• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Aug 28, 2005
  • Season #: 1 , 2
Metascore
68 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 18
  2. Negative: 0 out of 18
  1. 80
    Though every detail of this lush Roman epic feels palpably authentic, history lessons don't loom overly large; what's most enjoyable about it is how deftly it mixes soap opera with senatorial debates.
  2. "Rome" is smart, dirty fun.
  3. Turns like this take the series further into Aaron Spelling territory than it ever was, an idea that may offend those who can't let go of the notion that HBO is supposed to be better than regular TV.
  4. 80
    This splendidly acted melodrama delivers a bloody good time barreling toward oblivion, delivering enough political intrigue, violence and sex to slake even the most debauched viewing appetites.
  5. 75
    "Rome" treats viewers as long-term fans of deep terrain. To follow "Rome," it is required you keep up. If you do, you may be rewarded with a fine tale, proper acting and a better-told history lesson.
  6. 75
    What the series gains this season by giving us more history and more compelling storylines, it loses by repeating some of its, er, epic mistakes. Again, no battle scenes - some of the most important in all of history - are shown.
  7. Reviewed by: Lisa Schwarzbaum
    75
    There's a danger that visitors to Rome may contract a mild case of Naughty Classy Cable Fatigue.
  8. 70
    The production is nothing if not rich, awash in muted hues, populated with rivetingly complex characters and yet disappointingly low on spectacle.
  9. 70
    By the way, I don't mean the word "trash" as an insult. I enjoy well-made, quick-witted trash, and if you do, too, then you will find "Rome" as irresistible as ever.
  10. It remains a wholly impressive piece of work, stylish and graphic and bold in equal measure while at the same time greatly lacking a cohesive focus.
  11. 63
    As in season 1, the acting is rich and lusty, with no costume-drama fustiness. [15 Jan 2007, p.33]
  12. 63
    With each episode, the show seems to move further from real life and the real Rome and off into some sex-crazed, soap-opera fantasy version of a place that has never, thankfully, existed before or since.
  13. "Rome" is engaging even if it isn't a swords-and-sandals version of "The Sopranos," as HBO had hoped.
  14. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    60
    It's like Deadwood in togas, a violent and bawdy tapestry of a vanished civilization.
  15. 60
    The notion that the Empire ran on pillow talk and poison--the Great Woman theory of history-was also at the heart of the BBC's 1976 "I, Claudius," but "Rome," with its spitting catfights, is closer in spirit to "Dynasty."
  16. HBO's most obtuse, impenetrable series.
  17. Reviewed by: Len Sousa
    50
    If only the creators sought fit to put as much detail into their character development as their history, the show might have earned itself a third season.
  18. 50
    The second season of "Rome" feels more than a little claustrophobic, and operates on a much smaller scale than might be anticipated for such an epic production.
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 108 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 70 out of 73
  2. Negative: 2 out of 73
  1. 9
    The second season wasn't as great as the first, especially with the jarring change of Octavian as previously mentioned but it was still worth watching. The depiction of the rivalry between Octavian and Mark Anthony was awesome and well done. I wish there was some way they could continue the series at another point in Roman history, it would definitely be worth watching as this one was. Full Review »
  2. SusanL.
    10
    bigger than life characters in a bigger than anything empire. Costumes, splendour, grittiness -- they got it right.
  3. MarcioP.
    10
    It was the best roman movies I have ever seen. I really hope they make the third, fourth, ... seasons.