"Rome" was honestly a disappointment to me and I did not even want to continue with the second season, but my mother wanted to so I decided I might as well. To my surprise, the second season was genuinely good and I have to say that the first was able to find its charm by the end. My issue has to do with the beginning of the series, it's below mediocre. This is, of course, my opinion and it does not seem to be the most popular one, so fair warning.

Character writing appears to be the series' biggest issue and only becomes acceptable around the second season. Before that, characters range from passable to horrid, and I don't mean just ethically. For indeed, "Rome" is quite the cynical drama, rightfully so. I was wrong to assume this was a series that came after the success of "Game of Thrones" in an attempt to fill the void left in between seasons. Quite the opposite, "Rome" paved the way for GoT to eventually take over the mainstream. Political intrigue, a great deal of nudity, and obscene violence. Unfortunately, these thrills are fairly surface-level. When your characters serve as simple vehicles to the plot, it's hard to have anything beyond decent TV. As mentioned above, things get better around the second season, and I genuinely think that Octavian is a solid character minus a few storytelling errors. Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus serve as the glue for all sub-plots and a connection with your everyday Roman, away from the world of nobles. Their arcs were inconsistent for sure, but I thought their chemistry, aided by the performances of Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson, carried their tales. Plenty of characters suffered from poor writing though - Servilia was so obnoxious I wished for her to die horridly everytime she appeared on the screen; Atia was a pretty basic controlling mother, not enough depth to justify the role she plays; Brutus was no more than a wimp and his arc was wholly unconvincing.

With boring characters, you can't expect your plot to maintain interest. No matter how much politics and sex the show threw my way, it did not change the fact I had no reason to care for the people that led the tale. Not until some of them finally gained on some semblance of two-/three-dimensionality. Even in Season 2, a fair amount of characters could only rouse my annoyance, but thankfully many of them began dying and the focus could shift ever so slightly on those that justified their presence.

The setting might be the strongest point of the series. "Rome" is famous for being one of the most expensive productions in the history of television. Let me repeat that this series paved the way for "Game of Thrones"; "Rome" came out in 2005. And frankly, it looks better than most series released since (January 2022 as I'm writing this). The props are stunning to look at and what more there is to appreciate is the extended focus on the Roman city beyond the royal districts. You get to see the slums and all the life that booms there, scum or not. Unfortunately, the series had to be cut short due to the sheer excession in its price; somewhat ironic, a parallel to the end of the Roman empire perhaps. I'll give props for the fact that it is able to wrap up in a conclusive manner.

"Rome" is good TV and I would recommend it to people who need something to watch, but I will go against the grain and say it is absolutely not necessary viewing. It looks like it's much deeper than it really is. Few of the themes feel like they really make a point, and as I said, it takes a while before I got around caring for these character-barren historical figures to drive the plot. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it and am positive enough after seeing it.