• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Aug 28, 2005
  • Season #: 1 , 2
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 146 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 5 out of 146

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 11, 2014
    Season two of Rome arguably contains twice as much violence and sex compared to its predecessor however, that does not necessarily equate to a better result. Probably the biggest issue in season two is the obvious rushing of historical sequences (years would past by in most every other episode) due to abrupt and unfortunate announcement that HBO would be discontinuing the series. In the end, what we get is a clunky paced season filled with great scenes but all feeling compacted too quickly. Not much blame can be put on the creators of the show; being only given two seasons to work with, you would expect the time periods to be significantly off, for what it was; they pulled it off tremendously. Octavian's triumph contains a complete lack of dialogue exchange however facial expressions between characters and an excellent soundtrack creates riveting and raw emotion and in my opinion one of the best ending scenes in television. In the end, Rome, season two like season one was entertaining gold. Another victim of HBO of a series ending prematurely. Expand
  2. Nov 14, 2013
    The second season is a bit of a disappointment, mainly because I didn't love the turns in the story or in the main characters. It's still an amazing show but it failed to live up to the ridiculously high standard set by the first season.
  3. Sep 10, 2013
    The series got off to such a great start, Caesar has a great actor and is a pleasure to watch and Octavian was interesting. All of the political intrigue was done quite well. The soldiers were carried along quite well, no problems. Then Caesar died and the whole series came crashing down
    The two soldiers became a soap opera story and the series began to devote more and more time to their
    tiny tales of tiny people. The actually interesting part of the story, the intrigue, began to falter when Augustus Caesar was introduced. The actor just couldn't carry the man and he was no where near a replacement for Julius. Then they show the Egyptians as freeky deeky. I know they are a 3000 year old civilization by this stage but come on. Cleopatra is neither likable nor manipulative, at least in how the show portrays it. They simply say she is manipulative and cut to her getting what she wants, but as they say; the thrill is in the chase, never in the capture.
    The faltering second season just soured the whole thing for me. It became so slow and monotonous, it was just unbearable, I had to skip most of the soldiers sections for being so irrelevant. I'm watching Rome here, I want to see the Senate and the great family's. I don't need the producers creating some plebeians to try and relate to me. I can relate to other human beings just fine thanks, I don't care what their social status is
  4. Feb 10, 2013
    Where Rome: Season 1 excelled in character development, excitement and even managed to get away with its historical inaccuracies and speculation Rome: Season 2 has really dropped the ball. Getting rid of (Max Pirkis) Octavian and replacing him with Simon Woods was a grave mistake, whereas the former played a brilliant introvert leader the second acts and looks like a sociopath. Perhaps it's the script writing but judging from his IMDB page, he pretty much has the same creepy stare and smirk no matter what situation he is in. The heavy reliance on Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo to further the storyline is also becoming a drudge to watch. These characters are starting to feel so latched on that I can only compare it to superimposing Spiderman on a Shakespearian play. Had I known that unlike season 1, where I was glued to the screen each and every episode, season 2 would be so dull I would have skipped it. Expand
  5. Dec 16, 2012
    Everything that is good about season 1 is still here, to a point. The production quality is still top-notch, and I really enjoyed what seemed a more "grand" scale, maybe a bigger budget? Acting is great, with Cleopatra being especially good. My main issue is with the plot, not that its bad, its just not nearly as compelling as the first season. I still found myself interested and excited for the next episode, there was just a general lack of plot twists, and the entire mood of the season seemed to be a big downer compared to the previous one. Still, definitely worth watching, wish they didn't cancel it. Expand
  6. Nov 14, 2011
    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.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 18
  2. Negative: 0 out of 18
  1. 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.
  2. 63
    As in season 1, the acting is rich and lusty, with no costume-drama fustiness. [15 Jan 2007, p.33]
  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.