Ok I'm only half way through this... at 1 hr 35 min... but it's obvious this is completely historically inaccurate. It's supposed to be a historical piece but if you can't trust the history what's the point?
I'm not a professor or academic but I've read plenty on the history or Rome and the Emperors etc, and been there. All those books, all those academics who have really studied Roman history, well their agreed interpretation is totally different to this. For example Nero was about FOUR when Caligula died and Claudius became Emperor, not a lovestruck teenager living with slaves as in this story. And the whole love denied plot... I've not read this before about Nero. It may be true, who knows, but it seems they have drawn on other areas of Roman history, perhaps the life of Tiberius who turned bitter when forced to divorce his wife and marry Augustus's daughter. Historians say that is a reason Tiberius became a monster. So maybe they used that as a reason for Nero instead? It seems like everything has been adapted to fit the script, paying no respect to history. It's like the current BBC show Robin Hood. Ok, it's not THAT bad...!! But to say on the box it is the TRUE story seems, based on what the profs say, to be total nonsense. Shame.
Buy Rome seasons one and two instead. They are brilliant.