Rome: The Complete HBO Season 1 (6 Disc Box Set) [2005]

Amazon.co.uk Review

Family dysfunction. Treachery. Betrayal. Coarse profanity. Brutal violence. Graphic (and sometimes brutal) sex. No, it's not The Sopranos, it's Rome, HBO's madly ambitious series that bloodily splatters the glory of Rome just as savagely as Monty Python and the Holy Grail soiled the good name of Camelot (but with far fewer laughs; very few funny things happen on the way to this forum). Set in 52 B.C. (Before Cable), Rome charts the dramatic shifts in the balance of power between former friends Pompey Magnus (Kenneth Cranham), leader of the Senate, and Julius Caesar (Ciaran Hinds), whose imminent return after eight years to Rome after conquering the Gauls, has the ruling class up in arms. At the heart of Rome is the odd couple friendship between two soldiers who fortuitously become heroes of the people. Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) is married, honorable, and steadfast. Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) is an amoral rogue whose philosophy is best summed up, "I kill my enemies, take their gold, and enjoy their women". Among Rome's most compelling subplots is Lucius's strained relationship with his wife, Niobe (Indira Varma), who is surprised to see her husband alive (but not as surprised as he is to find her upon his homecoming with a newborn baby in her arms!) Any viewer befuddlement over Rome's intrigues and machinations, and determining who is hero and who is foe, disappears the minute Golden Globe-nominee Polly Walker appears as Atia, Caesar's formidable niece and a villainess for the ages. In the first hour alone, she offers her already married daughter as a bride to the recently widowed Pompey. One eagerly awaits to see what (or who) she'll do next as much as we anticipate her comeuppance in the final episode.

Rome is a painstakingly mounted production that earned eight well-deserved Emmy nominations in such categories as costumes, set design, and art direction. Michael Apted (Coal Miner's Daughter) was honored with a Director's Guild Award for the first episode, "The Stolen Eagle." But artistic considerations aside, instantly addicted viewers will agree with Atia, who notes at one point, "I adore the secrecy, the intrigue. It's most thrilling." --Donald Liebenson

Customer Reviews:

Impressive series steeped in historical fact.......2008-03-13

What's to say that hasn't already been said?! Gorgeous production values, completely immersive camerawork, very clever integration of digitally produced shots (e.g. the Senate) with live shots, and probably best of all, believable acting. You won't find Rome's actors trying to do po-faced pastiche, that's for sure. I had serious trouble getting over the fact that Kevin McKidd is the same actor from Journeyman!

Clearly, a lot of hard work has gone into replicating and recreating life as it was for the Romans. There will undoubtedly be a few squeamish viewers who will find the constant portrayals of sex and violence a bit much - but we must remember that the directors aren't leaving it in for the pure sake of it, this is how life really was for the Romans.

One minor gripe is that after a while, the sets and locations don't seem to be varied enough. There are the usual scenes from the Forum, the houses of some key figures (mostly Atia and Servilia) and various fight scenes in open space, but I'd like to see a little more variation. However, the sheer depth of detail that is so obvious throughout more than makes up for this. In any case, as this is a TV show, it's entirely forgivable as the budget won't be as huge as a mega Hollywood production.

A second minor gripe is the occasional slip in historical fact. Gladiator had its moments (why are the extras wearing jeans before the first battle scene?) and so too does Rome, e.g. Atia died in 43 BC but in the show is still alive in 31 BC.

There are clearly a lot of talented crew at work here. Virtually every episode in the series has a different director, although the producers remain the same, which is really good to see because it means that HBO/BBC have let several artists fulfil their vision.

Glancing over the cast again, Polly Walker could have been made for the role of Atia, whilst Kerry Condon is a beautiful if weak-willed Octavia. Finally, Lindsay Duncan also excels as Servilia, her every step exuding sheer menace and suppressed hate.

In short, this is one of the best-produced TV series I have ever seen. There is no disputing the quality and credibility on show, and I have no hesitation in recommending it for those wet nights in. It's just a shame that the Beeb didn't see fit to make a third series, but you can't have everything!

Oooooh Matron..........2008-02-22

Up Pompeii remake maskerading as unprejudiced history. Oh those naughty noblemen!! Why has the BBC/HBO made their "callous Cato" a cruel Spitting Image puppet of a Duke of Edinburgh type? Are they trying to persuade us of anything I wonder? hmmmmm. Still, as long they keep dishing out our diet of cheap, licentious and bloody entertainment it wouldn't be very loyal to think for ourselves, now would it? (hey spooky - I just got one of those deja vu feelings...)

Excellent series.......2008-01-26

This is an excellent tv series, even better then the sopranos. Even if you only have a remote interest in history, this is worth a buy. The acting is exceptional from all all concerned. Fantastic viewing.

Addictive entertainment.......2008-01-12

"Rome" may not in all respects be "true to history", although those who use such a phrase should define what they mean by it - if they mean "true to what really happened" then no TV series would ever be made and no historical novel written. Whatever liberties it takes, though, "Rome" amply fulfils what must surely have been its two main objectives. One, it is thoroughly, addictively entertaining - and, a reassurance to potential DVD buyers, it repays (and demands) rewatching. Two, it is tantalizing enough to interest people in the Rome without the inverted commas - to go to libraries and start to read about Caesar, Antony, Cleopatra, Cicero and the many other characters and events of this endlessly fascinating period of history.

Generation after generation comes back to what happened at Rome between 50 and 30 BC, and for good reason. Historical forces of enormous momentum and complexity (the increasing size and unwieldiness of Rome's domains, the shortage of land for an increasing entitled populace in Italy, the awkward relationship between the Senate and the army, to name a few) were altering the foundations of what every Roman believed to be the only possible social order. Even their phrase for that order betrays the fact that they had never needed to define it against a possible alternative. They just called it the 'res publica' or 'public business'. And now, that public business was becoming almost impossible to do, and nobody knew why. (It's still a matter of hot debate.)

What makes it all so fascinating is that, at the same time as history was catching up with the res publica, a series of great characters emerged, of great lustre, complexity and, often, excess. That people like Gnaeus Pompeius, Cato the Younger, Cicero and Marcus Antonius were unwittingly caught up in a web of historical logic which they could not perceive or stop makes for real, Classical tragedy, and every writer, it seems, from Shakespeare to Steven Saylor has made the most of it.

There is, of course, one name missing from that list: Gaius Julius Caesar. Possibly the only man to perceive, to a certain extent, what was going on in terms of the historical process (he certainly stood rather apart from society at Rome and had more distance), he became the last in an occasional series of aristocrats to attempt to deal with the symptoms of the res publica's malaise. For various reasons, some connected with who he actually was and what he did, many connected with how his image has been manipulated to suit the politics of subseqent ages, Caesar has become the single most significant figure in history. Quite a part to take on. Quite a story to take on.

So to "Rome". The positives first. The writers have taken the decision to view the events of the time through two semi-fictional characters (Caesar mentions their names in his Gallic Wars, but historically nothing else is known of them): Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo. The degree to which their stories are (repeatedly and coincidentally) entwined with the story of Caesar does stretch the bounds of plausibility. But their stories, particularly that of Lucius Vorenus, are strong enough to make for gripping viewing, and the performances here are excellent. Particularly good is Indira Varma as Lucius' wife Niobe. Watch her face whenever she's on screen (especially when Caesar comes to call) and she'll give you something to think about. There have been complaints that the Vorenus-Pullo angle makes "Rome" too much like a soap opera, and that it's patronising to feel the need to include a "common people" story to interest us, well, common people. I can see where these points are coming from, but I think they're too po-faced. I can identify with Vorenus as I can identify with Caesar, and I enjoy doing both. It enriches the experience and it's entertaining. Also, seeing so much of "life in the backstreets" of Rome lets us see much that was absent from, for instance, "I, Claudius": the life and customs of real Rome, which the makers of this series went to great pains to get historically right, and which, thanks to archaeology, are often possible to get more right than the "big history".

Among the historical characters, the ones who emerge best are those whose appeal fits well with the style of the series. This is not a deeply intellectual piece, so Cicero, for example, emerges badly diluted. But Mark Antony is in his element here, and James Purefoy portrays him with voracious glee. Caesar needs to be cast well, and Ciaran Hinds is pretty much ideal - there are many flashes of the complex facets of his personality (e.g. his commanding treatment of the Egyptian court, the genuine warmth of his mercy, his rousing of the legions).

The third theatre of events is in the households of the two leading Roman matrons of the day, Atia Balba Caesonia, Caesar's niece, and Servilia Caepionis, mother of Brutus. The two matrons gave the writers more scope for invention, because they played a major part in historical events, but only behind the scenes - little is known of them. The results are entertaining (if almost universally libellous) and the performances are good. But some serious problems deserve mention.

Servilia comes off better, and is portrayed much closer to the person as described in the sources. But, oh dear me, Atia. OK, Polly Walker's portrayal of a none-too-subtle, scheming minx is fun, but it undermines the story rather than adds to it. The little we do actually know about Atia from the historical sources is that she was a rigorously conservative Roman matron, who brought up her son, Gaius Octavius, in the full and undifferentiated traditions of the Roman res publica. Even vulgar language shrivelled up and died in her presence. To have her copulating with "goaty little" slaves, arranging for other matrons to be ambushed, stripped and beaten in the streets and having her daughter's suitors killed because they stood in the way of her political purposes is so far from the truth that Atia would be quite justified in rising from her grave and slapping the writers in the face. It is a great pity that this is what they have done with one of the few serious female players in this story. A bit sexist, to say the least.

The reason Atia undermines the story is that she is the mother of the person idiotically referred to as "Octavian". (For the last time: he was called Gaius Octavius. After he was adopted as Caesar's son, he was called Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, but he never used the Octavianus bit, for obvious reasons - he had the name Caesar. So, they should be calling him Gaius at home, or at the very least Octavius.) Atia's louche regime in this series means that "Octavian" is pretty much bringing himself up, and it makes him look like an unbearable little swot. Can you imagine legion after legion agreeing to follow this boy, the Senate prostrating itself before him, Mark Antony fleeing to Egypt from him? Thought not.

My other main complaint is propaganda-related. Obviously, this being an Anglo-American project (mostly American-funded), it has to support the View of Things as it is now, and that means Caesar has to be wheeled out as a propaganda figure for Democracy. I wish only to point out that nowhere in anything he wrote does Caesar say anything about making life better for the poor, or having Rome ruled by "the best men in Italy, not the richest men in Rome". Caesar started the Civil War because he regarded his own personal rights as under threat. There was no "popular party", there was no constant stand-off between the "aristocrats" and the "plebeians" (by this time, many aristocrats WERE plebeians), the Senators were not all fusty old men (Cato was YOUNGER than Caesar). Nobody was fighting to save the Republic or to bring it down - everybody was fighting to correct what they thought had gone wrong with the public business (the res publica). It was a different world - and this series puts too much of today's world-view into it.

Finally, a minor complaint about the script - it is very variable, and there are two quite annoying traits. One, people constantly use the long form of "don't" "wouldn't", etc. "Do not", "would not". But they stumble over them, because they are not natural to say. Since the whole tenor of the series is to show Rome as in its own day, why introduce a cumbersome little anachronism like this? Two, the scriptwriters constantly use one register higher than is comfortable. Example, "Octavian" to a slave, "You are correct." Scipio to Cato: "I was not aware." Hundreds of other examples. "You're right" and "I didn't know" would have jarred less. "You are correct" sounds like somebody trying to be something they're not - which Gaius Octavius, at least in that way, was not.

Overall, this series gets 5 stars for its inspiration and entertainment, and the fact that I can watch it over and over again with enjoyment. People who think we should only watch "I, Claudius" (with all the much respect due to Robert Graves) should go back to their wobbly sets and Brian Blessed as Augustus (talk about historical authenticity... compare him to the statues!) and leave this series alone.

Waste of time and money.......2007-12-10

If someone wants to watch upper stiff lips 'Romans' therefore there is an item for you. Seriously, I am in dismay of this movie, season 1 landed in my rubbish bin, actors are not the best sort and to make movie 'attractive' director inserted sexual explicit scenes here and there no matter if they relate to the script or not. The waste of money to me. I do not recommend this entertainment to anyone.

UK DVD:

UK DVD List

UK DVD