Augustus: The First Emperor (2003)

hyped garbage

Absolutely Brilliant!

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

These are oddly generous reviews for an awful movie that could have been great. It is painful to see the great Peter O'Toole and Charlotte Rampling surrounded by so many high school-quality actors (with the possible exception of Benjamin Sadler) and especially the other two main actresses. And yet, if you are interested in Roman history, it is worth a look.Pacing is generally good. But the overall tone is too melodramatic. Everyone but O'Toole and Rampling are just declaiming their lines. This is made worse by the awkward and unnecessary dubbing. In the hands of a better film director, and a better casting director, the plot and attention to historical accuracy gave it potential.

Augustus is a great movie. The range of the movie is wide. The movie depicts his role in the Hispanic war along with Caesar until his death. There are certain sections in the movie which are very true to history. Some of them which are not true to history are not very important as well. Movie begins with old Augustus mourning the death of his friend, son in law and General Agrippina with his daughter. Movies keeps going back in to long flashbacks. The transition is brilliant. This movie works for me at all levels acting, camera, characterization, range and above all facts. I prefer an 'Augustus' over 'Lawrence of Arabia' for the simple reason it shows what happened and not an interpretation of the director. Some of the important details are missing from the movie which in my opinion is OK even if they are missing like Augustus butchered the son of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar; Augustus's daughter was first married to Mark Anthony and Augustus's sister's son. I think movie wasted the character of Cicero but its OK as the movie was only about Augustus. The characterization was convincing. The whole section where Augustus assimilates power is very well done. Peter O'Tool as Augustus is quite good. Benjamin Sadler as Octavius is OK. Massimo Ghinni as Mark Anthony is very good. All the senate scenes are done in a very good taste. Good movie.

This movie's historical accuracy was matched by it's overall quality of performance and filming. Peter O'Toole is an extremely talented actor and the rest of the cast, though unknown to me, did an equally fine job. The sets and costuming were impressively accurate as were the battle scenes and no one threw a single sword! Truly, a gem which I discovered quite by chance and sincerely recommend to anyone sick of attempts at historical movies that get butchered by film-makers that haven't got a clue and are just worried about making these historical figures into comic book super heroes. A must-see for the serious history buff.

I disagree with other reviewers who were quite negative on this production. I quite enjoyed it and will recommend it for anyone interested in classical history. Admittedly, some of the acting was not first-rate, especially among the non native English speaking actors. I had the feeling their lines were dubbed in.That aside, I liked the way it recounted the life of Augustus in the form of a long conversation with his daughter Julia with flashbacks. Yes, some of the historical details were a bit off. But it's tempting to compare it with other productions such as I Claudius and Cleopatra (the latter played even more loosely with historical fact). This production explored why Augustus, Julia, Livia, and others did what they did.Others complained it was too long; on the contrary, I would like to have it longer and fill more detail in some of the years in Augustus's life that were not covered or glossed over.The recreations of the Forum, the Curia, and other locations were the best I've seen. Unlike other productions such as Gladiator, the producers strives for accuracy rather than a Rome of the imagination and exaggeration.