Hbo Rome and... BBC too

Not too shabby. I really liked the opening battle sequence with the century in combat against the Gauls.

The actor playing Cato captures what I think of him pretty well, maybe not as stubborn but close. Pompey is sufficiently weak-willed and living on past glory; great realistic quote he has on stomping his feet and making legions appear. The actor playing Caesar also comes across well, maybe a bit more reflective and less energetic but it's still early in the show. The surrender of Vercingetorix was great, although I thought he sat at Caesar's feet [which wasn't shown].

The sub-story line between the centurion and drunken legionairre, although not based on anything real, looks promising enough. I think it gives you the feel for the average soldiers pov. I also think they capture the political intrigue of Rome well enough.

The legion's look like someone did their homework. On the pre-show they pointed out that 65 actors playing legionairres lived together and trained for two weeks on battle drills, marching, etc. And they were mostly played by my 'peeps' the Italians [the show was filmed in Italy].

The streets of the city are very colorful, much more reflective of what Rome looked like than the plain stone remnants today. Lots of graffiti, paintings etc.

Nudity and sex? Oh yes.

Episode 1 'The Stolen Eagle' - VERY MILD PLOT SPOILERS IN THIS POST (but the plot should be quite obvious to those of us on this forum )

A fair representation of the Roman political upheaval during the late Republic. The story begins with Caesar's victory at Alesia and the surrender of Vercingetorix and continues to set the stage for the impending civil war. The opening sequence, showing Romans fighting in formation, legionaries rotating from the first rank to rear of the lines, etc., along with the wild fighting style of the Gauls, showed great promise as a serious attempt to do true historical drama.

The roles of Pompey and Cato are well done, while I was slightly disappointed in Ciaran Hind's portrayal of Caesar (He is fine as an actor... just something about his 'look' didn't feel right). Atia, Caesar's niece, seems to be the show stealer (with a particularly bloody scene involving an oxen sacrifice) and plays a prominent role in Roman intrigue, and the sexual aspects. The roles of Brutus, Marc Antony and Cicero were wonderfully done, despite very limited appearances in the first show. Though Cicero appears too young (in comparison to Caesar, Pompey and Cato) I found all three characters interesting and immediately likeable in their roles.

The 1st show also introduces Lucius Vorenus (a centurion) and Titus Pullo (a sort of rebellious legionary) who end up making a considerable contribution to Caesar's cause. While they are a bit on the stereotypical side they are nice complimentary characters and their banter back and forth offered some quality moments. The mission that puts them together, to find Caesar's 'Stolen Eagle', is a fictional yet important premise that fills in some political gaps. (The theft is symbolism, helping to replace years of slowly degenerating relations between Caesar and the Senate, with a single key moment to help the plot along.)

Octavian is another character added that had little place historically at this point, but his role is important. While he is sent off to see Caesar in Gaul by his conniving mother Atia (a historical deviance), his eventual meeting with Vorenus and Pullo also helps to fill in some important historical notes for those viewers who may not understand what is going on.

The show ends with the inevitable break between Caesar and Pompey, and sets the stage for Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. With episode 2 I expect less 'setting of the stage' material, and more of the true action of the series. While I may have had a slight feeling of disappointment, as the time for each character is almost soap opera (not enough time for some important players) in presentation, the first show was good and left me feeling it has a ton of potential. I expect that with each episode the true personalities of these all important historical characters will truly emerge.

[spoilers - For those who haven't seen this yet, stop reading this any further ]

I can't say I was disappointed as after Empire, I had low expectations of any series about Rome and was pleasantly surprised to see how well made it turned out to be.

I think the cutting was fast and furious and I think the dramatic scenes were probably longer and then somehow edited to fit the one hour length for the story. I think I liked Atia - the actress playing her is perfect for the role and portrays her very well with just the right combination of intrigue, mystery, sexuality and sheer intelligence, even dominance, particularly in the way she interacts with slaves and plebians. She is the true domina and comes across as much more powerful than Servilia, who was a bit of a disappointment, as also Brutus.

Ciaran Hinds makes a passable Caesar at best and I would have liked to see Caesar move around the camp energetically and goad his men to action. Caesar never sat still and in this first episode ( maybe the death of Julia affected him), he is shown mostly sitting in his tent, brooding about Pompey.

The opening battle sequence was really good and I wish they had shown more of it. However, I think it was more illustrative of Roman discipline and was probably included solely for that reason, demonstrating that even a hero can be severely punished for a breach of the rigid rules (breaking the line was a no-no). I would have had Pulio show some remorse for his conduct later as he was drunk at the time. After all, he could have endangered his comrades. Something about the character doesn't ring true and I guess it's the influence of Hollywood, the need to make a 'buddy' movie sort of thing, as the strict, principled centurion constantly disciplines a wild legionnaire. (48 Hours, anyone?)

However, these are minor distractions and overall, I would rate the first show - 4 stars out of 5.

Rome: #1 Loved the visual impact with the gritty visual reality, not just of the violence, but also of central Rome itself. The setting and cinamatography throughout are first rate, rivaling if not surpassing those of Gladiator.

I recognize the author's purpose in introducing the Atia character, and I agree that, so far at least, she is seems to be stealing the show (perhaps not too difficult for any naked beautiful woman). My concern is that her character is the one principal character yet seen who is ficticious. Yes, there was an Atia, mother of Octavian, but nothing like the conniving, prominent force she is portraying. I hope she doesn't become one of these meddeling, "king makers" who is given credit for the the rise of Octavian/Augustus -- leave those accusations for when Livia arrives.

If there must be a scheming black widow character, I too would have thought it would be Servialla. As Caesar's lover and his murderer's mother, she was made for the part.

Finally, I found the most striking scene to be young Octavian's brief and concise Caesar-Pompei political analysis (regarding the stolen standard incident). Yes, a little too brilliant for a 12 year old, but it was a spine tingling way to introduce what is coming. Don't want to give away the plot, but I suspect we'll be seeing more of that boy.

Finally, I found the most striking scene to be young Octavian's brief and concise Caesar-Pompei political analysis (regarding the stolen standard incident). A little too brilliant for a 12 year old, but it was a nice way to introduce what he will become.  I think we'll seeing more of that boy.

Agreed, unlike the witless and confused Octavian on ABC's Empire, Max Pirkis' performance in 'Rome' gives us reason to understand why Caesar selected him as heir.

Agreed, unlike the witless and confused Octavian on ABC's Empire, Ben Whishaw's performance in 'Rome' gives us reason to understand why Caesar selected him as heir.

Yes, PP. it is strange how in popular culture Octavian/Augustus seems always to be shown in a negative light. From Shakespear to Hollywood, if he isn't cruel and devious he's weak and manipulative or he's arrogant and ruthless and on and on. Hell, even the otherwise excellent 'I Claudius' showed him as blustering old man. I am dying to see this young squirt Octavian think and act with the superior qualities that are going to turn the squirt into Augustus. He got a good start in Episode #1.

My correction: in the year depicted (52 BC), Octavian is not 12 years old, he is 11.

I just started to download the first episode,so hopefully i'll be able to watch it tomorrow it sounds

too good for me to wait untill the Autumn.

Have you got the wallpaper of the HBo site?

Yes, PP. it is strange how in popular culture Octavian/Augustus seems always to be shown in a negative light.

Well truth be told he was a cold, calculating, manipulative and often murderous individual, especially when he was consolidating power.

i have a question: whose men exactly stole the eagle? were they hired by caesar or were they really pompey's men? it's obvious caesar wanted to start a civil war where pompey would make the first move but were the events entirely orchestrated by him or did pompey just give him a lucky break by stealing his eagle?

thanks for your time!

Yes, PP. it is strange how in popular culture Octavian/Augustus seems always to be shown in a negative light.

...he was a cold, calculating, manipulative and often murderous individual, especially when he was consolidating power.

"Cold," yes. "Calculating," sure. "Maniplative," of course. But "murderous"? Come on Virgil, I'm away for two months and come back only to find your Head Count biases showing again. Is there any Roman -- Republic or Empire -- who ever held meaningful power in Rome of which you DO approve?

I liked the opening scene when it showed how they rotated the ranks, and when Pullo was praying to Mars after killing the Gauls.I liked Octavians attitude,the boys got steel in him.

Atia seemed like my kind a lady

Looking forward to episode 2.

Episode 2 continued along the same path... I am impressed with their general attention to history while using seconday characters to bring it to life.

Started to download episode 2,i should be able to watch it tonight

Its finally had a bit of media coverage over here,but its not getting aired until October!!!

"Cold," yes.  "Calculating," sure.  "Maniplative," of course.  But "murderous"?  Come on Virgil, I'm away for two months and come back only to find your Head Count biases showing again.  Is there any Roman -- Republic or Empire -- who ever held meaningful power in Rome of which you DO approve?

The original statement I was responding to was why Augustus is often "shown in a negative light". I pointed out why.

Quite frankly I don't see how this shows a "head count" bias. It doesn't signify approval or disapproval, it was an answer to the question posed. Octavian had Cicero put to death as part of a three-way assasination deal with Antony and Lepidus. During the Second Triumvirate he put forth proscriptions that ended in the deaths of several hundred Senators and Equines, primarily it's suspected, to obtain their land for disbanded legions. I'm all for legions getting their farmland, but in most definitions I'd bet this would qualify as "murderous". Along with cold, calculating and manipulative- traits historians from Seutonius, to Gibbon until today have commented on- it does go far in explaining why he is often "shown in a negative light".

He certainly redeemed himself in later years with a moderate, peaceful and constructive reign, but these early traits, and I should add, his hand in the death of the Republic answer the question.

[edited]

Episode 2 continued along the same path... I am impressed with their general attention to history while using seconday characters to bring it to life.

I enjoyed it also, it's the attention to detail that is so impressive.

Quite a surgical scene.