I would say that overall this is an interesting attempt to do something new and creative.
I enjoyed the atmosphere of an ancient prehistorical world, in which superstition is everything and all actions have to be interpreted. Also, the concept of "war of all against all", is well represented. Until there is no unitary power, individuals and tribes will endlessly live in fear and fight each other for supremacy, making use of all available psychological and practical means to oppress each other.
What I want to focus on, is the political side of the movie. Being Italian myself, I know that for an Italian director can be a bit troubling to do a movie on the mythical foundation of Rome, you don't want it to sound too celebratory of Roman power, because then it would stink of fascism (celebrating ancient Rome was an important part of fascist propaganda).
So, how does this "issue" develop in the script?
Let's start by saying that the movie is loosely based on the actual myth.
Remus is a kind of Machiavellian authoritarian ruler, disregards religion and tradition and simply wants to take advantage of it to make others do what he wants.
Whereas, Romulus is a pious, good hearted person that we can foretell will be a righteous and fair king loved by its people.
Alba Longa, the first rival of Rome, is portrayed as a tyrannical power oppressing villages in the area. Therefore, the birth of Rome is a reaction against Alba Longa, oppressor of the humble and lost peoples of Latium and against a ruthless nihilist amoral Remus, then it is a kind of democratic anti-authoritarian birth!
I think that this turn is a very creative way not to make it look like the birth of a mighty oppressive imperial power (that Rome indeed was to be) but a subtle way of pretending it was a mythical foundation of a democratic power.
I enjoyed the atmosphere of an ancient prehistorical world, in which superstition is everything and all actions have to be interpreted. Also, the concept of "war of all against all", is well represented. Until there is no unitary power, individuals and tribes will endlessly live in fear and fight each other for supremacy, making use of all available psychological and practical means to oppress each other.
What I want to focus on, is the political side of the movie. Being Italian myself, I know that for an Italian director can be a bit troubling to do a movie on the mythical foundation of Rome, you don't want it to sound too celebratory of Roman power, because then it would stink of fascism (celebrating ancient Rome was an important part of fascist propaganda).
So, how does this "issue" develop in the script?
Let's start by saying that the movie is loosely based on the actual myth.
Remus is a kind of Machiavellian authoritarian ruler, disregards religion and tradition and simply wants to take advantage of it to make others do what he wants.
Whereas, Romulus is a pious, good hearted person that we can foretell will be a righteous and fair king loved by its people.
Alba Longa, the first rival of Rome, is portrayed as a tyrannical power oppressing villages in the area. Therefore, the birth of Rome is a reaction against Alba Longa, oppressor of the humble and lost peoples of Latium and against a ruthless nihilist amoral Remus, then it is a kind of democratic anti-authoritarian birth!
I think that this turn is a very creative way not to make it look like the birth of a mighty oppressive imperial power (that Rome indeed was to be) but a subtle way of pretending it was a mythical foundation of a democratic power.