Anyone ever watch that HBO show "Rome?"

[Bicoastal]

I just got finished watching the very last episode (via Netflix.)

I think it was a guilty pleasure--a very, very, VERY guilty pleasure. So much money was spent to make itLOOK historically accurate, but then they went and rewrote so much of history just to make it titillating to your average viewer. (Historical figures who died peacefully of old age are made to expire bloodily 20 years before their time; men and women who never met end up tucking into each other in bold displays of full-frontal nudity.)

I have a word for it--Historyploitation. ("The Tudors" probably falls under the same category, although "John Adams" did not.) No one who sees it should confuse it for how things really happened. But it's still some trashy, nasty fun.

[LeftyMom]

1. It's trashy goodness.

:thumbsup:

[NaturalHigh]

2. I watched a few episodes.

It was enough to hold my interest if nothing else was on, but I don't think I'd rent it.

[Blarch]

3. I saw em all.

I thought it was good entertainment.

[Ava]

4. Mark Antony was HOT on there

:P (i've long been in love with james purefoy.. so i was glad to see him as Mark Antony)

[Elidor]

5. That's the same episode I saw

I take a dim view of Hollywood playing around with history and found certain fabrications gravely undermined my pleasure in watching it.

But the guy who played Marc Antony - James Purefoy - was right on the fucking money. He captured the ethos of Rome and the pathos of Antony's last days so very well that I was spellbound whenever he was on screen. They did that part to perfection. His maudlin self-regard and inherent entitlement, coupled with the reckless bravery of a true sentimental bully, was just marvelous. It's as if someone breathed the life back into him so we could watch him for a few minutes. It's him to a T. Great writing and acting right there. I may watch more episodes, just to see more of him.

Octavian wasn't nearly as interesting, though he was painted with the appropriate tones of calculation and utter remorselessness. They could have done a much better job with him. He was a monster, but he could be a warm and charming monster when things were going his way. He wasn't always that cold, brittle prick they portrayed.

As for the made-up plotline involving Octavian's mother: what utter tripe.

[Lorien]

11. I thought that the young actor who played Octavian in the first season

was pretty close to how I'd imagined him, but the actor in the role in the second season came off as detached and somewhat vapid-not brilliant but ruthless and efficient, as the historical figure was said to be.

[cemaphonic]

6. Liked it

I can be pretty pedantic about historical accuracy in most contexts, but I've long since given up caring in entertainment vehicles. Plus it was produced by John Milius for HBO, so I wasn't exactly expecting high art.

Octavian bugged me too. I liked his portrayal in the first season much better.

[TheMightyFavog]

7. I remember seeing an episode last year on the BBC

I thought to myself "TV shows on over-the-air broadcast television featuring full frontal nudity, f-bombs being dropped left and right, and sex scenes that look like they're straight out of midnight movies on cinemax? I love the United Kingdom! How do I go about becoming a permanent resident of this wonderful country"

[clyrc]

8. I loved ROME

I knew there were lots of historical inaccuracies, but I loved it anyway.

[Lorien]

9. The first season was good, but the second wandered mindlessly all over

the place, imho. Heck, the first episode of the first season was almost nonstop fucking and goriness, but at least it developed something of a plot after that!

[MonkeyFunk]

10. I hated it

the bf loved it.


But the lead actor was way hot.

[T_i_B]

12. I really enjoyed it!

Can't say the same for "The Tudors" though.

[tjwmason]

13. Absolutely loved it.

I've got the first season on D.V.D. and I'm sure will supplement that with the second soon enough.