A Disappointing Continuation

A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

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.

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.

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.