"Augustus" starring Peter O\'Toole

[Luca]

I forgot to mention that I disegree with these statements.... <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Luca,<br>
I think your said it all. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Niedel]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Luca,<br>
I think your said it all.<hr><br>
<br>
Indeed! <p></p><i></i>

[Paullus]

Now I know why that Italian-made documentary on Hannibal I saw on the History Channel had such lame armor<br>
<br>
That is plain unbelievable, only in Britain! Why in the world would you wear a metal seg behind a wall with siege equipment and not in the obviously more hazardous cohort?<br>
<br>
*Speechless* <p></p><i></i>

[Tarbicus]

I'm around half an hour into it. Not impressed, aside from Peter O'Toole (don't even attempt to slag him off)<br>
<br>
BAD`acting. BAD BAD BAD. AWFUL AWFUL. And, I suspect that goddamed Italian academia had something to do with the goddamned costumes! @#%$! <p></p><i></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

i saw a small part of Augustus last saturday. When i saw the battle of munda i changed the channel - i´m really tired of this historical nonsence... <p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>
A great flame follows a little spark.<br>
Dante Alighieri,The Divine Comedy<br>
</p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Rented the DVD "Augustus" and watched it over the last two nights. And, shoot me with a ballista bolt, but I didn't think it was awful. Not terrific, by any stretch of imagination, but not awful.<br>
<br>
Of course, my teeth started grinding whenever those leather loricae showed up onscreen (which was often), and a lot of the gear (especially officer's helmets) looked cheap and ill-fitting, and all the battle scenes were pretty crummy (especially the battle of Munda, which made no sense-- why did Pompey's army charge out of their nice, well-defended fort to engage Caesar's guys in the open? What were those massive, silvery spear-like things they were chucking?). But if you could look past all that, if you could ignore anything remotely military...<br>
<br>
I thought it was a rather affecting Roman soap opera. Some of the interior sets were great, and the scene of O'Tool/Augustus walking through the populace in a simple tunic and big floppy sun hat, pressing the flesh, was so completely at odds with the usual scenes of a Roman swathed in purple and gold, sitting imperiously on a high platform somewhere, that I was rather completely won over by it. I thought Charlotte Rampling made a great Livia, and I liked the way they kept you guessing as to whether she was an evil poisoner a la Robert Graves' version, or a cool, calculating but ultimately devoted wife. I also liked the Canadian dude who played the younger Augustus and the studly fellow who played Agrippa; the guy who played Maecaenus was just too over-the-top gay, but I liked the mere fact that Agrippa and Maecaenus were even characters in this story, that with Augustus they formed a sort of Roman "Three Musketeers" devoted to serving the Roman state.<br>
<br>
And I liked the fact that Augustus finally got his due as a great statesman in a motion picture. In "Cleopatra" he is an emotionless, evil little runt; in "I, Claudius," he is a buffoon at the mercy of his sinister wife. Here, is a complex human being, weighed down by the burden thrust upon him, emotionally torn apart by the turmoil within his family, but ultimately a decent man with the best interests iof the Roman people at heart. That's the way I've always thought of him, and I admit that my inclination to like this movie is colored by the fact that the producers agree with me about his character.<br>
<br>
And, hell, I'll see anything with Peter O'Tool in it. Even when he's not at his best, he still towers above most of today's actors.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
By the way, Theodosius, what the heck have you got against Hadrian, anyway? His life would make for a fine movie in this vein. I would imagine Titus/Vespasian (and probably some of Domitian) will be subjects of the same movie, since their stories overlap more or less ocmpletely. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 2/20/05 6:39 pm<br></i>

[Ebusitanus]

I totally agree with Flavius Crispus´vision about this movie. One could add that it should have been much longer as one just got squiped over the growing up of Julia´s two sons who died way to early.<br>
Marcus Antonious´son survives due to the clemency of Augustus and thus it is shown but not a word is said about the fate of poor Cesarion who was conveniently removed.<br>
I was also saddened by the fact that there was no trace of Germanicus in the movie.<br>
<br>
Besides all that leather, a good movie after all. <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Theodosius, what the heck have you got against Hadrian, anyway? His life would make for a fine movie in this vein. I would imagine Titus/Vespasian (and probably some of Domitian) will be subjects of the same movie, since their stories overlap more or less ocmpletely<hr><br>
<br>
Hi Flavius,<br>
<br>
I've got nothing againt doing a film on Hadrian, but his reign was largely uneventful in terms of warfare. I don't wanna watch 2 hours of him roaming from province to province on his grand tour. zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz<br>
<br>
I agree with you on making a movie on Vespasian because of the overlap in the story. With him you can cover the conquest of Britain, the victory over Vitellius and the victory over the Jewish Revolt. That's quite a stretch .<br>
<br>
-Theo<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

"I've got nothing againt doing a film on Hadrian, but his reign was largely uneventful in terms of warfare."<br>
<br>
What about the Bar Kochba revolt?<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Crispvs,<br>
<br>
Yes, there's the Bar Kochba revolt. (That's why I qualified my statement with "largely".) But it isn't as dramatic as the first Jewish Revolt of 66 AD where you've got the 4-6 month siege of Jerusalem.<br>
<br>
I think Trajan's a better choice in terms of an eventful reign (more theatres of operation in his Imperial career). Vespasian would be better too, IMO.<br>
<br>
-Theo <p><img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg"/></p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

Well, but since we now know that the next movies will be about the fall of the empire, Constantine, Marcus Aurelius and Titus, there is no use about getting a headache thinking up up will be the next release. <p></p><i></i>