Well... I've been sick this last week (flu, yet again), and that has given me time to watch this excellent series by HBO. The thing I like most about Rome is the fact that it is intended to be "authentic" historically, in this case portraying with great exactitude, the politics of the time, and also many of the psychological motives of the characters (showing to a great extent where their actions weren't all that political and clever as one would think).
Rome is situated in the years 55-31 B.C. beginning with the last conquests of Julius Caesar in Gaul, and brings out the conflict with Pompey (once great friends) and extending onto the time when Octavian (i.e. Augustus) ascends to power. I think this is one of the best settings that could have been selected for this series because it is a time when the Roman Empire is formed ( though emperors, would be "established" later), and of course also because in this time one can also see how powerful was the senate in those times, and how careful one had to be to impose their ideas, or their power to govern Rome. One very significant detail is that even to well armed generals (like Mark Anthony, Julius Caesar) had to care a GREAT deal about their popularity among the plebs in the city, and ironically the one who beats everyone ( Octavian) was in fact in some time very unpopular despite of having control of Rome. Well enough setting now onto the story itself:
Rome tells two stories, one real (almost) and one fictional, the real one is evidently politics in Rome and the lives of the most prominent Romans, and the fictional one is about two soldiers of the 13th legion( Ceasar's best), named Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, Vorenus being a freak about fidelity and honor and Pullo being just a guy who enjoys life (both teach each other bla bla) .This trait of the series is in the initial episodes (and for most of the first season) a great plus, because the two stories blend smoothly, and give more action to the story, but then this side characters don't evolve that much, and to keep us attracted to them infinite and unspeakable tragedies happen to them every half an hour, so I personally grew tired of them (and probably everyone), and I think that is one of the great flaws of the second season.
Another very particular trait is the rawness of Rome, in some way i find it excellent to portray life as it was in Rome, but I think in some other ways (sexually mostly) it was evidently an exaggeration ( and I would suspect commercial purposes).
Having told that, Rome varies in quality very much from one season two the other, the first i would say it is almost perfect, taking in consideration only the little errors i have shown and the inconsistence with war scenes (lacking when Pompey and Caesar fight, but present when in Gaul), though there's no focus on them. But the second season, has the problem with Vorenus and Pullo, and also with the loss of the most important characters such as Caesar and Pompey, and the change from the young Octavian to the older one, make the series lose its momentum, but i think the worst error is to lose some focus on politics to give it to the side story, losing balance and interest from audience.
Overall I'd give the series a 9, just because of how it give me false hopes about the second season. I would like to see another season but one with a different setting (200~400 A.D.)
P.S. I need to write about football(not soccer it sucks)(just to piss sooki and neop), also a comparison with Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is due.
