Augustus: The First Emperor (2003)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

it could be boring, strange, chaotic, sketch of a coherent story. in same measure, its pillar is Peter O 'Toole and that fact is one of virtues. portrait of the first emperor, it desires to present all the elements of his reign. and that ambition has almost good results. the battle scenes - not inspired but nice, the characters created by good cast, the decisions as fruits of period's crisis, the crisis as forms of ambiguous search of sense. a fresco. not the best but interesting for rediscover old pieces of the roots of Europe. a film with Peter O'Toole. that is the perfect recommendation for see it. because his old Augustus has the flavor of a profound experience to use the possibilities of the role.

Peter O'Toole and Benjamin Sadler share the role of the first Emperor Augustus of the new Roman Empire in this literate adaption of his story. For those of you who have read, seen, and enjoyed I Claudius, Julius Caesar, and Antony And Cleopatra, this film will be all the more enjoyable.In the other works I've mentioned Augustus aka Octavian is a peripheral character in the drama. Here the story is seen from his perspective, in the present with Peter O'Toole where he is dealing with the problem of his daughter Julia played by Vittoria Belvedere in 12 BC. If you've seen I Claudius you know the story and the intrigues surrounding that. The slant is different in this, her husband and Augustus's trusted friend Marcus Aggripa has died, leaving her with three children. She now wants to marry for love, but Augustus influenced by his wife Livia, his second wife I might add played by Charlotte Rampling has her marry Tiberius, Livia's son by her first marriage. However Livia as determined as she is to see her son succeed her husband, she is not the manipulative monster as she was in I Claudius. That was author Robert Graves own interpretation.In flashback we see Benjamin Sadler as young Octavian who with his trusted companions Agrippa played by Ken Duken and Maecenas played by Ronald Barr as they first join Octavian's grand uncle Julius Caesar at his final campaign against the heirs of Pompey in Munda, Spain. After that we see for the only time I know the events of Julius Caesar and Antony And Cleopatra from the point of view of Octavian. Those events bear very heavily on the reasons Augustus makes the decisions he does. We also see Sadler courting the young Livia played by Martina Stella who was of high noble birth and let everyone know it. This is the genesis of the character played by Rampling here and by Sian Phillips in I Claudius who was at one time married to Peter O'Toole.I made it a point to do some research Ronald Barr's character Maecenas and what you see is what apparently was. He's described as effeminate and that's putting it mildly. Apparently Augustus and Aggripa didn't have a problem with him hanging around and as a minister of the empire later, Maecenas was quite efficient and effective. Imperium: Augustus is one fine and almost flawless made for TV film, it should have gotten theatrical release. If you liked those Shakespeare classics and Robert Graves' I Claudius, this is an absolute must view for you.

For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.

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