Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Lidia Draper 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.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

geoffwdunn I don't know what movie the first reviewer saw but it sure isn't the one I saw or (actually) he is ignorant of Roman history because it was seriously inaccurate. For one, Soldiers in Rome were not allowed to carry weapons within the city walls nor did they work as police detachments to protect the citizens (there were no police, they had gangs and wards and mob bosses who were manipulated by the politicians). The battle scenes against Sextus did not portray standard Roman army tactics. There's no way an entire Roman battalion would be taken down by arrows as the movie shows. They used their shields like tortoise shells and had far less deaths by arrows that way. Also they wouldn't have thrown their spears at the approaching enemy rather they would have marched in strict formation with the spears sticking forward and move like a tank. Then they make Caesar and Octavian out to be peaceniks who only really wanted everybody to be happy and get along (far from it). Pretty much at that point I gave up on the movie. What a waste of Peter O'toole's talent. I can stand a little historical rewriting in any movie but the producers obviously said, "to heck with historical accuracy, just make a movie that will sell lots of tickets." But I'd be surprised if this made a lot of money because as a stereotypical ancient war movie it didn't even do that.

Marcin Kukuczka Having seen lots of epics on ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome, the viewer is bound to be attached to some favorable depiction/depictions of a story and, consequently, make comparison. Moreover, what we can observe in the genre is a selection of historical material. It's clear that some stories are put to screen many times while other ancient or medieval events, which could be equally entertaining, are entirely ignored. And that is what we find here - another film adaptation about the rise of the Roman Empire. Consequently, a question could arise: "is there any point in making yet another movie about Augustus' reign?" It seems that the persona of Augustus Caesar has been widely developed in lots of film versions from spectacular CLEOPATRAs to brilliant novel-based drama I, CLAUDIUS (1976). In other words, does AUGUSTUS (2003) by Roger Young offer us anything new? At first sight, it occurred to me that the movie is practically yet another revision of what has already been said. What is more, being watched by some historian, it can appear to be discouraging for a person who notices quite a few serious inaccuracies. Just to note the fact that Octavian is depicted as a villager who finds himself once in the great world that Rome was and sacrifices everything to join his noble companions. Other errors include the depiction of deaths of Augustus' grandchildren Cassius and Lucius and the attempt on Augustus' life. The Battle of Aktium is skipped though it was so decisive for the events to come, for Octavian and Agrippa. So we soon realize that the aim of the director was no history lesson since he takes much liberties in this case. However, while looking deeper at some aspects of this film, you realize that the point lies somewhere else.Roger Young's movie's strength lies in the the psychology, the insight into the personal struggles of Augustus. Since it has a powerful tale to tell, the director uses the tool to tell the story according to his own vision: a story of a man who ruled the world but could not rule himself, his own life; a man with all his strengths and weaknesses, a father who was forced to send his beloved daughter to exile, a brother who had to sacrifice the happiness of his sister for Rome; a husband who could not foretell the wickedness of his wife; finally, a 'god' (worshipped by some people within the empire) who could not avoid the necessary fate of death. What comes in the end is one man, one life, one death... All this is presented memorably thanks to flashbacks and Augustus reflecting on his own decisions, deeds and consequences. And you as a viewer will feel empathy with him due to precious modesty portrayed in the end. But as far as the psychological reflections are concerned, I would like to highlight briefly one more aspect...You can have some doubts as for the authenticity of some thoughts due to their Christian, or as some people prefer 'modern' nature. There is a mention of love over power, of forgiveness over revenge. There is Julia at dying Augustus to represent forgiveness. Even Augustus himself mentions the birth of a Savior while denying his own divinity... Strange... The story is set in pagan Rome where there was no room for Christian ethics. What does the director want to convey? What does he want to tell us by that? Could people who did not know Christian values consider them so seriously? Perhaps the universal presence of God's Spirit within humanity?... This is a dilemma that I tried to figure out and could not find most adequate answers to these questions.Other stories, other plots are there as rather historical than historic. Yet, there is a need to mention some of them. We have the aforementioned Julia portrayed by Vittoria Belvedere, a tragic woman striving for happiness of love by means of decadence of lust. There is Livia, Augustus' wife portrayed by sweet young Martina Stella and later by Charlotte Rampling indeed not that memorable as Sian Phillips in the famous TV series but giving quite a decent performance. There is beautiful Anna Valle as seductive Cleopatra and pathetic Massimo Ghini as Mark Antony. There are supporting cast worth attention like as Cicero. But no performance can equal to Peter O'Toole's in the lead. He crafts the difficult role perfectly making it possible for the viewer to understand Augustus, to get his point, to see the events in his way, from his point of view.All in all, does the movie play its role well? Not so much as an epic but it was not meant to be a spectacle whatsoever. It's worth seeing as a biopic of a powerful ruler and a simple man convincingly portrayed by a talented artist and a terrific actor. Applause Augustus Caesar! Applause Peter O'Toole! 7/10 for the whole movie

sophie_lou21 AUGUSTUS isn't the best it could be, lacking the historical accuracy that previous reviewers have been kicking a screaming about; it is because of the pointless stereotypical Julia, who is always made out to be a villain and Augustus a wounded. However, the tales of Augustus daughter Julia are mainly made of rumours, the likelihood she was a prostitute is slim and chances are Iullus was one of her only, if not only, lover. Read your historical notes and what historians say today, chances are you'll find her in a new light. AUGUSTUS shows Julia as the wounded daughter she was; mistreated and thrown around just for her father's own delights. When you consider that he treated her like that and that she had a father who led a far kinkier and scandalous sex life, is it any wonder his daughter, who apart from her adulteries had no bad vein in her body, ended up the way she did? Augustus (Peter O'Toole) is on his deathbed, overlooking how he "played his part in this comedy called life," and he takes us back several years to the high point of his rein. His daughter Julia (Vittoria Belvedere) is married to his beloved friend and ally, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and together the two have had a pair of lovely sons, Gaius and Lucius, who are "just like their grandfather" and running around in army gear, rather like how Julia's daughter Agrippina (oddly missing from the movie) would do for her youngest son Gaius, or Caligula, thirty or so years later. Of course, the bubble bursts when Augustus is nearly murdered by an assassin, only saved by his leather breast plate, and Julia receives dreadful news: her husband Agrippa has died. He tells her of his earlier days when he was a sickly eighteen-year-old, who one day gets a letter from Julius Caesar, despite the pleas of his mother, "Your father would forbid it!" Octavius (Benjamin Sander) reminds her that, "only your uncle treats me like a son," leaps on a horse with Marcus Agrippa (Ken Duken) another eighteen-year-old, who dreams of becoming a soldier, to join the army. The story seems to take us through a romanticised view of Octavius growth into manhood along side his two friends Marcus Agrippa and Gaius Maecenas (Russell Barr), a man who is clearly thrown in for a giggle. Agrippa represents the world that we all want to be apart of, yet he doesn't live in a fool's paradise like Octavius does, and towards the end of the flashbacks he finally pulls his friend out of belief that sticking to the nobles will save him; he has to suppress them. Interestingly, they show us how Agrippa built the great aqueducts, proving himself not only to be a great soldier but also one of history's great architect. Ironically, Maecenas mocks him by saying, "At least we'll be able to get some lovely fountains out of it!" Cleopatra is just as she should be, not a Liz Taylor but a real malicious mastermind. Julia does as she's told but is so trapped that she can't help but loom for ways out. Tiberius is a pig and his mother Livia too ambitious, and it's refreshing that Augustus actually "gets" that Livia wants Tiberius to be emperor. Iullus Antonius, who wants revenge for his father's murder at first, uses the vulnerable widow of Agrippa to in his plan. The irony being of course that lovely Agrippa warned Octavius when he saved Iullus' life that this would one day come to pass. In a way, Iullus cheats both his saviours, not only seducing Augustus' daughter but also taking Agrippa's wife and using her against the man he spent his whole life protecting. Of course the plot falls through when Iullus ends up falling in love with her proving himself a true Antonius boy—"a woman changed Antony, you could change Iullus" Augustus says and by god, Julia does. The acting is still great, though many see O'Toole as the best: the desperation of Belvedere's Julia, the cunning of Rampling's Livia, the nobleness of Duken's Agrippa and the deep love that Barr's Maecenas has for Augustus really does touch you and makes their characters come alive.The only thing that is disappointing is that it didn't cover the whole of the history, the Battle of Actium was rushed, we never see two of Augustus wives and we don't know what happened after the civil war was over, which is probably some of the most interesting part. Various other characters were clearly cut to save time for the film, Octavia's first husband, her children, Fulvia, Sextus, Drusus, who was Livia's other son and various others. If anything, this show would have been better off as a mini series and covering other important parts of history like the self-exile of Agrippa because of Marcellus, and how his death resulted in Agrippa's marriage to Julia—that would have been a story worth hearing.If you're not interested in history, then you could just watch it for its soap opera feel, with the drama, attempted assassination and Julia's affair with Iullus Antonius driving her husband into raping her, we might as well have been watching an ancient rendition of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, only it's much better! Boys will also be happy to see that they get a hot babe to stare at in the form of Augustus' daughter Julia for half of the film. Don't worry, fear not girls, because in the other half, ladies such as us, also get a hot and handsome treat in the form Agrippa. My point being is that there is something for everyone. Filled with comic relief, a few wars, a few scandals, a troublesome wife, a few hot wild affairs, a hot chick for the boys and a cute guy for the girls, it pretty much does have everything you need to make history come alive.

Ben Westwood Let us paint the scene: The year is 12BC. The republic has been replaced with the imperial family, the rebels are gathering and the fight for the succession is on. Frankly, it is like THE WAR OF THE ROSES, Ancient Roman style! The side most are routing for is the current emperor Augustus, and Julia, his beautiful, clever and liberal daughter. They stand for rights for the plebs and responsibility of the nobles, rather then for them to lay around on their backsides in litters. The father and daughter are at war against the cunning, merciless and sly Livia Drusilla, who has a strong desire to see her own son, Tiberius, on the throne. A believe so strong that he should be the next man "worthy of the name Caesar" she even tries to sway her husband Augustus into it. He of course always says no.This is the first point of greatness in this moderately made TV drama: Augustus is not a dolt like he is in I, CLAUDIUS, he is as he should have been: knowing, ruthless and in league with everyone. Augustus did know everything and wasn't at all as stupid as Robert Graves wanted us to believe he was. He knew how Livia's mind worked and knew how to take care of her. Despite all arguments from both parties, they don't really love one another, they are like friendly rivals who both want their children to become leader of some big corporation.Of course the victims in the war against each other are Julia and Tiberius, who both hold the love or their father/mother, but have different ideas on how they'd rather spend their day. Augustus wants a baby-making, obedient daughter and mother-of-Roman-future in Julia. What Julia wants is to live up for a lot of lost living, marry Iullus Antonius and settle down nicely. Also, despite what Livia wants, Tiberius would be more content matching in the army, sleeping out in the open and throwing stones into the sea.There are historical tidbits about his show you might want to know. For example, Marcus Agrippa and Julia are lacking three children in this show! They were baby-making machines in reality, having one child back to back with each other. Also, Julia was banished in 2 BC not 12 BC, and her sons died in different years, not the same year.Nonetheless, I'd give it a watch if you want a bit of fun. It's long but certainly worth a rent-it or even buy-it cry. The DVD doesn't cost much, so give it a go.