Sabinus in Spartacus War of the Damned. Marcus Aureliys is played by John Bach who was Magistrate Calavius in Spartacus Blood and Sand. Segovax was played by Mark Edward who is Narcissus in this series. Also Tyronne Bell who was the trainer for the actors in Spartacus is a Gladiator in the opening of this series. I've just started this series and I am up to Episode 5. Sean Bean narrating is fabulous. It's grabbed a hold of me. Loving it so far. I hope more info will be released about this show. More reviews will come in. I know a lot of my Sparty buddies have jumped on the watch board of this show! Enjoy!
-
Ok, so after watching season one and starting season 2, I have a few nitpicks.
Even though the story of the first season was amazing. Of course, it did help that it might be the most interesting emperor of all time, and despite all the bad things I'm gonna write here, the sets of the actual important story elements looked and were quite good.
So, firstly, I must say, the battles they show in the beginning of S2, with scesar, were very inaccurate. Romans fought in organised lines and formations.definitely not in a large battle, without shields in a huge chaos of 1on1 fights. I mean, it's the minimum. You get experts, which aren't so insightful to be frank, and sell this to me as a almost science docu and get that wrong? Idk.
So yeah. Like I said in the title, for some reason all the long shots are weirdly bad In a way that just doesn't make any sense, In any context.
I mean, the regular scens look great, but you just feel your watching two different productions.
One made in India on Redmi 6a and the other, well, an actual film studio. It's confusing and got me really un immersed in scenes switching back and forth. There is litterly no reason. Put a stock photo instead. Anything. It's not complicated .You can get much better phootage in the 50s.
I don't get it. -
toddlinsley-9841030 August 2021There are a lot of haters out there that think they are history buffs. To be fair, the series missed a few details, but the main plot points are there. I thought this series was pretty entertaining and follows the main plot decently enough. People are so picky these days. They feel like they are owed something. Just shut up and enjoy the entertainment ya snooty grub.
-
VIKTORS63325 June 2019I like Roman History and after the first couple of episodes i started picking holes in this production regarding some historical accuracy. But i had to admit i was enjoying this show. Reasonably on point, and the entertainment value is high.
-
davidorcutt3128 July 2018For something passing itself off as a documentary, there is not much historical accuracy in this wanna-be docu-drama. When Crassus defeated Spartacus, Pompey was in Spain fighting Sertorius and Caesar was in the East under the general Lucullus - hence the rumor by his enemies that he prostituted himself to the King of Nicomedes for a fleet of ships. Caesar's daughter Julia, at this point in history was approximately 5 years old, not the almost full-grown woman presented here. Why these alleged documentaries insist on fabricating stories when the actual, real history is so much more intriguing, I'll never understand.
-
jerbearmane326 December 2016sadly another typical 'modern' docudrama with unnecessary acting to expand viewer reach. while the acting ls atrocious, at least they cast most actors close to contemporary descriptions. quite a few of the reviewers have commented ln actors looking like pornstars, along with 6 packs and being built. if they'd listened to the academics and not focused on something trivial, they'd have learned commodus was an athlete and in real life built. this doc has well explained academic commentary on a often criticized, yet rarely lectured about emperor. here, ignoring the sensationalized acting, we come away with an interesting chronicle of the emperor who began the downfall of rome. his father is often declared the last good emperor. while it'd save time to just read about commodus' failures, a new roman documentary is always worth it to history buffs. Senātus Populus que Rōmānus!
-
htpalmer-123 May 2019I like the immersive element of these differing stories about power, greed, wealth and just wanton avariciousness. What annoyed me was the outdated method of the tired use of BC(Before Christ) and AD(Anno Domini-After Death). Whose, but Jesus's death and why? What's a/this shows insistemt I'm using these outmoded and tired terms? We should be using BCE(Before Common Era) and CE(Common Era). Otherwise, this show does well in constructing much of what we know historically but still need to be reminded; As in these troubled times w/our useful idiot wannabe Caligula, this show is instructive how greed, wild ambition and power corrupts absolutely.
-
So while the History buff's can write scathing reviews regarding the accuracy of these "Drama-mentories" I think some context is in order. Much of what has survived this period, known as "primary sources" in academia, are themselves at best interpretations (and at worst overt sensationalist rubbish); think Tacitus vs Heroditus. Many modern history books and works regarding this period, at best, can only interpret the interpretations of what has survived. What I'm saying is that our ONLY sources for some of these "facts"are themselves unreliable entertainment of actual events and figures.
So, before you dump all over Netflix for taking dramatic license and adding new interpretations to what was missing from the accounts....perhaps you should consider that the accounts themselves had dramatic license. So many reviewers that would come off as educated reviews slamming this work do so from flawed sources themselves. It's all very ironic.
I think the Bible said it best, " First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
But that being said, the acting was passable, at best. I did enjoy the series but I would've preferred the acting to be of a higher calibre. All said, it's not unwatchable or in enjoyable. You simply have to remember that it's fictional in many regards. -
mgthom-564-80193516 November 2016these shows are so well done, they can be amazing.
I usually enjoy them in the beginning, but then it seems there is and obligatory sex scene in every episode. After watch Tudors to the end I was insulted they Netflix thinks we need this sex to enjoy the show. Especially every episode. I have only watched a bit of this Rome, but it all seems to be formulated when it comes down to the episodes.
Still great piece of history, if you can get passed being insulted. Roman history is something I do enjoy very much, so I intend of finishing the show, because regardless, the acting, costumes, and settings are excellent. martin -
faithless47343 February 2020Okay so tons of wanna be perfectionists writing reviews on this title. All of them must be perfect and all of them must have published works that outline perfectly and completely accurately the history of Rome. They must because they seem to believe they are the authority on the history of Rome. I'm not, but I do have a passing understanding of the events that took place. While this may not be (in their opinion) accurate I think it is an amazing depiction of the events. No one, and I do mean NO ONE, alive today or alive in the last 1000 years or so has any idea of what truly and actually happened. We have written accounts of the victors ideas of the things that happened. We can guess at what happen with a certain level of accuracy but not certainty. Also this is not meant to be a history lesson as most people do not care at all about these events, it is meant to get people interested in the history of the world and the things of the past. This is a great example of doing that and I hope that some young people see this and decide to get involved in the study of history. As for all the people that think they are so fantastically much smarter about history, get a life.
-
ddjoyce2 February 2020This series could have been so much more! Amazing costume design and set dressing. Great narration and input from historians. However it fails horribly with badly written characters and stiff dialogue, poor directing and acting. I expected a lot more from a Netflix series dealing with such rich famous historical stories.
-
consultingdkelly25 December 2018This series creates a new format... dramatization with commentary from real historians thrown in. I really liked it, it's fresh, and the historians are real scholars. The dramatizations are also well done.
-
This is a historical docudrama. I like these a lot. PBS, the BBC, the CBC and a few other large television organizations have been making these kinds of projects for generations. Recently the History channel has waded into this area with both feet. However their content is sensationalized, often to the point of only concentrating on salacious tidbits of history. Much of that content seems to be highly repetitive with much built up suspense for what will be revealed after the next commercial break.
I have stopped watching the History channel docudramas for these particular reasons. I am thankful that my appetite for interesting historical dramas (un-sensationalized) is being met by Netflix in what I hope will be one of many.
Keep it up.
Put your children in front of it too.
Lighten that cable bill. -
Judimex17 April 2019Why put together absolute rubbish like this when you have so many fine actors working on this production. You have the facts available, use them. This is worst than watching soap operas for Historical inaccuracies.
-
phenomynouss4 August 2018I had thought I had grown out of the childish nitpickery of historical accuracy in depictions of ancient Greece/Rome movies, TV shows, documentaries, whatever. But when a series gets it so painfully, horribly wrong as this, I just can't get over it and start anemically yelling at the TV again.
The first season was about Commodus. I know very little about the Roman Empire at this point so I couldn't vouch for many of the historical accuracy, except to say that the series is fixated on the old style myth that all gladiatorial bouts were fights to the death.
Gladiatorial bouts were very rarely fights to the death, although I would give some leeway to this period in time, in particular because Commodus is the one fighting the gladiators in the arena and needs to seem invincible.
A whole lot of other minor details are gotten wrong, few of them would be enough to deter from the information or entertainment value, but when it's a constant stream of little things that are either partly or completely wrong or anachronistic, it starts to become pitiful considering this is not an actual TV show, but a highly stylized documentary. There are fictional re-enactments and depictions, but it's still a documentary, and it's somehow worse than an average TV show.
The second season is where it reaches into a time period I know and can whine about properly.
From the very start, the selection of the actors to portray the triumvirs, Caesar, Pompeius, and Crassus, look absolutely nothing like the people they're supposed to depict. That's hardly a big deal in terms of fictional depictions, but it goes beyond that, to a point where Pompey is bald and has a beard, and Crassus has a mop of curly hair. Every single depiction of Pompey has him with a diamond shaped head and hair, and almost no high ranking Roman in this period had facial hair at all. Crassus as well was old and balding, yet is depicted as being basically the same age as Caesar and Pompey.
From there on, it starts off with a "history" of Caesar which is not even remotely close to being accurate. It depicts him as being a "lowly soldier" at age 16, of which is not only not true (he had been forcibly appointed Flamen Dialis by Gaius Marius, a position which forbade him from even touching a knife, much less be a soldier), but the fact that he was from a rich, land-owning patrician family meant he absolutely would NOT have been a "lowly soldier", no matter if he was poor or not.
Next, it begins to show him engaged in a completely non-existent decade-long military career, culminating in him inexplicably taking part in the war against Spartacus, not only a small part, but apparently a LEADING ROLE in commanding at least a legion.
In reality Caesar by this time had only just gotten out of his position as Flamen Dialis and had a brief stint fighting in Asia Minor, which is where he negotiated with King Nicomedes to secure a fleet, sparking rumors that he seduced Nicomedes and allowed the king to have sex with him, something his political opponents would exploit the hell out of later on.
By the time Spartacus's revolt even happened, Caesar was in Rome acting as a legal advocate and making his name in the law courts.
INEXPLICABLY given how much this series wants to focus on blood and guts and glory, they leave out a TRUE (or at least historically recorded) story that says more about Caesar than any of the fake, boring stuff they put forth before it.
Caesar was captured by pirates, and taken to their pirate base. There, he used his wit and charisma to befriend the pirates, and they took a liking to him. All the while, he told them that once he was ransomed, he would come back and crucify them all. The pirates all laughed, thinking him joking. Then Caesar was ransomed, and he came back with a small fleet and had all the pirates crucified.
For absolutely no reason at all, this story is not mentioned at all, looking to a very fake depiction of Spartacus's last battle and diving straight into a triumvirate with Curly Crassus and Bearded Pompey. Worse, they fall into the stupid-trap of apparently thinking that there was only one Consul at a time. Every year two Consuls were elected, and this series portrays Caesar as being the only Consul elected for his year.
On top of that, they do a typical spin so bad as to be a lie in the form of the gangs; they depict Caesar as directly utilizing street gangs in Rome to directly assault and intimidate Senators. Not only would that have been insanely illegal and gotten Caesar killed on sight by the Senate (they had previously done exactly this against several other figures, such as the Gracchi or Marcus Drusus), but it implies a serious anachronism towards the Senate.
Probably due to its strong fixation on the ineptitude of the Senate in season 1 covering Commodus, it extends the same false belief into this season with Caesar. The Senate, by Caesar's time, was not an inept and mewling bunch that could do nothing. It was a collection of tyrants in its own right, and Caesar's rise was not something inevitable due to the weakness of the Senate. Caesar's rise was one of masterful diplomacy and cunning, specifically because at any given moment had he slipped up, the Senate would have literally had him killed. His popularity with the people and his strong political connections were his only shield against the malevolent threat of the ultraconservative Senate.
Here, he's basically just a thug, bullying his way into power while the Senate meekly mewls and stands by.
As well, they constantly use footage from the BBC movie "Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare", where they actually used historically accurate style armor, shields, and helmets, so you will occasionally see these realistic looking legionaries, fighting in formation, spliced in with legionaries in the plate-mail and square shields of the mid-Empire fighting one man army without formation.
They also stupidly mispronounce Vercingetorix as "Versinjetorix"