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

This movie's historical accuracy was matched by it's overall quality of performance and filming. Peter O'Toole is an extremely talented actor and the rest of the cast, though unknown to me, did an equally fine job. The sets and costuming were impressively accurate as were the battle scenes and no one threw a single sword! Truly, a gem which I discovered quite by chance and sincerely recommend to anyone sick of attempts at historical movies that get butchered by film-makers that haven't got a clue and are just worried about making these historical figures into comic book super heroes. A must-see for the serious history buff.

I disagree with other reviewers who were quite negative on this production. I quite enjoyed it and will recommend it for anyone interested in classical history. Admittedly, some of the acting was not first-rate, especially among the non native English speaking actors. I had the feeling their lines were dubbed in.

That aside, I liked the way it recounted the life of Augustus in the form of a long conversation with his daughter Julia with flashbacks. Yes, some of the historical details were a bit off. But it's tempting to compare it with other productions such as I Claudius and Cleopatra (the latter played even more loosely with historical fact). This production explored why Augustus, Julia, Livia, and others did what they did.

Others complained it was too long; on the contrary, I would like to have it longer and fill more detail in some of the years in Augustus's life that were not covered or glossed over.

The recreations of the Forum, the Curia, and other locations were the best I've seen. Unlike other productions such as Gladiator, the producers strives for accuracy rather than a Rome of the imagination and exaggeration.

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.

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.