Opiniones de usuarios

It is generally entertaining, but the depictions and descriptions of the battlers are not accurate and miss some of the pivotal details. But worse is the depictions of Roman fighting style - Roman infantry fought in tight formations and stabbed with the Gladius! They really needed a military historian on this show. Instead you see Roman infantry hacking and slashing like some Hollywood depiction of ancient warfare - groan.

At first I thought this gives game of thrones a run for its money and I wondered why people gave it bad reviews. It seemed normal people give it 1 for not being more exciting while history buffs give it 1 for not being historically accurate. I don't care if they added in a vase, good looking women, or a mountain since going into this show you need to understand its going to take some liberties. If you think it's boring than I doubt there is any version of this that could make you happy. What made me not like it as much is after watching the first episode where they had history experts on and built up this whole thing complaining about commodus being a untrained loser is the fact that he was only 13 years old at the time! The part is being played by a 28 year old man! It's much harder to blame a 13 year old not being ready to be the king of Rome than it is a 28y/o man. Also Commodus's mother either got some sickness and died or committed suicide. The show makes it look like the king killed her with wine. Historically there doesn't seem to be anything to back that up and some people disagree that she even had anything to do with the uprising. After not even hearing the alternate views of these events where Netflix seemed to choose the most extreme version for extra hype this really is making me skeptical about the rest of this show.

There's definitely a lot of historical inaccuracies but it's entertainment and there's lots to learn for people that don't know anything about that time period.

Although this is tagged as a Documentary under Genre it is just a TV show. Any resemblance between this show and actual history is purely coincidental and no-one should use this show to inform anyone about any aspect of the Roman Empire or any of its inhabitants.

As a TV show it's entertaining, as an historical documentary it's junk.

I'm not really a history buff so I can't comment to the legitimacy of the reports, but I can say it's a fairly enjoyable docuseries. The re-enactments are good quality and add to the series, the interviews at least appear knowledgeable.

It has the elements of both documentary and drama, so I would prefer to call it docu-drama. If you're looking for a pure drama then this is not for you. If you're looking for a pure documentary then this is not for you. The makers of the show have made it a point to keep the content highly engaging without missing out on the crucial turning points. The narrative is quick and yet you don't feel like the makers are rushing. Major details have been explicitly explained without unnecessary drama and actors have done justice to their roles. Of course a full fledged show encompassing the entire Roman History is a magnanimous task, and hence the idea of a docu-drama seems feasible.

Ok, so after watching season one and starting season 2, I have a few nitpicks.

Even though the story of the first season was amazing. Of course, it did help that it might be the most interesting emperor of all time, and despite all the bad things I'm gonna write here, the sets of the actual important story elements looked and were quite good.

So, firstly, I must say, the battles they show in the beginning of S2, with scesar, were very inaccurate. Romans fought in organised lines and formations.definitely not in a large battle, without shields in a huge chaos of 1on1 fights. I mean, it's the minimum. You get experts, which aren't so insightful to be frank, and sell this to me as a almost science docu and get that wrong? Idk.

So yeah. Like I said in the title, for some reason all the long shots are weirdly bad In a way that just doesn't make any sense, In any context.

I mean, the regular scens look great, but you just feel your watching two different productions.

One made in India on Redmi 6a and the other, well, an actual film studio. It's confusing and got me really un immersed in scenes switching back and forth. There is litterly no reason. Put a stock photo instead. Anything. It's not complicated .You can get much better phootage in the 50s.

I don't get it.

For anyone loving the Spartacus series on Starz or any series, movies about Roman days and history, you will like this series. It actually has several actors from the Spartacus series. Commodus is played by Aaron Jakubenko who was Sabinus in Spartacus War of the Damned. Marcus Aureliys is played by John Bach who was Magistrate Calavius in Spartacus Blood and Sand. Segovax was played by Mark Edward who is Narcissus in this series. Also Tyronne Bell who was the trainer for the actors in Spartacus is a Gladiator in the opening of this series. I've just started this series and I am up to Episode 5. Sean Bean narrating is fabulous. It's grabbed a hold of me. Loving it so far. I hope more info will be released about this show. More reviews will come in. I know a lot of my Sparty buddies have jumped on the watch board of this show! Enjoy!

Narrator states that Julius Caesar is stabbed on March 14th, thus reinventing history's Ides of March, being March 15.

Unforgivable error

There are a lot of haters out there that think they are history buffs. To be fair, the series missed a few details, but the main plot points are there. I thought this series was pretty entertaining and follows the main plot decently enough. People are so picky these days. They feel like they are owed something. Just shut up and enjoy the entertainment ya snooty grub.

This is a reasonably entertaining series that is a little like those History Channel re-enactments spiced up with a touch of HBO's "Rome".

Although other reviewers have highlighted the dumb stuff, the whole thing seems researched to a point, but wisely covered with a disclaimer that states where there are gaps in the historical record they have simply made it up.

It looks like New Zealand is the latest land to erect the papier-mache Forum and put on the crested helmets for a walk among the Ancient Romans. However these days it must be hard to find suitably ripped extras that aren't covered in tats - male or female.

So far there are three seasons featuring Julius Caesar bracketed by Commodus and Caligula.

The trouble with all this is that we have seen some pretty arresting interpretations of these guys over the years and Aaron Jakubenko as Commodus seems just a little too normal compared to the edgier shadings of Joaquin Phoenix and Christopher Plummer - not to mention Ido Drent up against Jay Robinson's high camp turn as Caligula in "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Maybe Aaron and Ido just needed to chew a little more scenery

The dialogue fluctuates between too-modern sounding jargon and some surprisingly literate passages. Much of it is built around the work of ancient writers who could show today's tabloids a thing or two about spilling the goss on the Royals.

Although we learn of Commodus stacking the odds in his favour when he became a gladiator, "Roman Empire" baulks at presenting the really gross things he did in the arena.

The high point in Season One comes when Marcia, the slave girl played by Kiwi actress Genevieve Aitken, causes Commodus plenty of toga turbulence leading to treachery and his demise at the hands of an uber-jock gladiator.

By comparison, Julius Caesar's story is more familiar featuring Vercingetorix and Cleopatra, but with the imaginative inclusion of Spartacus and Crassus - more gaps in the historical record I suppose.

Season Three could almost be called "All in the Family" as Caligula has affairs with his three sisters, but it's fairly sedate compared to Malcolm McDowell's cover version in 1979's "Caligula".

All in all, I enjoyed this series and I think there's room for another season or two. However, if they tackle Nero, remember that Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov have plucked the lyre with gusto and whoever plays the part shouldn't hold back. With a bit of luck, they'll also find another spot for Genevieve.

Okay so tons of wanna be perfectionists writing reviews on this title. All of them must be perfect and all of them must have published works that outline perfectly and completely accurately the history of Rome. They must because they seem to believe they are the authority on the history of Rome. I'm not, but I do have a passing understanding of the events that took place. While this may not be (in their opinion) accurate I think it is an amazing depiction of the events. No one, and I do mean NO ONE, alive today or alive in the last 1000 years or so has any idea of what truly and actually happened. We have written accounts of the victors ideas of the things that happened. We can guess at what happen with a certain level of accuracy but not certainty. Also this is not meant to be a history lesson as most people do not care at all about these events, it is meant to get people interested in the history of the world and the things of the past. This is a great example of doing that and I hope that some young people see this and decide to get involved in the study of history. As for all the people that think they are so fantastically much smarter about history, get a life.

GOT fans would likely get a lot out of watching this series, it's apparent how much GOT was actually inspired by Roman "history". Sean Bean narration is a touch that sets this mood nicely.

"History" is definitely meant to be quoted here. This show should've decided whether it wanted to lean toward lavish embellishment OR historical accuracy, not both, and make its choice clear. It presents itself as "history", especially when paired with expert testimonies, but fails to warn how misleading this can really be.

You may decide to watch this as fiction, and disregard all inaccuracies and enjoy, but for those with even a basic knowledge of Roman history, they can be greatly distracting.

All in all, it's somewhat dangerous to present the material in such a factual way, when it's really only "factual". The show needed to make its decision more clear on this, instead of masquerading itself as historically accurate.

For something passing itself off as a documentary, there is not much historical accuracy in this wanna-be docu-drama. When Crassus defeated Spartacus, Pompey was in Spain fighting Sertorius and Caesar was in the East under the general Lucullus - hence the rumor by his enemies that he prostituted himself to the King of Nicomedes for a fleet of ships. Caesar's daughter Julia, at this point in history was approximately 5 years old, not the almost full-grown woman presented here. Why these alleged documentaries insist on fabricating stories when the actual, real history is so much more intriguing, I'll never understand.

sadly another typical 'modern' docudrama with unnecessary acting to expand viewer reach. while the acting ls atrocious, at least they cast most actors close to contemporary descriptions. quite a few of the reviewers have commented ln actors looking like pornstars, along with 6 packs and being built. if they'd listened to the academics and not focused on something trivial, they'd have learned commodus was an athlete and in real life built. this doc has well explained academic commentary on a often criticized, yet rarely lectured about emperor. here, ignoring the sensationalized acting, we come away with an interesting chronicle of the emperor who began the downfall of rome. his father is often declared the last good emperor. while it'd save time to just read about commodus' failures, a new roman documentary is always worth it to history buffs. Senātus Populus que Rōmānus!

This series could have been so much more! Amazing costume design and set dressing. Great narration and input from historians. However it fails horribly with badly written characters and stiff dialogue, poor directing and acting. I expected a lot more from a Netflix series dealing with such rich famous historical stories.

This series creates a new format... dramatization with commentary from real historians thrown in. I really liked it, it's fresh, and the historians are real scholars. The dramatizations are also well done.

Why put together absolute rubbish like this when you have so many fine actors working on this production. You have the facts available, use them. This is worst than watching soap operas for Historical inaccuracies.

I am only in the 10th minute of the 1st episode about Julius Cesar and already so many historical inaccuracies. Roman roads were build not by slaves but by soldiers. Few gladiators were war slaves, more often men sold themselves to become gladiators in hope to pay their debts. Besides many gladiators of Cesar's time were celebrities and adored by audience. Cesar weren't just soldier when he started his military career, he was military tribune according his and his family social status, he was a patrician after all. And Cesar entered army after he was freed of position of Flamen Dialis, a religious office in Rome. Freed by Sulla, one of two waring generals of the civil war mentioned in the first minutes of the series. By the way, Cesar was appointed to the position by his uncle Gaius Marius, Sulla's opponent and enemy. And that tells the Rome was much more complicated and complex structure than Netflix think. Ok, let's go to the 11th minute.

As a history buff, and a fan of several cast members due to their brilliant acting skills... not to mention Sean Bean's perfect narration, I very highly recommend this viewing this 6 episode series - which is showing in the USA right now via Netflix.

Most of the newer documentaries these days fall flat because weak writers both fail to research the material earnestly and producers/directors have no love for the facts that true fans of history and science require. This series is an exception to the new paradigm in that it excels on every level. There is the right amount of respectable presenters - who are NOT unwatchable eccentrics - balanced with outstanding cast performances that bring the history to life in a most wonderful way. Aaron Jakubenko is particularly brilliant in his portrayal of Emperor Commodus, which is enhanced even more by a really talented director. The sets, prop details and music are also top shelf.

I really hope that those involved in bringing this series to life do engage in more projects and that they are brought to Netflix ASAP for my friends, family and me to enjoy. Thank You!

I like Roman History and after the first couple of episodes i started picking holes in this production regarding some historical accuracy. But i had to admit i was enjoying this show. Not all together historically accurate, yet curiously entertaining.

I saw the "Ottoman Empire" recently that it's a hybrid format miniserie, with descriptions, here and there, of the events by journalists, writers and historians; I liked it.so I wanted to give this one a shot too.

Well, surely it's not flawless, maybe a bit cheap (with short scenes recycled from other episodes) but, actually not as bad as the score would let you think. I saw "Rome" and "Spartacus" time ago, they are better in different ways, but they are not a "docufilm".

Reviewers are often too tough and don't consider efforts to create these works. They almost convinced me to avoid seeing it. Luckily I did not. The series, although flawed, has nice photography, decent actors, nice music. The Cesares season was the best to me. It caught my attention till the end and found it engaging as much as the "Ottoman Empire".

This series really deserved a better score.

8/10

these shows are so well done, they can be amazing.

I usually enjoy them in the beginning, but then it seems there is and obligatory sex scene in every episode. After watch Tudors to the end I was insulted they Netflix thinks we need this sex to enjoy the show. Especially every episode. I have only watched a bit of this Rome, but it all seems to be formulated when it comes down to the episodes.

Still great piece of history, if you can get passed being insulted. Roman history is something I do enjoy very much, so I intend of finishing the show, because regardless, the acting, costumes, and settings are excellent. martin

You have to really look at this show as fiction, not as historically accurate. Despite the talking head historians, this show is at best loosely based on history, playing up the more scandalous rumours and often just making things up.

That said, it's a fairly entertaining watch. Nothing incredible, but kind of a bored-on-a-rainy-Sunday kind of deal.