Augustus - O Primeiro Imperador

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

I don't know what movie the first reviewer saw but it sure isn't the one I saw or (actually) he is ignorant of Roman history because it was seriously inaccurate. For one, Soldiers in Rome were not allowed to carry weapons within the city walls nor did they work as police detachments to protect the citizens (there were no police, they had gangs and wards and mob bosses who were manipulated by the politicians). The battle scenes against Sextus did not portray standard Roman army tactics. There's no way an entire Roman battalion would be taken down by arrows as the movie shows. They used their shields like tortoise shells and had far less deaths by arrows that way. Also they wouldn't have thrown their spears at the approaching enemy rather they would have marched in strict formation with the spears sticking forward and move like a tank. Then they make Caesar and Octavian out to be peaceniks who only really wanted everybody to be happy and get along (far from it). Pretty much at that point I gave up on the movie. What a waste of Peter O'toole's talent. I can stand a little historical rewriting in any movie but the producers obviously said, "to heck with historical accuracy, just make a movie that will sell lots of tickets." But I'd be surprised if this made a lot of money because as a stereotypical ancient war movie it didn't even do that.

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.

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.

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.