Empire

Other commentaries have criticized this series for its historical inaccuracies. Well, it was not presented as a documentary. The critical question in reviewing any film or mini-series is "Is it entertaining?" This series is entertaining. It is presented well. The sets are excellent. The acting is far better than most television fare. The two most engrossing character portrayals are Cassius (Michael Maloney) and Tyrannus (Jonathan Cake). Those two and some of the lesser roles carry the film. Cassius is the most believable villain since Hannibal Lecter. If you enjoy good acting, Mr. Maloney's performance alone makes the series worth watching. The central character, Octavius (Santiago Cabrera) is not strong enough to create an interest for the viewer, think of Colin Farrell in Alexander. The viewer will be far more concerned with the fate of Tyrannus than that of Octavius. Other performances are so strong as to emphasize the weakness of the lead. However, only the first three episodes have been shown to date, and at this point Octavius is only a 17-year-old kid. Perhaps the weakness is an actor's or director's choice and should not be mistaken as a weak performance. As the character grows into Augustus will the performance seem stronger? Time will tell. Until then, pop some corn and enjoy the entertainment.

After all the teasers, I watched the pilot & found it typically Disneyfied. It takes historical characters of late first century BCE and early 1st century CE and weaves a majestic tapestry of fabrication. It then hangs it on a few pegs of historical truth and expects you to swallow the whole story as fact, when it's mostly fiction. Some of this lack of fidelity to history has been pointed out by others already, so I shall not belabor the point. Having the adequate & comely Santiago Cabrera play Octavian or Octavianus, NOT Octavius! is a stretch. The future first emperor of Rome was 18 not 28 in 44 BCE. Given the state of cultural/historical illiteracy today, I am not surprised by 'Empire.' Afterall, it's Disney/ABC and not the History channel or PBS.

I am a huge fan of classical history and relish any opportunities to indulge in some good ole fashion stories about the fascinating times. The events that led to the fall of a Roman Republic and the rise of an Empire that ruled over a thousand year does not require embellishment or sexing up. It but does demands some rigorous attention to detail while keeping a historical perspective that does not dive into soap operatics. The story of the rise of Octavius, one of the geniuses of the classical times, from pretender to a throne to a God who sired a dynasty never before seen is told through the lens of a freed gladiator slave. First Mistake! of all the different ways of telling this story, why pick such a weak narrator as a noble fighter - this gladiator, though played with genuine intentions could just as easily be a hero in any mid-summer blockbuster movie. His presence does not make the story easier to tell, it just cheapens it. Second huge mistake is the Casting: everyone looks like they were selected from a catalogue: totally archetypal features yet still pretty enough to sell sweaters or insurance.

Lastly, the story: it is based on a true story, but only as much as Christian cartoons are based on what life was in the year 00. I am not sure if you will learn much from this story, except a few dates and places, which can easily be found in a 5th grader's history textbook. Despite the huge amount of archaeological and archival documents available to filmmakers nowadays which when properly combined can almost make you "smell" Rome, that city of a Million people which was the centre of the known world. Rome was the modem day equivalent of New York, Paris and Hong Kong combined. Instead what we get is a dirty village scenes, that could easily have been leftover from the set of Stargate, filled with a very homogeneous Italian looking set of extras living in huge well lit homes. I would give The Empire a pass. Instead check out Caligula, or Gladiator or even the old classic Fall of the Riman Empire.

Yet another example of TV failing to present one of the great stories of history. They spent the time and money on decent sets, costumes, and actors, but seemed to care nothing about history. Strange, because I believe Americans would enjoy seeing the real story if it was created at this level. However, even if you allow that they can spin their own (hi)story (hey, it's their money), this story started off dull and predictable.

Other reviewers have identified historical flaws in the Octavius character, so I won't repeat them here, but the writers also threw in a gladiator character who appears to be a weak extrapolation from the hit movie. These changes are bad decisions when dealing with such a rich era. When two major characters in the series are created poorly, the series will surely suffer.

Instead of watching the rest of this series, I recommend that you read a book (even a fiction one) about this exciting era to prepare yourself for the upcoming HBO series; they should handle this era much better.

I've watched this four-hour TV epic on DVD with many reservations, which mostly turned out to be true. I've stopped counting the historical inaccuracies long ago and am now trying simply to enjoy this mini-series as entertainment but it's still hard to do, what with a retired Roman general named Magonius who is played by a Black man (!), a "gladiator prison" called "Arkham" (!!) and a slave, played by Jonathan (Beef) Cake, who speaks better English than his master (!!!). The treachery of Anthony is particularly appalling in historical terms but is typical of a script that must have been workshopped in a weekend writers' seminar while channeling every Roman epic cliché ever shot (including some from grand opera, like the deviant Vestal virgin) and putting their incidents in a blender, with the Cate Blanchett voice-over from "The Lord of the Rings" and the medical emergencies from "All My Children" thrown in for good measure. The production values are acceptable, the film shows a lot of sex, violence, sadism and decadence but the cinematography is divided into two groups of scenes: luscious long CGI shots of the countryside or cityscapes with great emphasis on colour, time of day, composition etc. and action/crowd scenes where the camera is jittery at all times and only captures the action in grainy or telephoto close-ups (à la "Gladiator") chopped up in an editing style which makes theses scenes very forgiving of little things like missed cues, bad stunt-work and confused direction, but unfortunately robs them of all majesty, grandeur and clarity. I suppose it could have been much worse. One positive thing is that since this was made for American television, all the major story points are repeated at least six times to allow the addle-brained viewer to follow the plot between bathroom and snack breaks. The four hours fly by rather fast even if they make the viewer less informed about Roman times than if he had never seen them.