Empire

Sure its not entirely historically accurate but it is being shown in Australia during the summer, when most of the good shows have gone off. I personally think this mini-series a pretty good as Rome has been reconstructed back to its former glory and the clothes they were especially the women are beautiful. I would watch this mini-series if you like History and even though its not accurate its good entertainment and isn't as boring as most historical films. This mini-series i feel was directed brilliantly and i could watch it again on a rainy day. I'm sure a lot of people who love history won't like this due to the fact its not accurate but who cares? films are meant to entertain and i believe this one does!

Other commentaries have criticized this series for its historical inaccuracies. Well, it was not presented as a documentary. The critical question in reviewing any film or mini-series is "Is it entertaining?" This series is entertaining. It is presented well. The sets are excellent. The acting is far better than most television fare. The two most engrossing character portrayals are Cassius (Michael Maloney) and Tyrannus (Jonathan Cake). Those two and some of the lesser roles carry the film. Cassius is the most believable villain since Hannibal Lecter. If you enjoy good acting, Mr. Maloney's performance alone makes the series worth watching. The central character, Octavius (Santiago Cabrera) is not strong enough to create an interest for the viewer, think of Colin Farrell in Alexander. The viewer will be far more concerned with the fate of Tyrannus than that of Octavius. Other performances are so strong as to emphasize the weakness of the lead. However, only the first three episodes have been shown to date, and at this point Octavius is only a 17-year-old kid. Perhaps the weakness is an actor's or director's choice and should not be mistaken as a weak performance. As the character grows into Augustus will the performance seem stronger? Time will tell. Until then, pop some corn and enjoy the entertainment.

After all the teasers, I watched the pilot & found it typically Disneyfied. It takes historical characters of late first century BCE and early 1st century CE and weaves a majestic tapestry of fabrication. It then hangs it on a few pegs of historical truth and expects you to swallow the whole story as fact, when it's mostly fiction. Some of this lack of fidelity to history has been pointed out by others already, so I shall not belabor the point. Having the adequate & comely Santiago Cabrera play Octavian or Octavianus, NOT Octavius! is a stretch. The future first emperor of Rome was 18 not 28 in 44 BCE. Given the state of cultural/historical illiteracy today, I am not surprised by 'Empire.' Afterall, it's Disney/ABC and not the History channel or PBS.

Imagine, 2000 years from now, someone decides to tell the story of George Bush. Sure, there are historical records about the time, but why not just make things up as you go along, to "improve" the story? So...there was once an elected king of America, Bush I, whose son wanted to succeed him; but Bush II was challenged by the evil Prince Gore. The people voted and chose Gore, but the 12 Lords of Justice decided the match should be decided by a duel, in which Bush II killed Gore. Hooray! Then America was attacked by a missile fired by King Saddam of Arabia. Bush II, already famous as a fighter pilot, led a jet attack on Saddam, and brought back his head on a stick, which was mounted atop the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the capitol, New York. And so on...

And that's about how seriously the makers of EMPIRE take one of the most crucial, and well-documented, episodes in all of history, the aftermath of the assassination of Julius Caesar and the beginnings of the Roman Empire. Why bother with the incredibly fascinating reality of the people and their times, when we can just make up anything we want? It's all just fodder for the Hollywood TV grist mill, which provides wish-fulfillment fantasies for viewers whom the filmmakers hold beneath contempt. Sad.

Beyond the ludicrous flights of fancy and boneheaded mistakes, some of the glitches are simply careless bloopers, as when the black general (yes, they made him up, too) refers to the "Serbian Walls" that encircle Rome. They're actually called the Servian Walls, and have been for about 2500 years, but who gives a frack?

But...I'll give EMPIRE 1 star for eye-candy, especially Jonathan (can I have it and eat it, too?) Cake. And another star for some not-bad casting. (Fiona Shaw as Fulvia: "I always leave before the orgy.") The rest is all junk.

Viewers interested in a more serious treatment of the same events might want to watch the Euro mini-series AUGUSTUS (available on DVD), starring Peter O'Toole as the emperor, which includes flashbacks to his early days. It's a far more handsomely produced film, with good battle scenes, great costumes, the most realistic interior and exterior sets so far created for a Roman movie, an intelligent script, and a memorable performance by the great Peter O'Toole.

Like that other gladiator asked of the crowd, "Are you entertained?" Regarding Empire? Heck yeah! Screw history lessons. If I want to learn Roman history then I'll do it the old fashion way and read library books, or take the new fashion route and read the cliffnotes on the internet or watch the Hitler Chan....er, I mean the History Channel. ABC's Empire is gloriously bereft of CGI and instead we are treated to beautiful sights of the Italian countryside and forests and the lively cities caught in the crossfire of a power struggle, even the stones seem to breathe. The Roman pageantry allows the viewers to feel that they are part of an ancient civilization on the cusp of greatness. The beautiful soundtrack and singing helps too.

I found myself easily forgiving the many historical liberties taken with Empire, probably because it is not difficult to explain away the discrepancies: Octavius present in Rome during Creaser's assassination and funeral? He was shown hiding in the shadows and out of the mobs' eyes. Tyrannus the recently freed gladiator turned bodyguard? Rarely shown publicly with Caesar and so far never with Octavius, thus one of the many background characters that history does not record. Fictional bodyguard for Octavius? History cliffnotes said the family begged Octavius to renounce the adoption and the inheritance in fear he would be target for possible assassinations. Octavius' status as the unfavored nephew of Caeser? History claimed people were genuinely surprised that Octavius turned out to be Caesar's heir and historians are constantly combing for clues of when Ceaser decided that Octavius was the real deal.

And folks, stop advertising HBO's Rome already, some of us don't get HBO and have no plans to fork over the $$$ to do so.