andrew-freeman

(2012-04-28 22:23:27)

Awful, 2 hours of your life you wont get back

I don't understand why this movie was made. The acting is terrible andit is historically inaccurate. Tatum would have been better deployedportraying one of the horses. The Romans have picked up Americanaccents and actually use the word "fart", I was almost expecting to seea burger king wrapper. The Scots look more like Mohicans. There are toomany confusing holes in this movie to mention, at one point one of theseal men says something before he dies regarding the main charactersfather, he then asks his slave what it meant and you realise that itsto be revealed later in the movie, although it seems like they forgot.Tatum meets with his fathers legion who were defeated by the seal menand fled, however when the handful of Romans fight the "terrible" sealmen they win hands down despite being outnumbered. I am not someone whoneeds or even wants violence in a movie but anyone who is hoping to seeplenty of gore will also be disappointed. There really was no point tothis rubbish. Predictable, boring and inaccurate.

(2012-04-28 09:43:30)

A Good Action Film

I have not read Rosemary Sutcliff's book (The Eagle of the Ninth) but I understand that the book is more of a mystery whereas The Eagle is an action film. Understandably, lovers of the book will be disappointed but, of course, translating a book to the screen is rarely satisfying. I found that The Eagle was better than I expected. The opening of the film, set in the reign of Antoninus Pius (around 140 CE), gives a gritty picture of Roman camp life. Marcus Aquila has arrived in Britain to command the same cohort commanded by his father, who is responsible for the loss of an eagle standard. The film wavers a bit in being precise about the organization of a cohort and a legion but this is not critical to enjoy the film. The day-to-day life in camp is nicely depicted with the high point begin a battle with the Britons who have captured the members of a Roman patrol. The discipline of the Romans is nicely portrayed as they form a testudo formation to rescue their comrades. The costumes are not bad but reflect more of the Hollywood version of ancient dress. The soldiers have the correct footwear but the armor is segmented leather. Spoilers below. Marcus is wounded and recovers at a villa owned by his uncle, nicely played by Donald Sutherland. During a gladiatorial combat, Marcus sees a salve named Esca who refuses to fight and saves his life, becoming his slave in turn. Marcus decides to bring back the Eagle to restore the good name of his father and sets of with Esca acting as an interpreter. They make their way into the Scottish highlands where they are captured by the Seal People, who paint themselves a gray-blue. Esca turns the tables on Marcus by claiming the Roman is his slave. The Seal People look more like American Indians by their clothing and wearing bones for decoration. End of spoilersChanning Tatum is well cast as Marcus. He is the very image of a Roman soldier, brooding over his family's loss of honor and conveying a strong sense of loyalty to his soldiers. Jamie Bell also fills his part very well conveying Esca's reluctant but growing admiration of Marcus. Mark Strong makes a brief appearance, this time not as a villain, as one of the Roman soldiers that survived the massacre of the cohort and went native. Overall, The Eagle is a good action film that keeps your interest. It is beautifully photographed and well acted.

(2012-04-28 12:40:23)

Interesting, but I read the book first. Should have waited.

This review is from: The Eagle (DVD) The Eagle was an ok movie but for me it was a let down simply because I read the book first. The first half of the movie followed the story, but after a while the story just shifted completely. I know they have to leave parts out because of time and they want to add more action, but it took the movie down a notch for me. No fault to Amazon since I grabbed the movie up without reading the reviews myself. Overall it is entertaining, but watch the movie before you read the book.

jeremyjweber

(2012-04-28 02:27:19)

Terrible

You can take Tatum Channing out of Jersey but you can't take the Jerseyout of Tatum. His accent slips every so often making him unbelievablein the role. Keep him a bad boy and sexy. Not a believable leader atall. Slow in parts. Another poor film based on Honor blah blah. Quitcrying already over your lost eagle trophy. A few homo-erotic scenesand probably would have been a better "Brokeback Mountain" type moviebetween the slave and the Roman. It is certainly not believable that aslave who saw his family murdered would not help some Roman retrievehis golden eagle. He would have cut his throat first chance. Seeingyour family murdered does not substanciate helping your enemy get histrophy back.

patrick powell

(2012-04-26 13:42:20)

By no means a masterpiece but better than I expected

Well, now we know it: the Britons under Roman occupation were abedraggled lot, largely dressed in rags. Except for the Seal People,that is, whose warriors were covered in grey ash and favoured rathernatty leopard skin coats which would not have been out of place on thecatwalks of Milan. And whereas the other British natives followed nowhairstyle in particular, the fashion-conscious Seal People, who seemedto have lived on the west coast of the Scottish Highlands, had verynatty Mohawk-style hair-dos. Actually, although it is easy to poke alittle fun at The Eagle, the story of a brave and honourable Romancenturion who sets out to re-establish his soldier father's honour, ithits the spot more often than it misses and given that we know preciouslittle of the customs and practices of the British tribes in 140AD, thefilm is imaginative and manages to convince. Scenes in a Roman fort arealso quite convincing. Some have criticised it for not being half assubtle as the novel on which it was based, to which I must respond as Ialways do that Kevin McDonald made a film which used the novel as rawmaterial. He wasn't trying to make a 'film of the book'. Channing Tatumis criticised for being wooden, but I feel that, too, is unfair. He isasked to portray a rather intense man who has something of a fixationin restoring his father's honour, almost, it would seem, to theexclusion of much else, and Tatum does that character justice. JamieBell, the only other character of much substance gives a very goodperformance and it will be interesting to see future films in which hestars. He has an interesting quality about him. Overall, The Eagle doeswell. It might have disappointed some because it is not a blockbusterand the CGI has been kept to a bare minimum. Others might have beendisappointed because there is, in truth, not much too the story. Butwhat it sets out to do, it does well and apart from the very occasional'ho-hum' moment - and it has to be admitted that the film's final linesand its final ten seconds are real clunkers, The Eagle is worthwhatever they are charging you for a ticket at your local fleapit.

(2012-04-26 02:22:59)

It isn't an "epic" - more like a solid old school western or war movie.

It earns four good stars for what it doesn't do - no forced sexuality, no huge unbelievable CGI shots, none of the junk that detracts from much of what Hollywood churns out these days. It isn't a perfect film but it's a solid one.

Movie_Muse_Reviews

(2012-04-22 10:15:15)

Much less rousing and dramatic than a "Gladiator," but a solid action epic

The latest modern film to play swords-and-sandals dress-up is "TheEagle," starring Channing "Pretty Boy" Tatum, a name I bestowed uponhim having played "Pretty Boy" Floyd in Michael Mann's "Public Enemies"back in 2008, albeit a part of no significance. I suppose when theycoined the term "hunk," no one expected it to apply so literally to thethick and broad-shouldered 30-year-old.Tatum plays Marcus Flavius-Flave Aquila (okay, just Flavius), Romancenturion and son of a disgraced commander who disappeared along withthe entire Ninth Legion and Rome's beloved eagle standard in the northof Britain in 120 AD. Fast forward 20 years and son has chosen to beposted in Britain in hopes of gaining back his, his father and Rome'shonor by discovering the fate of the legion and recovering the eagle.For Tatum, this trip into dangerous territory beyond Hadrian's Wall, asit turns out, is also a test of leading man meddle.Heading up the real American heroes of "G.I. Joe" doesn't exactly countfor star capability, and while "The Eagle" barely holds a candle to theRoman epic of all Roman epics that is "Gladiator," it certainly can beseen as a more serious step and one in which the target audience has nointerest in ogling him -- just watching him kill rebellious "Seal Men,"(precursors to Scots).Tatum's grades are definitely passing, but he earns more sympathy thanattention. He's not quite a commanding presence, but Jeremy Brock'sscript doesn't exactly show us anything about him other than he feelsdisgraced and he's a good soldier. Flashbacks and dreams about hisfather riding off never to be seen again are hardly adequate ways tobuild a hero who can rally our spirits. He can throw down with the bestof them, but he's better stoic.For the most part, "The Eagle" follows suit. Kevin Macdonald, aversatile and underrated director who has an Academy Award for BestDocumentary and also directed Forest Whitaker to his "Last King ofScotland" Oscar, keeps the action moving and more old school -- oldschool being the days before CGI. The fight in the beginning all theway to the journey beyond the wall and the perils he faces excite andhold attention. For an epic film that places honor and friendship atthe center, the stakes just never feel high enough. You'll make aninvestment in hoping for a peaceful ending, but nothing stirs beyondthat.The film tries to create several dynamics such as Marcus' daddy issuesand the relationship between Marcus and Esca (Jamie Bell), his servantwhose life he saved, who over the wall could betray him at any moment,but little doubt seeps in. After all, while Esca's a tough andresilient guy, he was once Billy Elliot -- he's probably not screwinganyone over. Actually, Bell's performance hurts Tatum's when all issaid and done; he's much more unpredictable.Roman history nuts will find little to enjoy from that perspective with"The Eagle" as political undertones are practically non-existent andyou have Americans playing Romans and Brits playing savage Brits.Brock's script sticks to the action and compelling events, using ahistorical period to create a tone, much in the way "300" did.Appropriately adjusting expectations for "The Eagle" to this level willhelp it retain the honor it deserves for capturing 120 minutes worth ofinterest with eventful action sequences.~Steven CVisit my site http://moviemusereviews.com

leon-geyer

(2012-04-21 13:27:14)

Moral values....

I liked the historical investigation in this film, combining the realfacts of the novel and of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest inGermania, with a lot of quotidian elements of the age. Great work inthat aspect. Acting of Jamie Bell and the leader of the Seals too. But well, my point: some can see in it conspiracy theory, but often,when I see mayor Hollywood productions related to war, I kind of noticecertain moral values according to the politics of the US. Liketerrorists as main threat after 9.11, conspiracy against US during theIrak wars, the value of the flag while critics in aftermath of Vietnam,maybe I can't tell exactly. The main theme in this film is treason. OK,regaining the honour trough the eagle, which ends to be the flag. Andfriendship, caused by honour, promises, and not betraying (mentionedmany times). Anyway, the priority seems to me to be the bad bad valueof treason - the guy who says when I ran from your father I ran formmyself and that group which comes to regain their honour and essence(instead of living with their families), the seal warrior (noassociation with the US naval forces at all?) showing what happens tothe one who betrays his people (to a son of him).I left the cinema thinking why is this theme so extremely strong, andnow I remember - there is actually massive criticism of former soldiersagainst the US war politics in public media, gaining conscienceregarding absurd economical interests behind the lies about war reasons(oil pipe routes in Afghanistan, the canal in panama, oil hegemony inmiddle east, weapons showcase, and so on).I'm not saying that all the scriptwriters have their office in thepentagon, but there are many ways to help a film reach massivescreening.

(2012-04-19 18:46:35)

Riveting--

Although "The Eagle" is not without its flaws, taken as a whole, it is riveting. However, the story begins as a Roman story--young leader takes over the dreaded outpost of Hadrian's Wall in order to assuage his father's honor and restore the Eagle emblem to the Roman Empire. Not long into the story, the emphasis shifts to young Marcus's recovery from injuries sustained in battle. Then there's a long ride by Marcus and his new slave Esca to find the Seal People, a sub-branch of the little-known Picts and recover that Eagle emblem.As I rode the rugged hills and mountains with the two, I thought that viewers looking for a thrilling Roman rout of Celtic peoples must be getting bored. However, I found this story--this quest--more riveting than battle and, of course, thought the landscape breathtaking (filmed in Scotland and Hungary) and anticipated that the journey would lead to new movie thrills. I was, of course, correct.The back story: Marcus's father was the leader of this post when Marcus was small. He and his 5000 men all disappeared, along with the Eagle emblem. It was considered dishonorable to lose the EAgle, even if no one knew what happened those years ago. Marcus grows up to take his father's place and rectify his honor. Early in his rule, he prevents his troops from being slaughtered during a surprise attack during the black of night by rousting them to duty in time for battle.Much of the framework of the story is based on fact and is taken from Rosemary Sutcliff's young adult novel, "The Eagle," one of three novels in her Roman Britain trilogy. I've always heard about the Picts, those painted-tattoed peoples on the edge of the Celtic nation. Not much is known about them, but Ms Sutcliff and the film lift up that curtain and show us a culture alien to even the Celts in general. History tells us that Hadrian built this 90-mile wall to prevent Celtic invasions into northern England which the Romans had added to their empire. The ferocity of Celtic fighting along this wall was daunting even to Roman soldiers.Enter Marcus and his slave, Esca, who was given to him, as a result of battle between gladiator and captive. Esca is a Breton, another branch of the Celts. In the film, all the Celts spoke the same language, so that Esca can communicate with each new group he and Marcus meet on their quest. As Celts hate Romans, slave and master turn about and Esca does all the talking.Finally, they arrive in the land of the Seal People, far north into modern Scottish territory along the North Sea. Marcus learns what it means to be a slave, but, more importantly, what it means to have a friend. There's also the revelation of some of the lost legionaries who adapted to the way of life of the Celts, the meaning of honor and courage and making things right.I really enjoyed this film because of the story and the setting. Both were exotic in a wild, enduring way. "The Eagle" is also the first movie I've ever seen which features the Gaelic language. That in itself was worth the admission.

(2012-04-19 00:44:28)

OMG this was an awesome movie

This review is from: The Eagle (Amazon Instant Video) Okay, I dont want to go into to much detail, but this was an awesome movie, it had a very intense plot and the characters were awesome, especially the slave :) ... This kind of reminds me of the lord of the rings, the slave is this movies version of Sam wise .... anyway the ending is epically funny, if your into middle age lore you should watch this movie!

(2012-04-19 00:53:51)

Great Movie

This review is from: The Eagle (Unrated Edition + Digital Copy) [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Movies with gladiator fighting always mean a lot of cool action. This movie was not exception. It was full of Roman myth and interesting plot line when it came to the fiction part. The acting was superb. As usual Jamie Bell was on top of his game and did not disappoint. Channing Tatum played a good leader fallen from glory. And it was cool to see Donald Sutherland in this movie. I give it top marks.

morrelle

(2012-04-18 19:13:41)

What a load of tosh, don't waste your money

I'm only giving this 3 because of the spectacular Scottish scenery.Seriously, this was the biggest load of old nonsense I have seen in along time. What were the Last of the Mohicans crossed with N'avi doingin Scotland 2000years ago?!?!? I haven't read the book, but it soundslike it is a good thing the author is no longer with us, poor woman isprobably spinning in her grave. Awful characters and a ridiculousdialogue. Complete nonsense, do not watch this movie. The legion of theninth is a good enough story not to have been turned into this tripe.As one of the other reviewers kindly pointed out how come thosedefending their homeland were the 'bad' guys? American imperialistsmasquerading as Romans.

(2012-04-15 03:36:04)

Interesting Movie

I am a big fan of history movie... But it was all over a flippin gold object... But besides that I liked the movie...

(2012-04-14 10:58:38)

a roman era drama NOT a action movie

The main point of this movie is that it is a drama abuot the relationship of two men who are enemies and yet become friends. This is NOT a roman era action movie. There are a few battle scenes. But the main complaints about this movie is that it's not a action movie. Well it's NOT a action movie. so there you have it. the blu ray looks great as you would expect from a new movie, and it has some good extras like a alternate ending and deleted scenes. The acting is fine. Now the truth of hadrians wall is far more complex than this movie as in fact it became just a line in which trade was done over and attacks on it became non existant , but perhaps at the beginning it was a hot spot. Anyways all the one star reviews wanted action and they got this buddy movie instead , still I liked the idea of the lost legion. This never happened though in the uk. It did happen in germany. Although early on the romans lost many people. But by 120 ad pretty much everyone living in roman boundries thought of themselves as part of the empire to a large extent. If you want more action though , this is not your movie. But if you want a good historical drama that's really about the two lead men bonding (this could take place in any century) then you'll like this one.

cnb1207

(2012-04-08 06:34:47)

Excellent Movie

My husband decided to see this over Tron at the last minute a few weeksago. We were both convinced we were going to hate it but it turned outto be pretty excellent.Channing Tatum's accent is a little odd, I'll admit, but it doesn'tdistract from the rest of the movie. The scenery is beautiful and thestoryline is simple enough to understand. There are no sex scenes,nudity, excessive blood, or language. In fact, they insinuate violenceinstead of showing it. So if you're looking for Sparticusblood/violence/sex this isn't the movie for you.I loved the movie and can't wait to buy it.

(2012-04-07 13:14:50)

Good but could have been better !

This is a good historical flick with stunning scenery, great costumes and good actors, it's very loosely based on the Rosemary Sutcliffe novel and the movie could have been better if it followed the novel more closely as some characters from the book dont feature in the film. The movie also features a hollywood style happy ending and I dont understand why the Seal Folk look like Red Indians, this is not the image I got of them from the book.The film has it's flaws but it's good entertainment and it is not tainted with the political correctness of last years Centurion which the U.K film council inflicted on us.

(2012-04-02 19:14:29)

Great Cinematography, but Poor History

Overall, I really enjoyed what seemed to me to be the authentically artistic (but not historical) character of the movie. Mostly that meant not including standard movie cliches, and having an inspiring story, a complicated plot with no true good guys or bad guys, and good action. By cliches, I mean specifically that I really appreciated the lack of a gratuitous sex scene, and the lack of a scene where the good guy is almost beaten, kneels on the ground, the bad guy swings, and at the last second the good guy jerks up and kills the bad guy. The fighting in this movie is actually good. But I deducted two stars because of the historical problems. While there is an ancient Roman Republican tradition of Roman fighting prowess, and this movie suggests a great conflict between that republican martial tradition and the developing bureaucratic and soft elites under the empire, this movie doesn't do anything to portray the natives of the Island of Britain in an historically accurate way. The setting of the movie is in the 2nd century AD, but Gaelic-speaking Scots-Irish didn't arrive in Scotland from Ireland to establish the Dal Riata until the 5th century. In the 2nd century here were no Gaelic-speakers in what is now Scotland, and there never have been any in central Britain where "Gaelic" speaking supposedly Esca came from. His tribe, the Brigantes, spoke an ancient ancestor of the Welsh/Cornish languages, a completely different branch of the Celtic language family from Gaelic. The people north of Hadrian's Wall were the Picts, and we have no idea what type of language they spoke - The strongest hypothesis is that it wasn't Indo-European at all, just like Basque & Etruscan were not Indo-European. It's extremely unlikely that Esca could have spoken with the people north of Hadrian's Wall, and there's a 0% chance that either he or they were speaking Gaelic.Come on. Can script-writers and movie producers check Wikipedia? Could they at least hire a linguist and an historian to both do some fact checking if the movie people didn't want to take a couple hours to read up online about the actual cultural and linguistic landscape of the time period and area that is the movie's setting?

kosmasp

(2012-04-02 05:16:32)

Show them

Since the movie lives on the relationship (a very complicated one atthat) of our two male protagonists, it is really essential that itworks. Unfortunately I don't think it truly achieves that at mostpoints of the movie. You know what they are supposed to do and be, butyou don't really feel it.On the other hand, the action (when it hits the screen, no punintended) is shot in a very good way. No complaints there. You willprobably like it. The story itself is intriguing too. It's the journeythat counts, even if nothing were to come of it (and you have to watchit to find out, what happens). But the ending is not convincing enough.It is aimed to bring emotions, but you are left feeling almost nothing.Maybe relieved because the movie ended, but not satisfied in any way,no matter what you expected ...

MrOllie

(2012-04-01 04:22:47)

Rather disappointed with this film.

I was looking forward to watching this film but must admit that on afirst showing I found it to be very slow and a tad boring. I have sincewatched it a second time and liked it a little better, but overall, amstill rather disappointed with it. The strange thing I found with thisfilm is that it felt as if it was taking place in North America and notScotland. It just did not seem to have a Northern Britain atmosphere. Ithink it was because the Seal people just looked like North AmericanIndians. I must say that I much preferred the film CENTURIAN whichalthough was made on a cheaper budget and was a lot more violent, didmove at a fast pace and felt like it was happening in the ScottishHighlands.

harald-dehner

(2012-03-31 16:55:09)

How *not* to adapt a novel

+++ serious spoilers ahead - continue reading only if you not only haveseen the film but also read the novel +++I just happen to have recently read Rosemary Sutcliffs book during mylast vacation so the impression was quite fresh when I watched thissorry excuse for an adaptation.Please note that I don't blame screenwriters for leaving out thoseparts of a book that don't drive the main action, like, in this case,the peaceful relation with the villagers before the first riot, theneighbor girl, the wolf etc.But why in the name of all that's holy did they feel it necessary tochange crucial aspects of the book - altering its whole mood andmeaning? Let alone fantasize whole new sequences into the film!Want examples?- The friendship and mutual respect between Marcus and Esca werereplaced by a cheesy subplot of would-be danger of betrayal (not enoughsuspense for you, Mr Brock, eh?) and a theme of Escas desire forfreedom. Touching as that may be - nothing like that is in the bookwhere Marcus sets his slave free at the very beginning of theirjourney...- In the book the whole search is a stealthy, covert operation. Nothere - not heroic enough, I suppose. So instead of acting as travelinghealers they just stop any passer-by to directly ask (sometimes atsword-point...) for directions to the lost eagle. How very subtle...- Guern has become at home north of the wall and has a family. Chapterslike these made the book a frequently chosen reading in schools inEurope. Why not show them? Not action-packed enough?- In the book they are both guests of the tribe. Too undramatic forHollywood. So, in a pathetically failing attempt to add some suspense,they added some "no-you-are-my-slave"-twist, not only mangling theatmosphere of the original but also needlessly tearing up plot-holeseverywhere.- So instead of being *invited* to the rite, Marcus (Remember - theslave mistrusted by everyone?) just sneaks to the holy ground, abandonscover as soon as he catches a glimpse of the Eagle and runs towards itscreaming. Not to be killed, no! Just to be knocked out and left theresleeping amongst the tribesmen - none of whom as much as stirs whileEsca wakes up Marcus, deals out swords and then hurries along to theholy cave just some steps away.- The retrieval of the Eagle - no stealth operation sufficed! A battlehad to take place!- Did I mention the Eagle still has it's wings in the movie? The strongimage of the wing-less Eagle of the book... gone! Did *any* of thefilmmakers bother to read more of the book than the blurb!?- Where is the respect, the tribe's elder has for the chief of theRomans? Gone! Instead he insults him with his very dying words. Howbefitting... for an 80s-action-movie villain! But *not* here! In thebook he even sends the ring as a gift and as an appreciative nod toMarcus. Too complicated for the target-audience? Oh, I forgot! Theychanged Marcus from an honor-guest to a slave so they could not keepthis subplot, either. Pity that...- The chase could not end like in the book. Unthinkable! Instead therehad to be the obligatory final battle (tm) including theeven-more-obligatory showdown of the main-hero and the main-villain(tm) (who beforehand just kills his own son for no other reason than tomake it absolutely clear that he is as bad as it gets) and the alsoobligatory return-to-honor of the lost soldiers (tm). Oh, please!- Bring back the Eagle silently? Not in Hollywood, you don't! Plug iton a pole and stride around showing it off - that's more like it!- And then the end! It got me howling and fidgeting, literally! In thebook the whole point of the search - to reclaim the honor of the 9th -turns out to have been in vain in the end, because the senate *refuses*to reinstate it. But, hey, that ain't no happy end - and the brainlessspecies known as "audience" to Hollywood-filmmakers is deemed toostupid to cope with something as complicated as that (please not thatthe novel is considered a read suitable for 14-year-olds...). So herethe script comes to the rescue, cramming in a triumphant stride (tm) tothe fat senators (tm) (including the mandatory public humiliation ofthe arrogant upstart (tm)) who readily declare the 9th Legion to bereopened and Marcus appointed their leader. What a hoot! Get thecelebratory popcorn flying!Oh, come on! This plainly is an insult not only to the book but to meas a viewer, too!Why leave out whole passages? Because of time-constraints? I can acceptthat. But then don't waste precious minutes to cram in cheesyHollywood-clichГѓВ©s everywhere!So do us all a favor: Next time you don't think a novel would make agood movie as it is... just leave it to another team!Please stop crippling books into run-of-the-mill summer-action-flicks!Because the movie in itself is quite well-made I still give it a 3/10.Harald DehnerP.S.: When I saw there is an alternative ending on the BluRay-release Ithought this would be the rightful one that - so I supposed - gotkicked by some gormless studio executive after the ultimate anddefinitive end of all originality known as "test screening". But then Ihad to endure just another disappointment as this alternative ending,while much less cheesy than the theatrical one, still bears noresemblance to the original one but replaces it with just anotheruninspired attempt to add an extra ton of misplaced pathos.So sad...