Friday, February 23, 2007

ROME
After Ridley Scott’s GLADIATOR, the Roman-sandal epics looked like they may have a new start since the days of Ben-Hur and Spartacus. But this didnt really happen. Alexander, despite the mad scramblings of Oliver Stone and his 75 000 different director’s cuts, was just plain crap (I still don’t understand how Angelina Jolie can pass as Colin Farrell’s Mommy). And then there was Troy which was just plain tiresome.

But now come’s HBO’s ROME. Taking Place in 52 BC., Rome follows the story of General Gaius Julius Caesar, and how he rises to power. There is a large cast, all of which are historically based, but the main story is told through the perspective of two Roman soldiers – Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo. Interestingly these were the only two common soldiers Caesar ever mentioned by name in his records of his war with Gaul. Vorenus and Pullo are slightly cliche in that they define the old "odd coupple" thing, but it works well.

Rome follows a specific line of historical events; however, there is far more complexity and subtlety that makes it such an engrossing experience. The pacing of the series was excellent and the acting was top notch as expected from most HBO features. Attention to detail in terms of sets, costumes, and locations resulted in the series looking very authentic.

At first I questioned how this series would continue after the innevitable assassination of Ceasar. The season finale (probably the best finale I have seen in a long time) leaves a couple of ideas on where it could go. If you look to the history books, the assasisination of Caesar began a civil war in which Mark Antony and Octavian fought the Roman Senate for revenge and power. Even more interesting, Octavian will later be known as Augustus Caesar – the first Emperor of Rome.

9 out of 10

Why not 9? More fight scenes!!!!!
Why not 10? After a huge build up to the Ceasar / Pompei battle, all we get is 10 seconds of blurry images of some dude swinging a sword!!!!......Gay.

No comments: