It's so bad that I have nothing good to say about either Peter O'Toole or Charlotte Rampling, who have both risen far above bad material in the past. But there really no material here that's less that excreble above which to rise--O'Toole plow through his repetitive mononlogue for HOURS, while Rampling wears what I suppose was the matron version of the Stoic mask.a Young Octavian and young Agrippa remain mercilessly forgettable, but such is not the case with Maecenas--he is so over-the-top that he makes Richard Simmon's at the height of his fame look like a Sloth on barbitutuates. And their costumes .. . oh, my! hBut wait, everyone's costumes are either bizarre, borrowed from Walmart's Linens and Bedroom shop, or come from a Euro/Pound/or Dollars store. Poor actors! he The scenery and set dressing's no better, for it would seem Rome only had one dark, dirty, and dangerous alley, which also served as its only daytime sunlight-filled, clean, and jolly alleyway. And all the marble stuctures look like chalk, which is better than the wooden Julius Caeser who inspired this utter banality. never

This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.

In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."

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.