BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Leofwine_draca Watching and taking EMPIRE seriously after having seen ROME is a near impossibility. EMPIRE is a TV miniseries charting the rise to power of Julius Caesar's nephew, Octavius (isn't it Octavian?), in much the same way that ROME did, except the two productions are totally at odds. ROME was lavish, expensive, expertly made and very well written. EMPIRE is silly, generic and more often than not, derivative.The main source of inspiration is Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, thus we have the presence of a gladiator in the leading role. It's not just that Tyrannus is out of place - what's a gladiator doing having one-to-ones with Caesar, for goodness' sake? - it's that he's so bland. The producers picked a good-looking guy to make the housewives swoon and do zilch with his character for the entire running time. It makes for a highly boring production. His character arc is non-existence and he feels like a male model simply acting as a clothes horse throughout.Not that the rest is much good, either. I'm no stickler for historical accuracy, I'd rather a historical series or movie be entertaining rather than realistic and deathly dull. But EMPIRE takes the biscuit, throwing in sub-plot after sub-plot that never happened, and ludicrous situations like a romance with a Vestal Virgin. There's far too much senseless combat featuring the aforementioned gladiator hacking his way through various foes, and of course as this is a TV production there's no real sex or violence to offend anybody.Some of the cast members ARE good, it's just that their characters aren't. Vincent Regan was excellent in 300, but his Mark Antony seems a bit impotent, lacking in menace and failing to be larger than life as the role requires. James Frain seems to be doing a dry run for his turn in THE TUDORS but is underutilised, as are Michael Maloney (TRULY MADLY DEEPLY), Michael Byrne and RAMBO's Graham McTavish. The women fare less well: Emily Blunt, on the cusp of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA and stardom, fails to convince and the horrendous Trudie Styler is little more than a walking advert for Botox (who knew the Romans invented it?). The effeminate Santiago Cabrera might as well be listed under the female parts, so weak and weedy is he.Lack of a decent budget means that there are no real set-pieces or memorable moments, just a couple of CGI-enhanced backdrops here and there. However, the production does seem to have been made in Italy with an Italian supporting cast and crew, which counts for something, and the episodes are fast paced and have stuff going on. It's just a shame that the stuff that does happen is so familiar, made up, and derivative of what's come before. This TV stuff can be good - I liked the recent version of BEN HUR for instance - but EMPIRE misses the mark by quite a bit.

brucefant Truly wished I had not wasted my time, or money. Needless to say, unnecessary historical inaccuracies and falsehoods abound...leading me to suspect that the writers may not have passed their history classes in college. If the writers wanted to make up something entertaining, and accuracy be damned, then why not make up something completely outlandish and exciting--maybe sending Octavius to Mexico to fight the Mayans or Aztecs...or maybe turning Marc Antony into a transgendered dwarf sent to find the abominable snowman..or how about "Julius Caesar--Vampire Hunter"...cause, hey, if all you're concerned about is entertainment value, why hold back? But beyond the horrendous screen play and the poor writing, what really ticks me off about these movies with their 'casts of thousands' are the extras. To me, you only have to look at the extras in the background to tell the quality of the film. When the director tells every extra to pump their fists up and down in the air in every crowd scene...such obviously unenthusiastic and unrealistic, even fake, fist pumping which doesn't match the expression on the extra's face, tells you right away that this is a cheap piece of film even though its budget was in the tens of millions of dollars. And the battle scenes where the extras are arrayed in battle... just watching the extras in the background as they pretend to strike and parry their swords reminds me of bad amateur community theater--swear I saw a couple of rubber swords bend... and really poor unrealistic sword-fighting choreography... With the budget this film had, no reason they couldn't have gotten more 'acting' out of the extras...or maybe a fencing lesson or two. Stay away from this film unless you have no interest history.

steven-222 Imagine, 2000 years from now, someone decides to tell the story of George Bush. Sure, there are historical records about the time, but why not just make things up as you go along, to "improve" the story? So...there was once an elected king of America, Bush I, whose son wanted to succeed him; but Bush II was challenged by the evil Prince Gore. The people voted and chose Gore, but the 12 Lords of Justice decided the match should be decided by a duel, in which Bush II killed Gore. Hooray! Then America was attacked by a missile fired by King Saddam of Arabia. Bush II, already famous as a fighter pilot, led a jet attack on Saddam, and brought back his head on a stick, which was mounted atop the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the capitol, New York. And so on...And that's about how seriously the makers of EMPIRE take one of the most crucial, and well-documented, episodes in all of history, the aftermath of the assassination of Julius Caesar and the beginnings of the Roman Empire. Why bother with the incredibly fascinating reality of the people and their times, when we can just make up anything we want? It's all just fodder for the Hollywood TV grist mill, which provides wish-fulfillment fantasies for viewers whom the filmmakers hold beneath contempt. Sad.Beyond the ludicrous flights of fancy and boneheaded mistakes, some of the glitches are simply careless bloopers, as when the black general (yes, they made him up, too) refers to the "Serbian Walls" that encircle Rome. They're actually called the Servian Walls, and have been for about 2500 years, but who gives a frack?But...I'll give EMPIRE 1 star for eye-candy, especially Jonathan (can I have it and eat it, too?) Cake. And another star for some not-bad casting. (Fiona Shaw as Fulvia: "I always leave before the orgy.") The rest is all junk.Viewers interested in a more serious treatment of the same events might want to watch the Euro mini-series AUGUSTUS (available on DVD), starring Peter O'Toole as the emperor, which includes flashbacks to his early days. It's a far more handsomely produced film, with good battle scenes, great costumes, the most realistic interior and exterior sets so far created for a Roman movie, an intelligent script, and a memorable performance by the great Peter O'Toole.

alecwang80 Although there are some complains that this show is not a true reflection of history, I think it is still a good show. Anyway, it may not be necessarily a history show and the point is, we can enjoy it!There are some good scenes, including some good actions. The actors and actresses are excellent, especially the role played by Cake. We can even find a little bit similarity between this role and the one in the movie 'Gladiator' !Anyway, I hope ABC can present more than one season of this. Is it a mini? By the way, I just can't wait to see the new show 'Rome' of HBO in August.