As a historical film, the rare thing about this drama is that it provides a large number of middle and lower-level perspectives, while other dramas are either rare or give a wide angle that everyone suffers, and the focus is on depicting princes and generals. However, despite such a luminous intention, the screenwriter failed to perform well. What I was looking for was a portrait of the life of a commoner with the characteristics of ancient Rome, but the core of the story’s contradictions and unfolding is the family ethics that modern audiences like to hear and hear. They chose to deal with commercialization, and it can be seen from this that they do not have the mentality of "I just want to write a superb drama" like Oz's screenwriters. The simplification of the war scenes in the future is also in line with this tonality. When I just watched Rome, how could I have thought that Pullo's rushing out of the army was actually the only group battle scene in the whole play. HBO's stage beauty is quite good, and the calendar on the wall is still fresh in my memory. The fly in the ointment is that the urban architecture shots are not rich enough. I have always wanted to see the Colosseum, the Great Temple, the grand panorama, and various pattern details, but failed to do so. Also, Cicero didn't show much. He actually played a lot, but he gave the impression that he was an ordinary snobby nobleman, very obsessed. Overall, the show is a good show, but it doesn't give me a deeper understanding of Rome. The last episode is full of five stars, and I like it.
View more about Rome reviews
