Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Tweekums The history depicted in 'Rome' may not fully match the known details but given a little dramatic license it is close enough. Over the course of two seasons we see Roman history from the rise of Gaius Julius Caesar to the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra. Much of what we see is shown by looking at events as they impact on two soldiers; officer Lucius Vorenus and rough and ready Legionary Titus Pullo. Over the course of the two seasons this pair manage to be involved in just about every major event of the era! There is also a focus on the household of Julius Caesar's niece, Atia of the Julii, as she schemes to maintain a dominant position in Roman society.This is definitely not a series for the easily offended. We don't get too much in the way of pitched battles, that would have been too expensive, but there is a lot of fairly brutal violence during frequent more small scale skirmishes. There is also quite a lot of sex and nudity, both male and female, as well as language that may offend some viewers. If all this doesn't bother you though this is a gripping series that is exciting and packed with interesting characters. The, mostly British, cast that includes plenty of familiar actors does a really good job; most notably Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson as Vorenus and Pullu, Polly Walker as Atia and James Purefoy as Mark Antony. Ciarán Hinds is also really good as Julius Caesar until his death at the end of the first season and Lyndsey Marshal is memorable as Cleopatra despite only appearing in five episodes. It is a shame that it only lasted two seasons, and because of this the second season does feel a little rushed as the creators pack in so much history that was intended to be spread over a longer time. Overall I'd heartily recommend this to anybody who likes things like 'Game of Thrones'; this may be more grounded in reality but it contains many of the elements that make that show so gripping and popular.

Aristides-2 Technically a very good visual product. However the story introduces and drops characters, something a good film project doesn't do, i.e. the only survivor of Vorenus's slave investment, a young boy, is 'saved' by Vorenus, introduced to the family and then disappears. Another example is the chief of Egyptian security/army who we are told has a force of 100,000. He is pleaded with by Cleopatra's top two officials, says he "has to think about it" and then is never seen again. Then in the final episode we have the terminally wounded Vorenus, in an un-canopied WOODEN wheeled cart, making it across what appears to be an Egyptian desert under days of blazing sun and heat.....for 30 days. 30 days to cross from the boonies of Egypt to Rome! How can some of you give this atrociously written movie 4 and 5 stars. Finally, and this is directed to the folks who absolutely loved "Rome", do understand that you cannot think of it as even remotely historically accurate; Julius Caesar WAS NOT killed in the regular Roman senate building. It was under repair in 44 BCE and so on March 15, the senate met in a chamber next to the Theater of Pompey, where he was slain. We also regularly see a group of perhaps 3 or 4 senators who are suggested are the main assassins. It was more likely a group of up to 33 senators who were the plotters and assassins. In conclusion, though there's much more to be said, I would invite the people who liked Rome a lot, other than for it's porn and violence, to do some reading about its history. The reality of those times is so much more fascinating than what this mass entertainment portrayed.

AJ Leight Alright, so I had always been told to watch 'Rome' by friends whom have a similar taste in 📺 (tv) and 🎥 (film). But 11 years after it came on the air and I still hadn't tuned into a single episode. Shameful. Alas, the time came the other night and I sat down, just to give a shot... a chance to scratch it off the 'have never seen' list if nothing else. Needless to say, I should have listened sooner. Right from the beginning I was intrigued, as I was unaware that I knew the main actor (from Grey's Anatomy) and liked the fact there was at least one familiar face. The next thing to grab me was the subtle humor, mostly provided by his prisoner-turned-right-hand-man. (Pardon my lack of character names... even though I just spent 2 days binge watching the show, my memory is awful when it comes to names. At least with 'Rome' many of the characters are known from the history books.) But I digress... To avoid this turning into a novel, I won't go into a ton of detail. When all was said and done, I saw it as a lower-budget Game of Thrones mixed with a slightly wittier Marco Polo. Seeing as it came before both, I think it's pretty impressive. I just wish there were more than 2 seasons!

aew-10 I have been interested in Greek and Roman history since I went to school. I was looking forward to a serious production. I had no preconceptions and did not know which era of the long history of Rome would be addressed.This had the potential to be an amazing series given all the plotting and political intrigue that went on in ancient Rome over many centuries. Instead it is reduced to the level of a soap opera.This series is just plain awful. Where to start - poor acting, poor dialog, sex every few minutes, nudity, jerky plot, no introduction as to who the protagonists are and their back story? This along with Spartacus is not wholesome family entertainment.I gave up on this dross after one episode.