A waste of 90 minutes of my life

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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

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.

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.