The series "Rome" entirely owes its birth to the series "The Sopranos". Studio HBO at that time understood that it had a real hit in its hands and immediately decided to consolidate the success, creating another film project based on the same developments. By the way, at the time of its release, Rome was the most expensive television series in the world and held this bar until the release of the series Game of Thrones, which, by the way, owes its appearance in the form in which we know it, Rome. On this basis, it is not difficult to guess that the "Rome" thing is extremely extraordinary and very curious.
There are a number of movie series, which in a number of constructive narrative decisions rather represent a very long movie. The series Rome is one of those. There are no special regalia in this aspect, it rather appeals to the tastes and taste of some citizens who like it or not. The series itself is very specific theatrical. The viewer does not try to surprise with grandiose battles and action scenes, which by the way are very few. The grand scale is felt in the small things and approach to shooting. Decorations and life, starting with architecture and clothing of that time, ending with Roman graffiti and military uniforms, are made with great love and scope. The historical chronicle of that time has a huge number of omissions and alterations in favor of artistically dramatic narration, and not documentary, but conveys the essence of the events taking place then in the difficult history of the Roman Empire.
The series itself, in its essence, presents to our attention political and civil sidelines and, most importantly, people placed in such difficult circumstances that require a special approach in their decision. The narrative is conducted through the intricacies of the upper and lower estates of the Roman Empire, very often asking the viewer questions, on the example of complex and ambiguous situations, questions about the honor of dignity, love and greed. In many ways, for me personally, the biggest plus in the narrative is the ambiguity of the characters, of which there are many by the way. The ambiguity that takes place in our lives everywhere is very well reflected in the series, on the example of the same Caesar or Brut. The viewer can rightly hate one of the characters because of nefarious actions, and in subsequent series to appeal and respect for prudence and honor. Character arcs are very colorful and allow the viewer to decide for himself who is right and with whom to associate himself.
To better understand what kind of movie canvas in front of us, I will allow myself to draw an analogy with my favorite movie "Gladiator". "Gladiator" the thing is very archetypal, with a pronounced hero and villain largely based on the scope in action scenes. Rome, in turn, has neither the first nor the second, it allows the viewer to independently decide who should empathize. The scope in this case is felt in completely different things, creating the atmosphere and spirit of the time, deliberately skipping grandiose battles in the narrative, thereby giving the viewer the opportunity to think for himself what could have happened, throwing up answers in subsequent dialogues about past events. I suspect this was done intentionally to put the accents in the narrative correctly and in my opinion, collectively, it worked very hard.
Regarding heroes and events, even the smallest excursion will be completely inappropriate here, since there are not few heroes and they are all very well worked out, but regarding the events, Rome was so rich in them that I think comments are superfluous. It is a pity that we were able to show only 2 seasons due to the huge budget and the burned scenery, which cost very, very much. I dare assume that for any film lover, this series will be a godsend and an even greater find for lovers of history and in particular the history of the Roman Empire.
It's an amazing show. - I think the gods have turned their backs on us. If Mars had seen us, he would have intervened. Maybe he got into some shit and he's not up to us right now.
The series is incredibly beautiful. And revisiting it is a great pleasure. But the downsides are there.
And the most important one is the movie. More specifically, one of the messages.
What kind of message is that? The message is that a huge number of incredibly important decisions, victories, achievements, defeats, etc., were caused by some kind of accident. Random people, accidentally went somewhere, accidentally said something to someone, etc., etc., and then a series of these accidents leads to the death of a protagonist, leads to victory in battle or vice versa to defeat, leads to the creation of a military-political alliance or its collapse, etc.
Yes, there are accidents, there are miracles, everything happens, but the creators of the series have raised these accidents into a cult. I would understand if I read the Iliad. There, different gods of Olympus helped different forces and different heroes, and not everything depended only on a person and his forces, much depended on which Greek god for him. There these "accidents" could still be understood. But in the series Rome only hint that the gods favor someone, and someone not.
Moreover, the creators of the series clearly hint that there are no planners, strategists, those who have power, intelligence and will. Those who can create these “accidents.”
Such people have always been and probably will be for a long time. They help the likes of Julius Caesar or Pompey become great, and then when they do something wrong or are of little use, they are simply scrapped.
It is such strategists who can support someone with money or not, report vital information or not, send someone to liquidate or not, hire PR people to glorify another star in all cities or vice versa denigrate someone, etc.
And then it turns out some chain of strange events, seemingly unrelated, occurring with not the most famous and few people need people, with commoners, but these events greatly affect the plot of this series, and in the most unexpected way.
They try to tell the viewer that only accidents led to the rise of Caesar, to the fall of the Republic and the formation of the Empire, to the death and defeat of Pompey, to the death of Julius Caesar himself, to the victory of the triumvirate (Octavian, Mark Antony and Mark Emilius Lepid), etc.
I'm not talking about silence. There is no mention of the fire in the library of Alexandria. At that time Julius Caesar was there. Is it an accident or not?
Conclusion: Accidents happen, but not to the same extent. All this reminds me of an old French film from 1974, where it was the servants who performed all the feats, not the famous Musketeers and D'Artagnan. And if it were not for the faithful and brave Planchet, Grimaud, Bazin and Musketon, we would not have heard of the victories of Aramis, Athos and others.
... still shows completely unkind characters. And if there are good ones, they are not attractive, they do not attract attention. Evil is much more charming, magnetizes the eye. Why is that?
Evil beckons you. What is it? What is the world so excited about? Violence, abuse of all kinds? Evil beckons you.
The rest of the season is more boring than the first. Everything is the same, although normally directed. Yes, political intrigues, military vicissitudes, love affairs in the entourage are entertaining. But something is boring. What is this?
Evil. The problem is that it is the same. In the beginning, it puts dust in the eyes. And then you look at it, realizing that it's always going around like a squirrel in a wheel. Murder, blackmail, torture, sexual stuff, all the same thing. Evil is not perfected, although still attractive.
At the same time, all the really attractive characters have either been eliminated or shifted to too secondary positions. The two main characters of the series, pawns, are not so interesting to watch for some reason. They don't grow up like heroes. Their thoughts and actions are largely the same. In the past, their fates changed rapidly in the same season, they are brewed in the same juice of the same types.
Perhaps it would be more interesting if our heroes were told that they lived in the Wild West. They are just dolls designed to please the viewers. They're movie robots made for us. Theatrical robots. In the season, by the way, there was much more theater than in the first. Theatrical world of the wild west in the middle of the game of thrones of the Mediterranean.
_
Otherwise, the series still takes our two main characters and makes them the main characters, who every now and then meet as if casually with the rulers of the world, which they unwittingly crowned indirectly, and others down to a depth of two meters underground or below the surface of the water.
Very interesting project, I did not go into historical sources, but the main events are shown reliably. As similar to the tone of the story and the events presented on Game of Thrones, HBO tried the formula “love, blood and political intrigue” in it, which was actively and successfully used in the adaptation of George R. R. Martin.
The project deals with the civil war in Rome between Pompey and Caesar and the subsequent confrontation between Caesar’s successor, Octavian, and Mark Antony, a former adviser and close friend of Guy Julius. It should be noted that the viewer sees the story from absolutely different sides, starting with the heroes (Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullon are both Romans, both were in the 13th legion, but Pullon is a true warrior, often acting rashly, and Vorenus is the commander of the legion, who adheres to his views about the republic and considers Caesar a tyrant). And ending with the sides, we see both the vicissitudes between the relatives of Guy Julius and ordinary people (the same Pullon and Vorenus). The plot lines are well intertwined, real historical facts and events with the participation of Caesar, Pompey and others are alternated by fictional scriptwriters stories about a simpler people. The visuals, atmosphere, costumes and scenery are uniquely the strengths of the project. He has a good budget, good actors and extras and smart historical consultants, so that the story looks plausible and there are no questions about historical accuracy. And given the release date of the series, this becomes an even bigger plus, most of the scenery was built, but alas, 3/4 of them burned down in a fire at the film studio in 2007.
8.4 out of 10
Of all the films about the Roman period of antiquity, the current generation of viewers is most familiar with Ridley Scott’s Gladiator. The viewer of the 20th century remembers the expensive and large-scale peplumas of his time, such as Spartacus or Cleopatra. All these paintings have one thing in common - they are terribly unhistorical. From historically incorrect events and characters to eerie fantasy costumes – all this creates a very schematic and stereotypical image of Rome, but not a reliable picture of the era. Periodically there were projects that still tried to more plausibly show the era and convey the spirit of the time. The series Rome tried and he generally succeeded.
The series tells us about the turning point of the Roman Republic - Caesar's campaigns in Gaul and his subsequent return and coming to sole power. The story is told both on behalf of iconic historical figures such as Caesar himself, as well as on behalf of two simple Roman citizens who find themselves involved in the intrigues and disassembly of the nobility. These storylines are well intertwined, real historical facts and events with the participation of Caesar, Pompey, etc. are alternated by fictional scriptwriters stories about a simpler people. This technique was undertaken in order to show different aspects of Roman society, life and customs of both nobles and ordinary people and not to slide into a dry retelling of historical facts that are familiar to many.
The series is definitely worth commending for its visuals, costumes and scenery. This is its obvious advantage and unlike many similar projects. The series has a good budget (made it by HBO so it’s not surprising), good actors and extras and smart historical consultants. Because of this, the story and events look very plausible and historically true. I think real historians and experts on Rome will find many inaccuracies and shoals, but when they do not throw themselves to the average viewer (as is often the case in historical films), then this is already a success.
During the series, the viewer will be able to thoroughly examine the formation of Caesar as the supreme ruler, his assassination and the subsequent final formation of the Roman Empire in the place of the former republic. And it is interesting to watch this, there are many characters, but they are perfectly played and remembered, and the series also looks great - in general there are all reasons to get acquainted. History lovers are strictly recommended, and just check if you like it too - the project is very high-quality.
10 out of 10
Rome is a great series about male friendship and political intrigue that follows historical events, but not always.
Pros:
- Characters. The most interesting part of the series is the relationship between the main characters, Tita Pulion (an unprincipled and stumpy person) and Lucia Varena (an admirer of the gods, a strict military commander, an exemplary family man and just an honest person to idiocy, but too naive). According to all the canons of great films, they are completely different in character, but they are bound by close friendship.
- Plot. There are surprisingly few films and TV series about the Civil War of Caesar and Pompey, although this period is insanely interesting and very important for the whole history. A large number of political intrigues, conflicts, conspiracies, all this is interesting to observe, and the fact that many heroes are legendary historical figures adds weight, especially if you are interested in history.
- Excellent acting.
- Budget. For the series of the mid-2000s, the series is very expensive. The scenery is just great, there are questions about the costumes, but overall everything looks great. Rome itself looks like my reverence.
- Staging. The series has a great script and a great director for the series. I haven’t had any moments where I’m bored to watch, there’s always something important going on on the screen, either characters being revealed or important historical events being shown.
- The series arouses interest in history, I myself knew little about the war of Caesar and Pompey until I watched the series, but I was interested and I read a couple of articles and learned a lot of new things.
Cons:
- Historical inaccuracies. This item is especially for history lovers who meticulously find fault with any inaccuracies in the work of art. Do not think of the series as a documentary, it is the same as thinking of War and Peace or the Lord of the Rings as a documentary about the Patriotic War or World War II. But it is worth giving the series credit, according to the points of important events of that war, the series should be quite accurate, but the nuances differ very much.
- There is a bit of vulgarity in the series, a little less in the second half, but nevertheless.
- Costumes. Firstly, all legionnaires for some reason helmets are not in size, it is very striking. And secondly, what strange costumes the Egyptians wore, they didn't dress the same way. But in general, the costumes are great, but what I've written has made my eyes horny.
- For a series about the Civil War, which involved tens of thousands of legionnaires, there are no epic battles.
But this multi-part film, along with the Sopranos & #39, opened a new era. The era when the series became different. As they say, the world is no longer the same.
It's a shame that I met 'Rome' just now.
So, as a time period, the authors chose the apogee of the first triumvirate and the coming to power of Julius Caesar - the beginning of the formation of Pax Romana in the world.
How reliable is it? Well, if you compare with ' Gladiator' (he came out 5 years before) then of course ' Rome' to some extent can be called accurate in matchmaking. The atmosphere, architecture, costumes and even the spirit of the era - all this is conveyed simply stunningly. And Lucius Varenus and Titus Poulon, chosen as the main characters of the story, were mentioned in 'Notes on the Galic War'. But their real role in the intricacies of Caesar, Augustus, and their antagonists is unknown. As in 'Borgia' Huang's line is strikingly different from reality.
But as in the history of the odious Spanish family in a particular case, before us beautifully spelled images of heroes of his era, against the background of historical collisions.
And those who drown for historicity and so on send to documentaries and books.
The actors are amazingly selected. Especially I want to mention Hinds, Mezins and Varma, who later flashed in 'Game of Thrones.
If we talk about morality and messages, it seems to me that the authors did not just want to give a history lesson, but to make a serious hint. Insinuations that these days are also full of intrigue, dirty political struggle, murder, betrayal. What is wrong with this is also true for our days.
And of course, it is very disappointing that this project was closed very early - a lot of understatement. I want to believe that the bosses of HBO, who gave millions for the frankly talentless final seasons ' Game of Thrones' will be able to find funds for a colorful movie about Ancient Rome. About the same Punic Wars - after all, Diesel then swung, but did not succumb: it is not an eralash called Furious. And, of course, without subpoenas and 'isms'.
HBO studio was known to me only for the good series 'Game of Thrones' and the overrated series 'Chernobyl'. About the series 'Rome' I only found out according to a video from YouTube, which listed series similar to 'Game of Thrones'. And this concept is 100% justified.
The plot introduces us to the main characters in the history of the Roman Republic in the person of Gnaeus Pompey and Gaius Julius Caesar, but they are not the main characters. I will share my impressions and there are enough of them. There will be comparisons with 'Game of Thrones' despite the fact that this series was released 6 years earlier.
Describe the merits of the series: it does not have the main characters (as in ' Game of Thrones') because each character is given enough time; there is no spirit of good and evil because each character of the series is considered in the right way (despite the actions); intrigue, conspiracies and relationships between the characters are spelled out in the spirit ' Game of Thrones' and kept until the very end of the story; there are no irritating characters since each character had his own story and reason for empathy, and in ' such were, by the way, especially among the characters, especially among the characters, the film, there was a little bit of reality; Steven's performance of the scene and not a good scene; /#39; it was not a real one; /#briddendeniation /#bry /#bry in the scene; /###bry /#bry / #bry /#bry /##bry /#bry /#bry /####bry; /##bry /##
A minor drawback I will call only the maturation of some characters, because the chronology of events passes this way or the characters seem to be older, but they are still the same or they are simply replaced by other actors. But there is an excuse for this because the series was filmed for two years, and waiting for the actors to get old would also be wrong. So this disadvantage is insignificant. Well, there may be discrepancies from history, and here I will be honest, because I did not study the history of that time and I do not consider a disadvantage in principle, but not everyone thinks so.
As a result, 'Rome' is a wonderful series in the genre 'Peplum' which did not exhaust itself to the very end in terms of the plot. And considering that the final seasons 'Games of Thrones' still faced with this, the series quite passes the test of time. And if you like 'Game of Thrones' then you'll love this series. The above advantages 100 times outweigh the disadvantages.
Whew! It’s only two seasons and it seems like ten. In just twenty-two episodes, they did everything right. Perhaps there would have been a sequel, but the fire that destroyed the large set prevented it from happening. I think it's fortunate that we finished the second season of the series just fine!
And so, before you two main characters - legionnaires Titus Pullon and Lucius Vorenus. Two completely different soldiers, a kind of Baddi Movi, who greatly influenced the development of events during the time of ancient Rome, namely, took an active part in the civil wars of 49-30 BC. Don’t think about it, this is not how it really was. That was just the story of the amazing series Rome! These guys, like Forrest Gump, also randomly and carelessly affect the course of events in the series. It was a very funny, touching and, most importantly, interesting story!
The series has a number of pluses. A sense of humor. The second episode is titled “How Titus Pullon Destroyed the Republic.” The name itself says a lot. These good-natured guys will burn in full in two seasons. They made me laugh a lot!
Screenplay. The creators did not rewrite history in the series. They only removed the extra – which was difficult to fit into the script and made Titus Pullon and Lucius Vorenus the main characters, and Gaius Julius Caesar, Guy Octavian, Mark Antony, etc. – secondary characters. It was a very smart decision - you look in one breath! You know, there are such films artistic and documentary, where you are flooded with a lot of information and the viewer, who does not know the essence, will not be able to digest this. That's not gonna happen here. Even non-fans of very important science - history, it will be interesting to watch.
Characters. While watching, I couldn’t decide who I liked best. It was very interesting to watch and worry about everyone. All characters are endowed with very textured characters, thanks to which the series has become so popular.
If you think this series is not popular, then you need to stop watching shit and watch this creation. The series was the most expensive before Game of Thrones, which says a lot for the mass audience. Rome is a great series!
Filmed, of course, large-scale, epic and beautiful - something reminiscent of the old Hollywood epic of the 1950s. According to the historical part, the writers sin, as far as I can judge from my unprofessional view, although in general the historical canvas is maintained. Very significantly - unlike, for example, from the 'Tudors' which I could not see, from what I see on the screen, there is no sense of disguised people of the XXI century. It is as if they were the Roman patricians, the Roman plebeians, the legionaries, the merchants. This illusion is worth a lot. Good and colorful created images: calculating politician Caesar, the favorite of women Mark Antony, nervous Republican Brutus, trembling Octavia, depraved Atia, Servilia, Brutus' mother, similar to Cassandra; absolutely gorgeous Octavian with his cold domineering look - right away I want to give him a salute with his right hand! But perhaps the series has two main successes:
1. Images of the centurion Lucius Warren and the legionary Titus Pullo. Simple-minded, straightforward, unbendingly faithful and awkward with women, Warren and a desperate brave man with gangster habits, Pullo become friends and accompany each other in vague and incomprehensible times. Their history is no less interesting to look at than the history of the patricians; it is a perfect example of male friendship, which is experiencing very serious trials.
2. The main character of the series is Rome itself. Starting with the screensaver, this city in all its diversity, decent and not very, vulgar and beautiful, immediately falls on the viewer. The Senate, the houses of the nobility, the camp of Roman soldiers, the market, the city street, the heterogeneous population, in which even Jewish zealots crowded. The city as a character is revealed best.
To begin with, you can watch ' Rome' in different ways. I am sure that some viewers will immediately rush to look for historical inaccuracies in it, others will criticize the creators for the lack of, in their opinion, battle scenes, others will begin to compare it with other peplums.
For me 'Rome' are a few stories woven around stunning events that shocked the world, the circumstances of which are well known to us from school textbooks. In no way do I want to detract from the significance of these events, but in my opinion, in this case they became more of a context, a background - a backdrop, certainly majestic and incredibly beautiful - for drama.
The stories told to the viewer touch on eternal – apparently, like Rome itself – themes: love, deceit, friendship, loyalty and betrayal. ' Rome' raises many important questions, but does not answer them, offering the viewer to speculate on how he would act in a particular situation. Most of these questions can probably be reduced to one: 'What is good and evil?' As in the days of the Roman Empire, so now universal truths, unfortunately, are absent, and each for himself draws the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable, and life, in turn, constantly exposes the strength of these boundaries to severe tests.
Perhaps some of these stories will seem exaggerated, someone too tragic, but, believe me, they will not leave anyone indifferent.
8 out of 10
Rome. Hard, dangerous and beautiful, like gladius.
Rome of great men and great victories. Rome during the fall of the Republic and mores.
Rome of Caesar and Mark Antony.
What has the republic turned into? Translating into modern language a handful of aristocrats – oligarchs, advertising themselves as defenders of the people against the tyrannical democrat Caesar. And as usual, everything ends in autocracy and real tyranny.
Starting with a screensaver with frivolous graffiti, I instantly plunged into everyday Roman life, because this series is not only about the upper world of that time, but also about ordinary citizens. In the center of the events are two friends of the legionnaire. By the way, they are mentioned in the notes of Gaius from the family of Julia. The canvas of their fates is no less interesting than the fate of the patricians.
Oh, for me, this show was a treat to the eye. There are some discrepancies in history. But! How accurate are the details. Watching this series, you see how they dyed fabrics, how they ate, dipping bread in olive oil, how they tied sandals and tunics, how they did hairstyles. You see religious life, celebrations and ways of offering to the gods. You are there in this life, you smell the stench of the slums and the smell of incense, you hear the best Falern wine pouring down the throat of a big man in a short soldier's tunic. What are those sounds coming from the street? It's the sounds of cymvals and sisters, it's the roar of crowds chanting "Viva Caesar," it's the creaking of kaligs and the jingling of belts, indicating that Roman soldiers are coming.
I read that there is too much sex in this movie. Funny and prude. Sex is an integral part of Roman culture - dirty and rough; refined and refined. Sex as a handout to the hungry and as a reward to the winner.
Thank goodness to the Pantheon of Gods, there is no stupid American dialogue or primitive morality in this film. Because their morality was, oh, different from the modern one. There is no place for humanism, which was sloppy for that period. There is a clear division into castes. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi (as permitted by Jupiter, not allowed by the bull). But at the very top, above all, duty and honor, and your feelings, desires, who cares if it shames your name or not in the interests of the family? You are just as much a willing slave as countless others in this great Empire.
But yet every inhabitant, from the despicable street whore to the patrician, is proud to be Roman.
P.S. A great, powerful empire that conquered two continents, where are you now? It's a rhetorical question. Carpent tua poma nepotes - your grandchildren will reap the fruits.
10 out of 10
What is Rome? It is a great empire stretching from troubled Gaul to hot Egypt. It is a country that has laid the foundation of European culture. It is a state whose laws have had a huge impact on the entire legal system of the modern developed world. Rome is also a city of lust and debauchery, political intrigue and murder, bribery and intimidation, and other not the most virtuous qualities of humanity. To put it simply, Rome has gathered in itself everything that ever existed in the nature of man. With the task of a fascinating story about several of the most important years of Ancient Rome perfectly copes with the series 'Rome'.
Why is he so good? Almost everyone. This is a very high-quality and well-made canvas showing viewers the life and life of the Romans during the reign of several Consuls. In the series, many came to the smallest detail, it is the streets of the city, crowded with merchants, slaves, beggars, in which the action is constantly taking place, and beautiful locations where the main events take place, and the life of the Romans, in which you believe from the first shots of the presented city. In short, the atmosphere of the series is made on 10 out of 10, and if you love this historical era, then at least you will be interested in watching the way of life of that time.
The plot of the series covers several years, so at first it may seem that season 2 is too small for a detailed disclosure of all the necessary events. In part, as it is, many of the episodes that actually took place in history are either omitted, changed, or told in passing. For this, you can put a minus to the series, if not for the masterful work of the writers and directors of the series, who were able to correctly weave the most significant events of one of the most interesting historical periods of Rome in these 2 seasons. In short, the plot covers the war of Caesar and Pompey, the years of the reign of Caesar, the confrontation between Mark Antony and Octavian. The plot is filled with intriguing stories, entertaining and lively dialogues, boring and memorable characters, from which the series does not want to stop watching. Not all series are equally exciting, but after each one you want to know how it will end, what the characters will lead to their goals, who they will eventually become.
The characters of this series deserve special mention. There are a lot of them in the series, and for two seasons it can even be too much, because not everyone is able to open up fully. The central characters throughout the two seasons are the two centurions of the Roman army's legion - Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullon. Their duet is the quintessence of friendship between people of different characters and views, but with a common difficult fate, as well as readiness for mutual assistance in case of disaster. Through the prism of their story, the main events of the series take place, and they are almost always their participants. For good or bad, everyone decides for himself, but, of course, this is a kind of retreat from historical facts in favor of fiction. These characters turned out to be the most revealed, from what their story was always interesting to watch, since everyone develops in their own way, passing through various kinds of difficulties and solving the most difficult life situations. Their stories will be clear, probably, to absolutely any viewer, and everyone will treat their decisions in the series differently. This is not the case with other characters.
'I'll talk to Cassius. Let's see what we can do.39;
Perhaps the most controversial characters in terms of development for me were Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Junius Brutus. Caesar is given too little time, almost all the characters in the series talk about him, everyone has an opinion about his actions, he has both opponents and supporters, but the character of the great Caesar remains behind the scenes from the audience. It's a little sad when you watch the series, because so little time has been given to such an important figure in the history of Rome. Nevertheless, Caesar was quite controversial in many of his decisions, it is a pity that in the series he was presented more as a purely positive hero, not paying due attention to his dubious and not so clear decisions. That is why the greatness of Caesar remained a mystery to me. The same goes for Brutus, but from the other side. In the series, he is presented as an offended boy who, after his mistake, seems to repent, but can not fully admit it. His motivation is not fully clear in the series, why he committed his most famous act is not a good enough reason, and you will be more perplexed and ask yourself ' why?' instead of viewing his crime from different points of view, as it should be. Brutus wanted to save the Republic, but in the series it is shown so weakly and not explicitly that it is more likely to believe in his personal motives than the motives of a fair senator, who wanted to end tyranny. However, if the first season, devoted mainly to Caesar, does not sufficiently reveal the causes and effects of some characters, then the second season copes with this perfectly.
39 By my first act of the reborn Republic, and in honor of my father, I propose to declare Brutus and Cassius murderers and enemies of the state. My father died on this floor. He was stabbed 27 times by people he called friends. Who says it's not murder? Who will tell my legions, who love Caesar as much as I do, that this is not murder?39
Things are quite different with others, as for me, the most ' favorites ' characters of the series - Mark Antony and August Octavian. Mark Antony is one of the most famous military leaders and politicians of ancient Rome. Brave, strong, charismatic, the favorite of the people, loyal to Caesar and the Republic, but greedy, quick-tempered and unbalanced, almost always looking for a way out first of all for himself. His hot temper can cloud the mind, from which his outcome can be predicted in the middle of the series. He is one of the key figures in the first season, and in the second he becomes the central character in the new confrontation. Antony’s charisma and temper is contrasted with August Octavian’s calculating mind and cool-headedness. From a bright boy in the first season, he turns into a dispassionate but prudent ruler in the second season. Its development is most interesting to observe, and its ingenuity cannot but admire. It is especially interesting to follow the formation of his character, knowing who he will eventually become. The interaction of these two characters is perhaps one of the best elements of this series. The reasons for their conflicts are clear, the actions in relation to each other too, everything that concerns Antony and Octavian is told in the series logically and clearly.
There’s a lot more to say about the other characters, but to me, not all of them are as fully revealed. Only due to insufficient disclosure of several characters, as well as the omission of some important events, I am withdrawing a score for this series.
Rome is a majestic canvas of the forerunner of the Game of Thrones, where the blood and tears of commoners coexist with the behind-the-scenes wars of the most influential families of the city. The cult television series is not historical and documentary, it is rather a skillfully sewn patchwork blanket in which influential patricians meet and intertwine with representatives of the plebeians.
The first season of the series is set in the circle of Guy Julius Caesar after an eight-year absence returning to Rome. Where power-hungry patricians anxiously await the return of the commander, fearing to lose the power and material well-being gained at the expense of the plebeians. Motivated by self-love and greed, the senators, hiding behind democracy, plot against the threatening diktat of Caesar.
The second season continues the leitmotif of the first, highlighting the resistance of the nobility to the process of establishing sole power based on military force as a form of government in the state. The narrative is built not only in the circle of prominent figures, but also in the circle of the lives of two legionaries Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullon veterans of the Thirteenth Legion, who happened to be participants in key events of the era.
Historical events are described through the lives of involuntary participants of patricians, legionnaires and other plebeians. Disclosing the relationship between the state and the people, showing the character of the era through detailed descriptions of the life and way of life of the inhabitants of Ancient Rome. Heroes of ancient works appear before the viewer much more multifaceted, more complex and mysterious than it seems at first glance.
The creators competently conveyed the cruelty, and the contradiction of time, masterfully conveyed on the screen the process of a coup d’etat. Recreated for the viewer a unique atmosphere of discontent, covered with a mask of praise. Artists have created elegantly designed scenery of the ancient Roman streets, majestic palaces of consuls and rulers whose unique entourage helps to fully immerse yourself in the events of the series.
Because of the writers, accentuating places excessive attention to the family dramas of the main characters. The narrative for the second season becomes monotonous, losing the dynamics and entertainment of the plot development. In some places, approaching a typical soap opera. Even having a problematic second season of Rome as it is not strangely original masterpiece, frightening tragic realism, which years later will be as relevant to the viewer.
9 out of 10
Before fans throw rotten tomatoes at me, I would like to explain why I am writing a negative review of this series. Like probably the vast majority, I came across him thanks to a rather high rating (IMDb gives him a rating of 8.80). With a budget of $100 million, I certainly expected something more from the picture, but then everything is in order.
The first thing I missed was the battle scenes. They are only presented in ' background ' mode. It was only in the middle of season 2 that we were shown a good battle between Brutus and Octavian and Co. I don’t know the history of Rome very well, and I’ve only looked at movies before, but I think the very essence of that time was the battles, the great generals, and so on. All of this is only shown in passing.
The second major drawback is that most of the show is made up of boring dialogue or porn scenes (I can’t call them erotic). And if the first one could still be tolerated, it is simply disgusting to see very specific sexual acts in almost every series. Even if there was such promiscuity in Rome, why should it be shown here, let alone paid special attention? This is still a historical series, and not a porn film + the writers and director had some kind of breeze on manhood. Even in the initial screensaver on the wall depicts a man with a large farm. For what? Why? Not that I’m a prude or a moral guardian, but when things like this are done on the main line of the series, it’s too much.
The third disadvantage is the characters themselves. We are told that Caesar is a dictator and a tyrant, and therefore a conspiracy led by Brutus is being plotted against him, but in fact why he is considered such is not said. Guy Julius forgives enemies, distributes money to mere mortals, treats opponents with respect, and generally looks like a good grandfather who evil enemies want to destroy. Where is his tyranny and dictatorship? And Cleopatra? Where is the beauty and charisma of the Egyptian queen? It was rightly noted in the series itself: ' an ordinary whore'. Titus Pullon and Lucius Vorenus are a separate story. The whole series they create just some unimaginable and illogical game. The only colorful character in the whole story was the herald who read the news. This actor really managed the role 100%. I don’t want to talk about female characters. It's all clear there.
Each negative, as a result, lowered the overall score. In general, the series turned out not bad, in terms of scenery and atmosphere, but if the authors did not ruin everything in reckless sexual relations, boring dialogue and a bunch of illogical moments, it would be an absolute masterpiece. But alas and ah!
Crossed swords with a friend, a lover of the series “Spartacus”, on the subject of whether he is better than the series “Rome”. To me, “Spartacus” is a pop mixed with blood and muscles, and the competition against “Rome” does not go at all. Can a banana and a tomato be compared?
It is clear that the creators of “Spartacus” the success of the series “Rome” did not sleep quietly and they decided to compete and repeat this success. (I don't like these prequels - ' Wonderful' American invention!) But the series turned out – completely secondary, for lovers of “meat”. It completely lacks irony and an element of hooliganism, it is filled with pathos of heroic cliches about Ancient Rome and its heroes - this is it from the series ' Rome' unprofitable distinguishes.
What was Rome in the time of Caesar? It was essentially a large village run by 200 powerful families, which is reflected in the film. Ahead only looms Rome ' Golden Age' Augusta, which, according to him, he ' took wooden, and left marble'.
In the midst of the Civil War, which broke out in the time of Sulla. The Italians are still learning to be citizens, but the remarkable professional army that Marius reformed is already there. And its two glorious representatives, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullon. Completely different characters, which does not prevent them from maintaining true male friendship. Varennes, although he is not patrician in origin, for me in this film embodies the Roman concept 'virtus' - an untranslatable word meaning the complex of virtues adopted in ancient Rome. And this virtus constantly confronts him with a difficult and uncomfortable choice, as Vorenus rejects all transactions with conscience. Pullon is such a good-natured Winnie the Pooh in ordinary life and a real beast on the battlefield, a very cute character.
The characters of historical figures are also well written: the clever and military genius Caesar, the cautious Pompey, the ambiguous figure of Cicero, Brutus - the man whom Dante placed in the most terrible circle of Hell - the ninth. I really liked the boy who played young Octavian - intelligence, cunning and dislike for personal participation in battles. However, the actor who played the young August is also good - the cold eyes of a man who will pass to the sole power on the heads. It's like the sources.
I didn’t like Mark Anthony at first. The image created by Richard Barton is closer to me, and the character - well, this is the author's vision of the filmmakers. Or does it give itself, in my case, the imprint of Purfoy's former roles? The other was Cato. All historical sources note that he was the conscience of the era, and here some old intrigue. Servilia is a very selfish lady. Years after she had an affair with Caesar, she used his loyalty when it came to her son and received valuable gifts from the confiscated property of his enemies. And in the film, she is depicted as sincerely in love, which rejection turned into a vengeful fury.
Attia here - rather an image invented, but as a collective image of an ambitious patrician, mother, intriguer, trying at all costs to stay at the top of power - very good, reliable and not shocking. Impact on politics through marriage and bed. And these are more elements of the character of the real Servilia or Fulvia, the wife of Antony (she is not in the series for some reason), than Attia.
In general, if we talk about the details of the category ' +18' - do not be hypocritical. The film is not for children, of course. But it must be assumed that in pagan society the attitude towards sex was quite different from what it is now - more free and natural. Just as cruelty was a very common thing. The people of ancient Rome were shocked by other things. So to call some scenes justified by the plot, ' pornography' I would not. The love line of Servilia and Julia was rather amusing.
In my opinion, the plus of this series is attention to small things. It is in them that the living spark of the age lies. Jewelry and hairstyles, funny ' graffiti', ways of notifying about news, letters - they endlessly wrote to each other, customs, life, traditions ... It's absolutely lovely here! So much so that I am willing to lower the curtain over the more blatant details from the point of view of historical authenticity: both the public execution of Vercingetorix at the triumph of Caesar, and a murky personality named Quintus Pompeii, and incest in the house of Julia.
The second season of the series turned out to be somewhat crumpled and sinned more against historical authenticity, but instead provided interesting alternative versions of the development of events. And bravo to the creators for the subtle feeling of the moment when it is necessary to finish this sweet orgy.
In general, be sure to watch the series ' Rome' - this forerunner and sample of all the most worthy series of our time.
In 2005, a joint project from the HBO and the Air Force called Rome was released on television. The budget for the shooting was allocated large (100 million dollars), and therefore the creators tried to fame. Historicity in the series as a whole is observed, but, of course, it should not be taught history, since the authors tried to tell about those events to ordinary viewers. Amazing large-scale and colorful decorations of Rome. The lives of rich houses, as well as ordinary and poor residents of the city were shown. Battles are also shown realistically, although there are not so many. At some points I felt like I was side by side with legionnaires who might accidentally hit you on the head with a sword. This shows the problems of command, building within the army, despite the fact that the Roman army is considered one of the most disciplined armies.
As for the characters, it is also done at the highest level. We are presented with historical figures who are revealed and developed during the series (and some do not). Here you can empathize with one hero, and hate the other as the last enemy. The main characters of the series, Titus Pullon and Lucius Vorenou, the writers have allocated a rather important role. They communicate, maintain contacts with the most key personalities of the Roman Republic and really influence the fate of the state. Initially, these were two legionnaires who participated in the Gallic War and whom Caesar himself praised and respected. Everyone has his own character trait, in many moments it is possible to justify their actions. I believe that Titus and Lucius received sympathy from many viewers, including myself.
Before us is an exciting and informative series, which shows the cruelty and “beauty” of ancient Rome. This series should not be left without your attention and must be watched.
10 out of 10
P.S. I would paint this review in red with the style of Rome.
TV channel HBO is able to shoot high-quality series. This is visible to the naked eye, looking at 'Game of Thrones'. The same can be said about 'Rome' which is actually the progenitor of a younger project. There are some features that unite both films. First of all, this is an abundance of eroticism (sometimes quite beautiful and appropriate, taking into account the mores that reigned in the Roman Republic) and relatively realistic scenes of violence, contrast shooting of the terrain and landscapes (cold tones alternate with warm), excellent acting, well-written script, replete with unexpected turns and many characters, the absence of pronounced negative and positive characters, etc.
The above moments make 'Rome' not a cheap soap opera (tam-tam-tam-tamam-tadam-tadam-tam-tam-tam-tadaam), but a fully watchable film based on historical events. The creators of the project, apparently, proceeded from the principle of A. Dumas, who said: ' History is the nail on which I hang my picture' Some events and characters in the series are distorted, but this does not spoil the impression, thanks to the preservation of the basic story. Of the drawbacks: none of the battles is shown in detail (although there is something to show!), but apparently it was done deliberately in order to save time and budget, which is understandable. Impressions after viewing are purely positive, more such, qualitatively worked out, paintings about the ancient world.
9 out of 10
What affects movies based on real events is the inconsistency with real events.
And the peeple is. I imagine how skillfully professionals in earning our money, trying to please the viewer and give him the impossible, but make a candy. And the bullshit that the qualities of one hero are shifted to another, the characters are in a different place and at the wrong time. Yes, it does not matter to anyone who these people were in history: they can be safely replaced, shuffled, just a mustache not finish. The main thing is to give the simple brain of the consumer the usual images: a hero, a simpleton, a villain, a cynical villain, a dark horse, a victim of love, a victim of all, boobs. And the great Rome - well, Rome: only female intrigues. The characters are beautifully painted!
The venerable Atia, during her life in nothing bad unnoticed, and at the time of the events described, being in her second happy marriage, suddenly became a cruel bitch in the film, copied from the real wife of Antony Flavia, who was removed from the film altogether. A wife to a hero is the end of the movie! Octavia, twice a wife and an honest mother, whom the people adored for her meekness, suddenly became a fool and an unsuccessful experimenter of free behavior. Cleopatra suddenly forgot all 8 languages and became a drug addict. Caesar was not killed because he wanted her second wife. That's right, you don't have to marry drug addicts! And let sex with fists be loved not by Anthony, but by Octavian. He is a young strange villain, and Anthony is a cynical handsome - he is already like the audience loves him.
It was pretty, wasn't it? It's like you have to know history to shuffle the facts like that! And you, the audience, don't need to know anything! People come to the cinema to relax, to enjoy the art: catharsis, aesthetic pleasure - all things. . .
And the very intelligent have nothing to watch at all - let the books read: Shakespeare is there, Plutarch some. ..
And those who studied in school, can remember that somewhere it was already. If Nikanor Ivanovich’s lips were to be put to Ivan Kuzmich’s nose, if I could take anything loose, such as Baltazar Baltazarovich’s, and, perhaps, if I could add to this the degeneracy of Ivan Pavlovich, then I would immediately decide. Now think about it! This Gogol phrase is usually cited as an ironic comment on someone’s whims, unreal desires, vague dreams. This is how American cinema is sculpted: 'Any whim for your money'.
Not a rouble! At home we will watch pirate copies and laugh devilishly, Plutarch having read!
HBO is currently one of the best cable channels in the world, their series have huge budgets, are filmed world-class actors, and the audience beats all records. One of the most famous and cult products of HBO is the series Rome. It was shot together with other studios and the project was so expensive that the creators had enough funds for season 2. Released in 2005, Rome set a new benchmark for TV series. Where the dirty realism and epicity of real-life well-known historical events blend perfectly.
The action takes place in ancient Rome during the reign of Pompey. It all begins with the fact that Pompey dies his wife, a relative of Caesar’s main enemy Pompey and another precedent for the throne in Rome. Caesar is not restrained by anything ready for decisive action and makes plans to take power from Pompey. Political intrigue, conspiracies, interference of love instincts, murders of politicians all this awaits you in Rome.
The trick of the series is that real historical figures are involved here and all events are based on a real story, and the creators tried to convey everything as reliably as possible. Where there should be dirt, where there should be meanness, the heroes behave as mean as in life. The way of life of ancient Rome is perfectly conveyed, which, of course, differs from ours in detail, but in general, values have not changed at all over 2000 years.
It is also worth noting the dynamics of events. The project spans several years and the rulers change several times over the course of the series. It only begins with the battle of Pompey and Caesar, but in the course of history, precedents for power change and sometimes in unexpected ways. Rome is such a Game of Thrones, but without magic, dragons and zombies, only real people and real events.
All the money was spent on creating the atmosphere of ancient Rome. Expensive scenery and attention to every detail completely immersed in the series. But here the most important drawback of the project is formed - a small amount of entertainment and an almost complete absence of battle scenes. Often the battles and battles themselves remain behind the scenes, and we are shown only their results and changes that have occurred in connection with these moments.
Despite this, Rome is a good series, worth watching. It is short and will not take much time. Only 22 episodes in total. To watch it, you need to turn your brains on as much as possible and enjoy the best historical and political series in the world.
The Roman Empire, I century BC. Two valiant Roman soldiers, Lucius Varren and Titus Pullion, are drawn into the epicenter of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey the Great. In this dense tangle of contradictions and various political intrigues, such great people as Caesar’s right-hand man Mark Antony, young Octavian, his mother-intriguer Atia, Caesar’s mistress Servilius and her son Marcus Junius Brutus, Senator Cicero, as well as many and many others are also looking for their place.
Before you start praising or scolding the series ' Rome' first you need to deal with one interesting paradox. I learned about the existence of this serial film from the historical program ' Everything is so ' which airs on radio ' Echo of Moscow'. Deeply respected by me historian Natalia Ivanovna Basovskaya praised 'Rome' for its plausibility and attention to detail. However, when viewing it turned out to be enough 1-2 episodes and minimal knowledge taken from Wikipedia to understand that from a purely historical point of view, the series, of course, is not reliable even at the level of working out the characters, let alone the details of the script. Yes, of course, some common things are shown correctly: the famous scenes of the death of Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony and Clepatra, including. However, one of the main characters of the series Atia is almost completely fictional character, also concerns many of the characteristics of Servilia, not to mention Lucia Varren and Tita Pullion. However, there is no inconsistency with Basovskaya’s words here. Her positive response refers only to secondary details. The series ' Rome' very accurately and meticulously shows the decoration of the rooms, clothes and household details of the time, weapons, military constructions, interconnection of magistracy, speeches of speakers, the structure of the Senate and many other historical nuances. As for the plot, then, of course, no one advises or recommends to learn the history of this series. But to get the first, extremely blurry, but at the same time incredibly fascinating, impression of the heroes and events of that time - why not?
So, all the events taking place in the series 'Rome' can be divided into two overlapping storylines. The first is the adventures of actually fictional characters, the Roman legionaries Varren and Pullion. For 22 episodes, these characters undergo a lot of life turmoil, change in characters, and cause the viewer a strong sense of empathy. Without them, this show would be nothing more than a semi-documentary historical sketch, with them it turns into a full-fledged, dramatic, verified action. The second line is historical. It begins with the confrontation of Caesar and Pompey, and ends with a war between the hardened Octavian Augustus and settled in Egypt Mark Antony. This is probably one of my favorite historical periods, so it is extremely difficult for me to judge objectively. Personally, it was very interesting to watch, because I often knew what would happen next, and I was looking forward to how the creators interpreted certain events on the screen. The main character of this line, of course, is Mark Antony in the brilliant performance of the charismatic James Purfoy. His biography turns out to be the connecting line of all events taking place in the series. From a psychological point of view, the transformations taking place with Atia and her son Octavian, who is gradually transformed from a clever teenage bookmaker into a cruel, insensitive dictator, are also very interesting. Well, the coolest character of the series, which appears in absolutely all episodes is the herald on the square in front of the Senate, believe me, I will not forget episodes with his participation for a very long time.
'Rome' this is another quality product from HBO. So 'Game of Thrones' but without dragons and with historical background. For fans of the era of the Roman civil wars, who have enough sanity to not spit on every departure from historical reality, this series is simply from the category 'must see'. For example, I personally liked this series, and even, perhaps, very much.
9 out of 10
Perhaps, in order to fully understand this series, you need to thoroughly know the history of ancient Rome, but even poorly educated viewers (more precisely, only those who are not against the elements of 18+ on the screen), this spectacle will clearly have to taste. Opponents of scenes of sex and violence will shout ' some kind of porno!', and viewers who do not dislike such elements of adult cinema will appreciate the series, showing the truth of life of that time. By the way, nudity in the series is not so much, in contrast to the more frank historical serial peplum 'Spartacus. Blood and sand & #39;, in which there is a head and action, and candid scenes. And the scenes of violence here are also much smaller, and the battle scenes are completely absent. It is possible that the fabulous budget of $100 million was partially used for the services of a historian-consultant, thanks to which the series showed ancient events with historical accuracy. By the way, the scenery in 'Rome' much more beautiful and diverse than in 'Spartacus' - it is clear that this too costs a lot of money, but the lack of action can disappoint fans of large-scale battles. I was ready for the fact that I would see not an action, but a narrative about palace coups, and expected to hear high-quality dialogues, which I understand well - well, I got what I wanted, quite. However, the series did not occupy an honorable place in my collection next to Spartak', not only because of the lack of action, but because of the less interesting plot. The dialogue here is really chic, only the plot seemed not quite clear. Let's take a closer look.
We are shown at once several plot lines with different characters - it would seem that this is even good, but in ' Spartacus' there was also an abundance of characters, and all their actions were extremely clear. Here the camera jumps from one group of heroes to another, and sometimes, when I started watching the next series, I could not remember what happened in the previous one. I bet the series is quite interesting, beautiful; plus, especially for people like me, elements of cinematic dirt, such as incest between brother and sister, various intrigues - all this was pleasing to the eye and ear and kept the screen. The series cannot be called a multi-part attraction, which can be called 'Spartacus. Blood and Sand, seen in one breath (which, by the way, can not be accused of lying either - this project showed the most true story of the leader of the slaves) - here rather what I put in the title of the review. Characters such as Mark Antony (played by an actor who portrayed the traitor Spence from my beloved ' Resident Evil'!), Atia, her children Octavian and Octavia pleased. But I did not like the image of Cleopatra - the legendary queen for something showed a short-haired psychotic girl of easy behavior. Thinking back on the 1963 and 1999 films about this woman, I couldn’t get used to the unpleasant image portrayed in this series. The television film ' Julius Caesar' 2002 also liked me a little more than 'Rome', so missing Caesar's phrase 'And you, Brutus. ..', spoken before his death. A joke, of course. The series is good, very, very nice to watch. I was just waiting for a more perceptible spectacle, and, although not everything was clear, the viewing left only positive impressions.
P.S. I recommend watching the translation from LostFilm, it is more frank than from NTV+. Mat in it was played only once, in general it is just a quality voiceover.
Although in the title I called it the best, but on 'historic' it pulls with some stretches, sometimes very substantial.
1. Servilia is a screening in the film by a real witch and without grounds. Atia is shown as Anthony's mistress, but I haven't seen that kind of information. And besides, in Rome of those days, women did not influence politics like this, as shown in the film.
2. Caesar is shown as a harsh warrior and insidious politician - and after all, he was one of the most versatile minds of the era, he wrote books, poems, was well versed in law, was, in addition, a great pontiff (in the film about this not a word, and even in one of the episodes showed the high priest, but he was Caesar himself!). By the way, even in this 'simplified' form, Caesar is seen as a whole figure.
3. The battle of the Phillips (and others too) is not solved at all. The story was very interesting - the left flank of Cassia failed, and the right Bruta captured the camp of Octavia and Antonia! The battle continued only the next day. Cassius didn't look like himself, and he was a warrior. Weird. ..
4. Where are the famous generals of Anthony, Ventidius, Pollion? Everything revolves around women, completely unfounded. Where's Sextus Pompey? In the first battle with Antony (the death of two consuls and the victory of the Republicans #39), Octavian did not participate. In the film, it is presented as if he was the winner (with reservations, but still!).
I was surprised by the very exposition of the battle in the film: first the marching legions are shown promisingly, then the beginning of the battle & #39; Shields in the shield & #39; and then suddenly the general plan of the battlefield, where there is no building (this is in the Roman army?!), and everyone fights with everyone. It was sad to see that.
5. Sex scenes are too much. Dignitas was very important at the time. To quote Tyler 1991, he said very accurately:
Yes, morals in those days were certainly not of the best (remembers the phrase Cicero “O times, about customs”). But to lead the historical narrative through the prism of sexual intercourse is perhaps upward degradation. I don’t know for which audience this series was shot, but is the “decaying west” so rotten that it is possible to attract the viewer to the story only through the demonstration of “tits”?
That's just what I remembered. Oh, Cleopatra's sex with Pullo is beyond my comprehension. This was impossible, as if disclosed, it would have irreversible consequences for the reputation of the Queen.
The merits of the series are beyond doubt. Detail ' elaboration ' Rome itself, colorful and historical characters of Octavian, Antony. Comparing the historicity with other films about this era (Cleopatra, another Cleopatra), I pay tribute to this series. But still, in place of the creators, I would adhere to the maximum historicity, especially since it was more interesting than the plot of this series.
I am very happy to review the series for the second time, but I will not sing diphrambs to him, based on what I wrote above. Of course, if a person from the history of Rome knows only the course of school (university) history, for him this will be a revelation.
Titus Pullon and Lucius Vorenus. The dictator himself, in his Notes on the Gallic War, writes of them: And no one could say definitively which of these two is more worthy, and which should be preferred to the other. The transformation of these figures was necessary, of course, for the sake of art. Being away from political intrigues, they are sometimes decisive links in the chain of events, they are in the center of serious historical episodes. Sometimes this is perplexing, because it is impossible to imagine these two guys ubiquitous, and their presence in some scenes seems inappropriate. It seems that these brave heroic images were placed in the series for the breadth of outlook, for the parallel of the soldier’s life and the life of those in power. In some moments, this parallelism reaches a suggestive-aesthetic apogee, for example, when the picture of a soldier crying for his wife is replaced by the cry of a faithful slave for his master.
The appearance of Caesar certainly does not resemble the appearance of Kiaran Hinds, who has on his face it is written that he is Irish. Even the famous cartoon "Asterix vs. Caesar" can please us with a more accurate copy from the bust of the dictator. But the face of this Irish actor has such a force of influence that you immediately understand why the choice fell on him: gestures, dances of emotions on a stone face, impressive glances, expressive movements; Yes, such that immediately there is a desire to visit his triumph, releasing pigeons into the sky and throwing rose petals into the air with the cry: Caesar! Caesar! Caesar!
It is not without interest that you follow the actions of Serbia . It is feverish to love Caesar, and then to say to all the gods things like: let his cock dry, let his bones crack, let him see his legions choked with their own blood - it is so feminine, to be honest. But the lesbian motive is unknown, especially since there is no data on it (as far as I know). But with regard to the homosexual relations of Caesar, there is information, albeit not confirmed, his serial image is more indifferent to carnal pleasures. The question of the lesbian motif is open, the water in the clouds is dark.
But one of the most disturbing, perhaps, were the episodes of the relationship Antony and Cleopatra. "Love is insignificant if it has a measure", - once again prove these characters from the pages of history textbooks, from the pages of novels and plays, from theatrical scenes and screens. The majestic and picturesque James Purfoy and Lindsey Marshal did not hit the mud with their face, replenishing the outstanding list of cinematic embodiments of these images.
The musical accompaniment is deeply out of proportion, thank you, Jeff Beale. Thank you, creators, for the twenty-two-part pleasure. But before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, after all, a good half of a millennium of fascinating events, think about it at your leisure.
I liked the series in general. It is certainly heavy and at first it was a little difficult to watch, but when you begin to understand his manner of presentation, it becomes very interesting.
That's important to me. All I knew about that stretch of time was that Caesar would be killed. This series made me read various historical materials, in something to improve my knowledge. That's a big plus for me. Now for more on the series itself.
The plot is drawn out, as in any series, where each episode is an hour. It would have been easy to cut each episode down to forty minutes, it would have been much easier. However, the story itself is very interesting, it shows that period at the global level (various political intrigues) and at the level of ordinary people. The plot is addictive, I want to look further and further.
Heroes of the series liked not all. I certainly enjoyed watching a couple of Titus Poulion and Lucius Vorenus. Of course, they had a lot of ‘39; grand pianos in the bushes’ & #39; but following their stories was very interesting. Mark Antony also pleased, in one episode caused delight, in the second wild anger. Octavian as a rather ambiguous character also fell into the soul, as well as his whole family. 'Oppositionists' also caused conflicting feelings. I believe that the actors who played all the above characters coped with their roles 100%. The rest either didn’t like it or simply left no trace in their memory.
The design is excellent, considering the year of the series. Roman houses are shown very well, clothes, equipment, Roman life, etc. - all this is at the proper level. Musical design is also selected for the place. Erotic scenes look organic.
For me, the main disadvantages of this series are its protractedness and incredible luck to the two main characters. Secondary flaws - the play of some actors, understatement in certain plot moments. The disadvantages seem to be less, but they are important. In general, I recommend to view and put
I love movies and TV shows based on a true story. I even forgive the authors of such paintings a certain deviation from the canon, if it is compensated by an interesting action and entertainment. However, in the case of ' Rome' there is nothing to forgive, by and large - he is as close to the history books as possible. Only this automatically makes ' Rome' one of the best TV shows ever.
However, this is not his only trump card. Personally, I really liked the manic attention to detail - thanks to this, looking 'Rome' you can understand what the Romans lived in the days of Caesar and Octavian, what they ate and drank, what they did at leisure and during work. For me, as a lover of history, this is a big plus.
It should also be noted that the series itself is very exciting. Even knowing what will happen next (for example, that Caesar will be killed by the senators), it is simply impossible to break away from what is happening. This work and directing, and great actors, and interesting dialogue, and well-staged scenes of the fight.
Personally, I consider ' Rome' the best historical series of our time.