The Eagle (Movie)

[Crispina]

Well, I'm back. I have to say this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, esp. in a theater. There were only about 20 of us in the whole place, but you could have heard a pin drop the whole time. Ok, ok, I have to admit, Jamie Bell was very good as Esca. Still not the character from the book I imagined, but as an actor he was very good.Oh, and there IS friendship, where that reviewer got the idea they never became friends is weird. He must not have read the books or even watched the movie himself all the way through.

 

I promised Ghost "no spoilers", but Ghost of Clayton don't read any further!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are No female characters, and the movie is fine. Yes, I wondered about Cottia too, but perhaps there will be sequels? Besides, even if a person hasn't read the books you can still follow a good story.

[Kosmo]

Very good indeed.

[Crispina]

I found the method of filming very different than other action films. You weren't seeing the scenes (most of them)from a distance or from up above, it was like you were right beside the actors involved in the scenes. At first it made me a little dizzy, . Also, not sure if it was the film or just our theater but the in the first half of the film background scenes were very blurry - like out of focus. Either I grew used to it, or someone walked to the projection room and complained.

[barca]

I saw the movie recently.

 

I was amused by their use of the testudo to rescue their POW's. Not a good formation for open battle or skirmish. Testudos were useful in sieges and sometimes a modified version to hold off cavalry.

 

Then when the war chariots showed up, against which it may have been effective, he tells them to break formation and run, just what the chariots needed to be effective.

[Metella]

I whispered to my husband in the theater - they use that formation for sieges. I was wondering too - but I guess it was visual for the medium.

 

I like it - I read the book more than 20 years ago ! and had totally forgotten about the book until reading the review here. I read all her book in high school and must have started my love for Romans thanks to her.

 

No, no women really in the film - but it fit the story line and they were in the background and fairly well respected - so I have no complaints about it.

 

I think even those who don't know any of the story or know about Roman history can enjoy this film. The small flashes of humor keep it human.

 

I didn't like how the fight scenes were filmed - they were too blurry for me also. I wanted to see a sword swung and hit, same with fists. not a blur and the final result. Oh well.

[CiceroD]

I know an age ago I started a thread to this, but did anyone find The use of the American accent weird or objectionable?

Even I had to adjust and I speak that way!

 

Everyone seems to have already noted the inaccuracies that I did. But I have one big issue: How is a centurion in command of a Quingenary Cohort of Auxilia?

 

But I liked it all in all.it was far better than most Roman period films in accuracy.

[Aurelia]

I found the method of filming very different than other action films. You weren't seeing the scenes (most of them)from a distance or from up above, it was like you were right beside the actors involved in the scenes. At first it made me a little dizzy, . Also, not sure if it was the film or just our theater but the in the first half of the film background scenes were very blurry - like out of focus. Either I grew used to it, or someone walked to the projection room and complained.

 

I watched "The Eagle" a few days ago, and unfortunately I cannot say I share in the general enthusiasm. Going to see it at a movie theatre was not an option because all movies around where I live are dubbed, so I had to watch it online. I also wondered about the blurry scenes and thought it was just due to the bad quality of the movie file I selected but reading what Crispina wrote, I guess it was jut meant to be that way. It also took me a while to get used to it.

 

I don't know about the theatre version, but the one I found online didn't provide any subtitles during the long scenes in which the Seal People talk in their own language. It is very boring to watch when you don't really know what they are saying (ok, I could assume what was going on but still). Btw, I totally agree with ummidia quadratilla, they did look like Mohawk Indians! It often felt as if I was watching a Roman/Scottish version of "The Last of the Mohicans" and half expected Daniel Day-Lewis to make a sudden appearance and save the day.

 

All in all, not a bad film but not great either IMHO. I haven't read the novel but I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy it a lot more.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Aurelia

[Viggen]

I expected nothing from Centurion and was pleasantly suprised, I expected so much from The Eagle and well,

I feel asleep after an hour...

 

cheers

viggen

[GhostOfClayton]

 

Everyone seems to have already noted the inaccuracies that I did. But I have one big issue: How is a centurion in command of a Quingenary Cohort of Auxilia?

 

 

The whole 'Centurion' rank didn't ring true in the book, but the film took it strtaight from there, I'm afraid.

 

Maybe he was seen as a sort of Primus Pilus.

[CiceroD]

The whole 'Centurion' rank didn't ring true in the book, but the film took it strtaight from there, I'm afraid.

 

Maybe he was seen as a sort of Primus Pilus.

 

True but as I recall he commanded a named cohort. It was Cohors (some number)(some name) which screams Auxilia even though they looked like legionaries. But wouldn't that have made Aquila a non-citizen? somthing's fishy.

 

Unless they substituted "Centurion" for "Praefect" those officers were citizens.

 

My father, who saw it with me, objected to how dirty the soldiers were. I know that at larger forts they had bath facilities, but is to be expected at a cohort sized fort? Did anyone else find that objectionable?

[Northern Neil]

I know an age ago I started a thread to this, but did anyone find The use of the American accent weird or objectionable?

Even I had to adjust and I speak that way!

 

 

Hmm, I remember that thread - in my opinion, it doesn't matter what modern accents actors have, wether its American English, English English or ( as with Alexander) there are Irish accents. At the end of the day, unless the cast are speaking Celtic and Latin, its all unrealistic in terms of dialogue!

 

I think I might wait until this film comes out cheap on DVD. The buildings look great, as do the stills from the movie generally. For me the spoilers are (yet again) major deviation from the original story, and of course the leather lorica and incorrect use of Pila - as in Centurion. Do these film companies not have historical consultants? I know, ultra picky! I cannot but feel sympathy for the many excellent re-enactment groups throughout Europe and the US who would probably do the extras-work for free, and provide fully authentic legionaries and auxillia whilst so doing.

[GhostOfClayton]

True but as I recall he commanded a named cohort. It was Cohors (some number)(some name) which screams Auxilia even though they looked like legionaries. But wouldn't that have made Aquila a non-citizen? somthing's fishy.

 

Unless they substituted "Centurion" for "Praefect" those officers were citizens.

 

My father, who saw it with me, objected to how dirty the soldiers were. I know that at larger forts they had bath facilities, but is to be expected at a cohort sized fort? Did anyone else find that objectionable?

 

You've only got to look at Hadrian's Wall (Cohort sized Auxilliary forts) to see the majority (and so probably all of them) had bath houses. I would guess that as soon as any fort attained any degree of permanence, a bath complex would've been a priority. Unsanitary conditions could quickly reduce a cohort of men living in close proximity.

 

I can't remember the book, and haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure if a senior officer was present in Marcus' fort. If so, that man would've been a Praefectus. If not, Marcus would've acted as Praefectus.

 

I'm not sure if men from the legions were ever promoted across to the Auxilla, but I doubt that it was common practice even to move outside Cohorts.

[guy]

Well, I saw the movie. Despite the many historical inaccuracies and moments of pure fantasy (and there were many)...I liked the movie.

 

The medical scenes could have been better portrayed, also.

 

That said, I liked the film because it gave more than a Romanocentric view of the interactions between Rome and the indigenous populations. It also went beyond depicting the non-Romanized peoples as merely "noble savages."

 

The movie gives a potential perspective from the invaded indigenous peoples, creating a more balanced picture of the relationship and tensions between Romans and indigenous peoples. (We never got the Germanic tribes' perspective in the movie Gladiator, for example. We just saw the Germanic tribes as giant brutish barbarians, with no attention paid to the Germanic tribes' motivations or grievances.)

 

 

My inner-Scotsman and Roman enjoyed the movie.

 

Question for the group: How far away are the mountain scenes of Scotland in the movie from Hadrian's Wall? (I assume they were filmed in Scotland, although parts of the movie were filmed in Hungary.)

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited March 7, 2011 by guy

[GhostOfClayton]

 

Question for the group: How far away are the mountain scenes of Scotland in the movie from Hadrian's Wall? (I assume they were filmed in Scotland, although parts of the movie were filmed in Hungary.)

 

 

I haven't seen the film, and can't remember from the book if there was any reference to where in Scotland the action took place. However, the Scottish Highlands start about 150km north of Hadrian's Wall, and the fort at Inchtuthil is about 200km. The Battle of Mons Graupius (it's thought) took place in the Grampians, which are a lot further north still.

 

Have a look at this image.

 

Hadrian's Wall runs (to all intents and purposes) just above the word 'BRIGANTES' at the foot of the image.

[Metella]

For any movie that is going to be released like this - for many things it has to de-volve to the lowest commonly understood factor .... Probably using the word "Centurion" to mean any generalized commander of a group of soldiers.

 

Like karate for martial arts. Only those of us "into" it know better.

 

So with those type of things as my parameters - I just go to be entertained. Geez, I am thrilled when some movies show the crest going side to side instead of front to back for those where it is appropriate.

 

Anyhow, I realize I turn off my historical eye; but I get so few Roman movies - that as long as they are Roman-centric (as guy said) then I am pleased.

 

I HATE the ridiculous accents used. Just let the actors speak according to how they are acting the part. Stupid and useless and more distracting than helpful.