|
|
Rating:  - Not ROME but...
Obviously in quality this is light years away from the caliber of HBO's ROME but was much of that any more historically accurate? EMPIRE at least deserves an A for effort and, if you can forget about the historical
inaccuracies, it is involving and has some good performances. It also plays much better than it did on TV.
There are some bits that weren't shown on network and minus the commercials the pace is greatly accelerated. Ignore the nay-sayers and give it a chance. Particularly if you enjoy Epic movies.
Rating:  - empire
Excellent.first class service replaced faulty disc on request would recommend this seller to anyone with complete confidence
Rating:  - I Guess HBO's Rome Spoiled Me
It may not be fair to compare this production with HBO's Rome, since Rome had a larger budget and a broader and less inhibited cast, but even leaving Rome out of the picture, Empire was simply lacking.
I found myself bored much of the time I was viewing Empire, and can't say I ever got into it to the point where I was excited about what I was seeing. Where in both its seasons the more glorious Rome looked like it could hold its own against any motion picture, Empire pathetically radiated its status as the offspring of the small screen. The actors in Empire were bland men and women who gave meek performances, historical fact was trampled for the sake of plot, and more than once Empire disintegrated into a swordfight action flick instead of an historic piece concerned with the politics of Rome's most dire power struggle.
Excusing limitations in budget, I'll say the scenery in Empire was at times good and on occasion was worth looking at rather than what was happening onscreen with the human cast. A stroll Tyrannus and Julius Caesar (who reminded me for all the world of Michael Gross, the father from Family Ties) took across a beautiful hillside early in the picture stands out in my mind as a good example of this.
Empire is a study in why the big three broadcast networks (or is it four or five now) cannot hope to compete with cable. On cable larger budgets and artistic license grant storytellers free reign, while the anachronistic and oppressive standards of the FCC force commercial broadcasters to stay confined to limitations any intelligent viewer accustomed to cable programming can't take seriously anymore. Empire might've been noteworthy had it been shown in the 1980's, because frankly that's what it reminded me of: an outdated, lackluster miniseries "event" from the days of my childhood.
Two and a half stars.
Rating:  - Skip This and Head to "Rome"
I just finished with this miniseries rented via Blockbuster (thank God I hadn't brought it) and let me just say that I feel like sueing the producers for having lost several hours of my life to this trash. How awful is it, you ask? The actors are extremely dull, the writing is poor and doesn't even attempt to stay true to any historical facts, the costumes look like something that a mother might throw together the night before her kid's play, everything is just horrible. Watch "Rome". The casting is superb, the sets are authentic and make one feel as if he were there, and it follows history as closely as it can. None of the actors (especially the ones who played Cicero and Octavian) come close to inhabiting their characters like the cast of "Rome". As for the people who have compared this to "Gladiator", may Russell Crowe come and behead you in your sleep for such blasphemy. "Gladiator" was amazing, with an all star cast, breathtaking action scenes, a deep and noble message, and a gorgeous script. This menage is simply "Let's follow naughty Octavian through his slapstick misadventures". People who have said that you need to forget the other films and series about Rome fail to mention that you need to forget every bit of knowledge that the average school child knows about Roman history and any appreciation for fine acting as well. I hate to sound like an HBO salesperson (which I'm not), but forget this and just get "Rome". Trust me, you won't be sorry.
Rating: - Rome in transition
This is quite an ambitious, entertaining and interesting work of historical fiction. The story opens just before the Ides of March and takes us through the beginning of the reign of Octavion (who would come to be known as Caesar Augustus). At the outset, it needs to be admitted that there are a great many liberties taken with history in this film. Even calling it a "representation" of what actually took place would be a bit of a stretch.
The story centers on a fictional gladiator named Tyrannus who is assigned to be Octavion's body guard after his uncle Julius is assasinated. One of the things that this movie DOES get right (historically) is that Octavion is portrayed as being right around 18 years old. That is entirely accurate. Octavion was this age when he went to Rome to claim his inheritance. Most movies I have seen that deal w/this time period portray Octavion as a grown man, which is false.
The movie does a good job of invoking some personages and cultural institutions of Rome that don't normally get a lot of air-time in movies about Rome. Among these are Octavion's best friend and best general, Agrippa. Another is Rome's greatest orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero. The tradition of the Vestal Virgins is also tied into the story in a clever way.
A curious omission to this time frame is the character of Cleopatra. There is an Egyptian girl in the movie, but we're not told her name and she has such a bit part as to be almost an afterthought. Obviously the storyline demanded that they go in a different direction, but it's still somewhat odd to look at this period w/out Cleopatra being involved.
All in all, this is a fairly well done effort. The acting is solid and the direction is pretty good. The biggest fault that I can see is that it seemed incomplete. They failed to tie up some loose ends, and I found that irritating. The ending to me seemed to fizzle out somewhat instead of being dramatic. However, all-in-all, it's a good investment if you're a big fan of the history of Rome.
|
|