The Eagle

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

I

Edited August 11, 2011 by Hieronymus Longinus Rufus

[GhostOfClayton]

Although there's nothing you've said there that I can disagree with at all, I do feel a little uneasy when The Eagle is reviewed poorly. It's like an errant child. It started life well (as a book), but got into some bad company in the movie business, and went off the rails. I still love it, though, despite all its faults. I would make a terrible parent!

[Ursus]

From thence, the movie becomes a rather ordinary buddy flick: each gets the other out of a tight jam and together they prevail against all odds in an improbable mission.

 

I pretty much feel the same way. And that's far from the only cliche to be found in the movie.

[Lanista]

I loved it - though I wish Jamie Bell had a more impressive 80's metal barnet rather than his usual hairstyle. I always think of the Brigantes with epic Adrian Vandenberg blond locks. Neat touch making all the Romans American (or American sounding) a la "Alexander" Irish/English: Macedonian/Greek too.

 

I can't agree that Tatum was wooden - his scene with Sutherland was clearly indicative of the first crack in his super-soldier veneer - which I guess is being read as him being wooden. I'd say he was conveying that his character a personification of the Roman military machine. He's a stickler for rules, regulations - he wants to make amends for his father's "sins" so he's this more-Roman-than-Roman super soldier as I say. As the film progresses, that attitude changes. Sure its a buddy movie, but its got heart and is a lot better than its been given credit for. Brilliant music too.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

Although there's nothing you've said there that I can disagree with at all, I do feel a little uneasy when The Eagle is reviewed poorly. It's like an errant child. It started life well (as a book), but got into some bad company in the movie business, and went off the rails. I still love it, though, despite all its faults. I would make a terrible parent!

 

 

As I wrote, I'm not comparing the movie to the book. Each stands on it's particular merits as separate works of art.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

I loved it - though I wish Jamie Bell had a more impressive 80's metal barnet rather than his usual hairstyle. I always think of the Brigantes with epic Adrian Vandenberg blond locks. Neat touch making all the Romans American (or American sounding) a la "Alexander" Irish/English: Macedonian/Greek too.

 

I can't agree that Tatum was wooden - his scene with Sutherland was clearly indicative of the first crack in his super-soldier veneer - which I guess is being read as him being wooden. I'd say he was conveying that his character a personification of the Roman military machine. He's a stickler for rules, regulations - he wants to make amends for his father's "sins" so he's this more-Roman-than-Roman super soldier as I say. As the film progresses, that attitude changes. Sure its a buddy movie, but its got heart and is a lot better than its been given credit for. Brilliant music too.

 

Isn't that the wonder of the Internet? We have the right to dissent.

 

Lucius Vorenus is the standard by which I measure Roman centurions. At least the actors who portray them. But, again, you have the right to disagree.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Hieronymus Longinus Rufus

[Ursus]

Isn't that the wonder of our own Republic?

 

Well, in Russ's case, he doesn't live in a republic, but a constitutional monarchy. However, I suspect Her Majesty's government wouldn't throw him in prison for a minor dissent.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

Isn't that the wonder of our own Republic?

 

Well, in Russ's case, he doesn't live in a republic, but a constitutional monarchy. However, I suspect Her Majesty's government wouldn't throw him in prison for a minor dissent.

 

I did not know that. I hope he is staying safe.

[GhostOfClayton]

I suspect Her Majesty's government wouldn't throw him in prison for a minor dissent.

 

That may change next week!

[Lanista]

Just because I've got new trainers don't mean I'm a riotin' chav, innit.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Personally I thought that The Eagle was ok, It will in no way go down as a classic thats for sure but it wasn't as bad as Rufus makes out.

 

I pretty much agree with Lanista about the movie, I thought Tatum and Bell's portrayals of Aquila and Esca were passable. It was a enjoyable fast paced Roman jaunt, with great scenery and a nice soundtrack, Ok, yes it was a bit of a "buddy" movie but the relationship between the two was a pretty big part of the book too so surely the movie should follow suit???

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

Ok, yes it was a bit of a "buddy" movie but the relationship between the two was a pretty big part of the book too so surely the movie should follow suit???

 

Two things in response: First, for the reasons stated above, I do not compare book and movie when reviewing one of them.

 

Second, I have no problem with buddy flicks, e.g., "Lethal Weapon," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" to name just two of many great ones. But it seems to me that a buddy flick has to do more to convince us, that is to say, to make us want to care about the buddies. I never cared whether Aquila and Esca succeded or danced a soft shoe.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Ok, yes it was a bit of a "buddy" movie but the relationship between the two was a pretty big part of the book too so surely the movie should follow suit???

 

Two things in response: First, for the reasons stated above, I do not compare book and movie when reviewing one of them.

 

 

Well personally I think when reviewing a movie that is based on a book, it would do well to take into account the part the friendship plays in the storyline of the book before completely dismissing it out of hand in the movie?

[DecimusCaesar]

I quite enjoyed the Eagle. It had some memorable and effective scenes, such as the Druid emerging out of the water during the pagan ceremony. I originally didn't think much of the way that the Picts were depicted as native Americans, but as I watched the film their strange appearance began to grow on me. The Eagle isn't up to the level of something like Kubrick's Spartacus, but it's still a good movie.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

 

Two things in response: First, for the reasons stated above, I do not compare book and movie when reviewing one of them.

 

 

Well personally I think when reviewing a movie that is based on a book, it would do well to take into account the part the friendship plays in the storyline of the book before completely dismissing it out of hand in the movie?

 

Respectfully, we so often say that the movie doesn't live up to the book (in whatever respect), that it's become a cliche'. Not only is this unfair to both the book and the movie, but it prejudices the reviewer. I believe they are separate pieces of art and should be judged on their own merits, not whether they follow a storyline that matches which ever came first.

 

Some books are such that no film can adequately do them justice. Likewise, some films are much more memorable because of the treatment of a careful director who only marginally honors the book upon which the movie is based. (Which do you remember: The Godfather by Mario Puzo, or The Godfather by Francis Ford Copola? And if you remember both, which was better?)

 

War and Peace by Tolstoy is an acknowledged masterpiece and has been adapted for film many times. The 1956 version is just over 3.75 hours long while the 1915 version by Sergei Bondarchuk is over 7 hours long. Both are award winning adaptations. So who is to say one is better than the other? And is one version better simply because it follows the book more faithfully than another version, or had the advantages of modern technology availble to its director?

 

So while I respect your thoughts on the matter, I will continue view each piece independently. That's the only fair way I know how to do it.

 

We must agree to disagree.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Hieronymus Longinus Rufus