User reviews

This movie was good. It was both entertaining (although long at 3 hours) and refreshing.

I have seen a lot of movies on the Roman Empire, including Augustus (to which I also found great). Although I only have mild university level knowledge on the history of the Roman Republic and Empire, I know very little of Nero, so I watch Nero from an ignorant point of view.

Gladiator had little historical background yet was hailed and given high ratings and great reviews. Although that is a story, one would assume Nero (as well as Augustus) to be an accurate day-to-day recount of the lives of these Emperors. True, there are some parts that seem out-of-date, far-fetched, and alienated from what seems to be 'truth', but you can't hide that this is a story.

I found huge gaps in Augustus, Rome, and Julius Caesar, but I loved every second of them, and as far as I'm concerned, Imperium: Nero is better than Augustus (even though I studied him for quite some time).

If you haven't seen Nero, it's a good movie, and a great night at home with some ice cream, or popcorn! Most of the reviewers cast "hog-wash", but use Historical Inaccuracies as their main attack, then again, "Gladiator" wasn't the most historically accurate film ever made either.

6.7/10

The miniseries made of television that examines the highlights of the Roman Empire ('Imperium: Augustus' was the first). While the sets and costumes and flavor and atmosphere of that phenomenal period in history is well captured and the production qualities are strong, the historical accuracy is diminished by 'cleaning up' the facts and rearranging dates and incidents to make a 'Hollywood version' of the Roman Empire.

Given the fact that this is not a biopic but rather an entertainment, IMPERIUM: NERO is interesting, if long at 192 minutes, to watch in continuity. Nero was born in 37 AD and died in 68 AD and during those 31 years much changed in Rome. We first met Nero as a child 'abolished' to a life with the slaves by the infighting among the Emperors - Caligula (John Simm) and Claudius (Massimo Dapporto) - and the Senate - namely Porridus (Simón Andreu), Burrus (Maurizio Donadoni), and Septimus (Ian Richardson). While living among the people we are informed that Nero (a fine Hans Matheson) falls in love with commoner slave Acte (Rike Schmid) and when misdeeds in Rome call him back to power (through the wily and devious guidance of his mother Agrippina (Laura Morante, the true star of this film), Nero is forced to marry well and forswear his love for Acte. Once proclaimed Emperor, Nero does some bad things such as having his brother Britannicus (Francesco Venditti) killed, etc and begins to descend into madness instead of fulfilling his vision of creating an empire for the people. His teachers include wise Seneca (Matthias Habich) and commoner Etius (Jochen Horst) and his loyal friends include Tegellinus (Mario Opinato). Once on his downward spiral Nero begins to murder and destroy those close to him and finally burns the city of Rome to prepare the ground for his grand palace and city, all the while playing on is lyre.

If this all sounds wicked and cruel, then it is probably better that the story didn't 'flesh out' the true obese, schizophrenic, megalomaniacal, sexually dysfunctional creature that was Nero. You need the history books to see what a hideous tyrant he was, a man who placed his acting and circus skills above all else, castrating young boys who resembled his mother to marry while also marrying the prostitute Poppea (Elisa Tovati). But the major problem with this version of Nero's tenure is the emphasis on the new sect called Christians. Indeed, even the apostle Paul is brought in to cleanse the proceedings and seep evangelicalism into the story to help it end! But for the script as written (by Paul Billing and Francesco Contaldo) director Paul Marcus brings off a fascinating though long image of the Roman Empire. Not for Roman scholars perhaps, but for those who enjoy historically based epics, this NERO should do nicely Grady Harp

Hans is great as usual but my God the girl who play's Acta what is that? This film version of the Nero story is fresh and easy evening watch TV but .... Because (I think) the actress who plays Acta has been dubbed, I am completely annoyed by her gasping and squeaking sounds before she says anything. Then she has the appearance of a goldfish so I really do not understand who has cast this lady. For me this role is the most annoying role that I have seen playing in years, so I ruined a very large part of the actually good series. The rest of the cast plays well and Hans is a Nero who does not fall into the stereotype of the overly insane emperor. So for a relaxing evening watching TV, this version is great, but not high-quality, unfortunately, because Hans had deserved a better opponent than this gasping girl.

What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.

And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.

Just a few examples:

1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.

2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.

History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.

3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie!

Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.

The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.

WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.

One star, because there's no way to rate it lower.

"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.

"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!

As a ravenous devourer of all films set in the ancient world, but especially the Roman ones, as soon as I found out this and "Augustus" are part of a larger programme, I had to uncover the remaining pieces to be filmed. As culled from the production company website, they are as follows:

Miniseries completed: Augusto/Augustus and Nerone/Nero Miniseries in production: San Pietro/Saint Peter, Pompei/Pompeii, Costantino/Constantine and La Caduta dell'Impero/The fall of the empire.

So it would appear that the series will not focus only on 'imperium' per se, that is emperors and all that. But instead, it will feature some historical events and important characters peripheral to Rome proper (in this case, St. Peter). Much as I don't like the Christian flicks, one cannot look at all Rome's history and shrug it off. But, for my part, I look forward to the Constantine piece. TThe man hasn't been 'filmed' much and I cannot locate the one that I know of on DVD anywhere.

This is entertaining enough, but you can't ignore the things about Nero that were left out of this story. History has said that he was cruel and depraved as emperor from the get-go. Contemporary historians documented this. Yet, this film would have us believe that he was gradually manipulated into that selfish, blood-thirsty personality by others around him. Some of his most notorious actions (incest, debauchery, arena killings, etc.) may be quietly implied but they are never clearly stated in this version of the story. For all intents and purposes, this is more a story about Christianity in Nero's Rome, than it is about Nero, and even this is somewhat sugar-coated. Again, this meets the criteria for fair entertainment but you can find better representations of this history elsewhere.

For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.

Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.

Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.

I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.

OK, we all know that historical movies are full of inexactitudes, the list is so long, Troy was a disaster, and Brad Pitt acting was horrible, any movies done on Joan of arc was to laugh about, and so on and so on, so why review them pointing on how bad they are with respecting the real story? Sure I don't retain this movie as being Oscar material (then again I saw some winners worst than this movie), but it was entertaining, the set and costume were nice...The only shame was that it was entirely voiced over even for the English speaking actors, and I never get used to hear somebody familiar speak with another voice......

and not only. a film who creates one of many Nerone's portraits. not extraordinary but decent. only sin - the fear of Hans Matheson to explore new solutions for create his role more than copy of other emperor's representations. but he does a beautiful role, not real profound but honest, powerful and realistic. like many historical movies, the accuracy is not the best point and, in many scenes, Nerone seems be only sketch. but it is a good choice for an evening after work day, as mixture of history and crumbs of fairy tale, remembering Quo Vadis and the representation of the Roman emperor in different novels and in cinema. sure, the stereotypes are not the inspired ingredients and the story of Nerone could be more a story "ad usum Delphini" but the result is far to be bad.