L'aigle de la 9e légion

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The CGI effects seem to have been kept under control, and so the film turned out to be more human than animation. The combat scenes were done in the current style of quick cuts where you just get a vague idea of what is going on, rather than actually being able to follow the blows being struck.

The film seemed mostly faithful to Roman history. It gives a vivid illustration of why Hadrian's wall was built. But I am not totally sure the Roman Senate had a "branch" in Britain.

The two leads (Channing Tatum and Jamie Bell) were perfectly suited to their roles, kind of like Hercules and his sidekick from 60s historical adventure films. But minus the corny jokes. There were no banquets with production numbers. And there was no "love interest" written in. And no magical effects or mythical creatures. And it was very easy to follow. And hugely entertaining.

It's not art but it's rather good, regardless.

The movie has a fairly good opening in my opinion, a rather dull middle and a predictable ending.

The problem with it for me is the same problem I'm seeing with a lot of the new action films. The cameras stays very tight, action is all blurred and close up, so you can't see what's going on. The sound track is all keyed up so you won't be concentrating on the errors in the action. (Which you can't really see anyway) Golly, give me the days of good stuntmen back again.

I liked the opening half hour or so, but the middle is so much like a North American Indian film you lose all sense of the time period. I agree with the former reviewers comments, Gee, if the Britains lived like this why bother with them.

I prefer the mini-series "Rome" to this any day.

The theater chains are also destroying the movie going experience as I have to agonize over 15 minutes of commercials before the main feature starts.

I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, and in the end I was rather pleased with it. Beautiful cinematography, great fight scenes, an interesting story . . . The movie also pays incredible attention to detail and is not afraid of a little dirt; one small thing that stood out to me is when they're eating dinner at the uncle's house, and it's kind of dark in there. Movies are always trying to convince us that a few candles light a house just as well as modern electric lights, but this one reminds us that no, they're candles. It's little things like that I found compelling: the characters acquire dirt and grime as they travel, the costumes and buildings are quite detailed, the Britons up in the north speak Gaelic and nothing but Gaelic. Often in movies with foreign languages, the characters will speak that foreign language for a few lines then switch into English. But the Britons keep up their Gaelic, and they speak it smoothly and fluently, too.

I really liked Channing Tatum and Jamie Bell, too. Tatum seems to be trying to speak very properly and it's rather odd, but he's good as a stoic young man who wants to be honorable and is tired of spending his entire life being chastised for a mistake that he did not make. Jamie Bell is rather fantastic as the slave who has every reason to hate Rome except for his growing respect for his Roman master; he's unpredictable and tortured and terribly interesting to watch.

It's not a perfect movie--sometimes I wasn't sure that it knew what message it was trying to convey--but generally I liked it. I will probably purchase it when it comes out.

Although this story takes place in ancient Scotland before that area had that name, the real basis for this tale is the massacre of a Roman Army in the Teutoberg forest some 100 years earlier and during the reign of Tiberius as Emperor. No one knows what the real story happened to that army as the barbarian tribes left no written record.

The Romans as we know were a conquering people and the northwestern most extent of their conquest was part of the island of Britain. The part they did conquer was what later became England. What was Wales and Scotland developed on their own without Roman occupation. If the Romans had conquered the entire island a whole lot of subsequent history would have changed.

The story of The Eagle which was the battle standard the Roman Legions marched behind was shot in Scotland itself and in eastern Europe which has remained a whole lot like it was 2000 years ago. Channing Tatum plays the son of the commander who took his army into what became Scotland where Roman law has no meaning and it was massacred. Rumor has it that the standard eagle has been seen in Druid camps. That brings disgrace on Tatum's family name as there are no accounts as to just what happened.

While visiting Uncle Donald Sutherland at some gladiatorial games, Tatum on a whim prevents the execution of a slave who won't fight a trained gladiator for the crowd's pleasure. The slave is a Briton played by Jamie Bell and he becomes Tatum's slave and swears fealty to him personally for saving his life, though he makes clear what he thinks of the Roman conquerors.

Tatum decides on a mission to go with Bell north of Hadrian's Wall which marks the boundary of the territory the Romans have conquered to find out what happened. Their adventures and experiences there form the basis for the rest of the story. I will say that Tatum gets to have the unique experience of learning first hand what it feels like to be one of the conquered instead of being a conqueror.

Tatum and Bell play nicely off each other and there are some object lessons about the meaning of conquering a people and the responsibility of governing thereafter. I liked The Eagle because for once in a sand and scandal epic about the Roman Empire the story is told as much from the conquered side as the conqueror.

The Eagle is nicely photographed as well as telling a good, coherent, and moral story. Try to see this one for a different slant on these kind of films.

Now I'm not great at working out whether this was historically accurate or not so that's not going to be affect the way I rate this movie. I'm just going to assume that all was well unless someone cares to correct me in my ignorance? Except for the fact that thumbs up in a gladiatorial ring means kill (simulates thrusting the sword up into the body) and thumbs down means live... can't let that one slide, ever! As for whether this was based on a true story or not, I will leave that to the real journalists.

The Eagle is set in Roman occupied Britain in 140AD 20 years after the mysterious disappearance of the whole Ninth Legion in the glens and mountains of Scotland. It follows a Roman centurion, Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum) and early on we are introduced to the fact that Marucs's father was standard bearer of the eagle for the Ninth Legion and that, when they along with the eagle, disappeared in the Scottish highlands disrepute was brought to the family of Aquila. Longing to be close to where his father disappeared and to restore his family honour, Marcus hot off the training camp for Roman centurions has requested that his first post be at the edge of the known world near Hadrian's wall, far from the choice any sane man would pick.

Eventually we are introduced to Esca (Jamie Bell) who is indebted to Marcus after having had his life saved by him and becomes his slave as penance. Together they set off to try and recover the lost eagle which forms an intriguing relationship development between the two characters as Esca is forced to obey his Roman master despite his hatred for who he is and what he stands for. This pairing results in an unpredictable plot with Esca's true intentions well hidden throughout.

The main crux of the story seems to be twofold with the development of this relationship between the two men and the desire shown by Marcus to restore the honour of his father and seek closure through the recovery of the eagle. Tatum shines in his part and you can sense the driving passion he has for his cause whilst Bell conveys his internal struggle over his split loyalties well. Other notable acting merit goes to Donald Sutherland for his bit part as the uncle of Marcus.

As a whole the battles portrayed are well choreographed and the cameras thrust you up close and personal with the warriors whilst they fight. In what seems to be a developing trend, the cameras are shaky and unsteady giving that sense you are actually there. The director Macdonald intentionally kept CGI to a minimum and it has paid off with the movie seemingly more realistic for it. The gore is not excessive and allows for the actual fighting to take centre stage rather than how red they can turn the battlefield which I liked.

The Scottish tribes play their part as a conceivable enemy during the film and speak in the native Gaelic tongue which is a nice touch that is less seen now as directors tend to swap to English after a brief dialogue to make it easier on the audience. It was also nice to see that the tribes that crossed paths with our main protagonists each had a different personality and feel about them rather than all being clumped together as Celts and getting portrayed as one generic group.

This movie although set in Roman times is less about the history and bureaucracy of Rome and more about the journey that two men take. It's a solid movie with good acting and fighting scenes but it starts to lag slightly in the middle. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it if there were other choices available but you could do a lot worse.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.ireviewfilms.com