Augustus: The First Emperor

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 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.

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.

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.

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.