Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-25 08:08:56

The Last Legion

I enjoyed this movie very much; the battle scenes were convincing and most of the actors did a good job, especially the beautiful, if somewhat out of place, Indian woman. I enjoyed how they tied the mysterious fate of Flavius Romulus Augustulus - the last Roman Emperor in the West - in with Arthurian tradition.The story is set in Rome in the late 5th Century. The Gothic King Odoacer takes the city and ousts the boy-emperor Romulus, who he banishes to the island-fortress of Capri. Accompanying Romulus are his teacher, the wizard Ambrosinus, and a bitter Gothic lord who believed that Odoacer should have killed the young Caesar. In the meantime, the commander of Romulus' guard, Aurelius, leads a small contingent of elite warriors, including a female Indian warrior, to rescue the emperor. Their travels take them to Britain, where they clash with a local warlord who joins forces with the vengeful Gothic chief, and they call upon the retired Ninth Legion to aid them in their final battle with the barbarians. Romulus also acquires the fabled sword of Julius Caesar, Caliburnus. The movie ends after having revealed the true identity of Ambrosinus, and Romulus' son.Others have already made it clear that this movie is historically inaccurate, and I agree with them. Mistakes that particularly irked me were the barbarization of the Goths, who look little more than ape-men in the movie, and the depiction of 5th Century Roman senators and legionaries dressed and armored the same as their 2nd Century ancestors.Overall, though, it was a decent movie that had me involved enough to be worrying for the sake of certain characters by the end.

jpdt19 2012-05-24 16:15:52

Good but Disappointing

Firstly i would just like to agree with the previous two othercommenter's who have quite rightly rubbished khunia's comment aboutinaccuracy. As was quite rightly said, if you are going to make a loudcomplaint, make sure your facts are accurate!! As mentioned, the longcavalry sword or spatha is considered, by the late empire, to havereplaced the stereotypical legionary short sword (gladius) as standardinfantry equipment. Another thought is that if Aurelius was an infantrycommander/prefect, he likely would have used a long cavalry swordanyway, as even in the early empire, most commanders would have spentthe majority of battles on horseback. I found the depiction of the 9thlegion enjoyable, especially how they formed and marched, were theyextras does anyone know, or a hired reenactment group. I noticed thatactually of the 4/5 units that were shown, we only saw one actuallydoing anything more than marching. There were also were a number ofslight sticky points about the ninth. 1) Them being apparently stillequipped in the stereotypical legionary manner, which as far as i knowwas not standard in the late empire. 2) regardless of how or whyexactly it happened, it is generally agreed that the 9th legion nolonger existed by the 3rd century Ad. 3) The standard of the legion isa dragon, and it is referred to as the legion of the dragon. Why??? Thestandard shown, is, as far as i am aware, one that was used by cavalryunits, called a dracco, why would a legion have a dragon for astandard, even if, as i have heard, the eagle was removed at somepoint? As for the story and film itself, while i always enjoy any decentdisplay of the Roman Army, i did find the story of the film itselfdisappointing! However, the film is based on the book of the same titleby Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I read this book sometime before,attracted by the title, but found the ending disappointing, the samefault i have with the film. The film is limited by the material it isbased on and so regardless of how good or bad the acting or accuracy,which in this case were both of a convincing quality, the film nevercould really have shone, even allowing for the common, though notalways unique slaughtering of a good novel by it's adaption for film orTV. Also to be fair, the period in which the book/film takes place isone of such confusion and chaos that perhaps it is hard to writeconvincingly about it. The only good book about the Roman world at theend of the empire that i have read which does the period justice is"eagle in the snow" by Wallace brim, which i heartily recommend toanyone.General Comments and opinions! Even with the inherent fault in thestory this film is so so so so much better and more accurate than thehorrible King Arthur 2004! Firth does a good job. His portrayal of a roman commander isconvincing, intending to cut off a thieve's hand would not have arisenmuch comment in those days, and a legionary commander would have beentough! I did also appreciate his portrayal of Aurelius's sense ofdespair at seeing his world fall apart.Yes the boy from love actually is annoying in some ways, but thatdoesn't mean he isn't a good actor, little boys are naturally annoyingon the whole and he does do a good job.OK as for Aishwarya Rai, i think she did OK!I did find it sad seeing Kevin McKidd, who played Vorenus in ROME,playing a goth, and i kept expecting to see him appear with Pullo onthe Roman side.

2012-05-20 00:50:11

Fascinating back story of the legend of King Arthur

The Last Legion is a wonderful tale of the search for the last true Romans in the far hinterlands of the Roman Empire at a time when Rome itself had fallen to the barbarians. It provides a view of how people lived in early Britain and the mythos of that far off time. The introduction of "Merlin" the teacher and the young roman leader who sired King Arthur imagines a prefect back story for the legend of Arthur and Camelot. I have always been fascinated by the legends of Arthur and this story fills in the blanks very neatly.

Neil Welch 2012-05-19 10:19:23

Decent action costume drama

The Last Legion pleased me. It tied in to a number of things I haveread or watched over the last year or so - the early life of Attila theHun and the fall of Rome, the films about the 9th Legion which came outin 2010, Clive Owen's King Arthur movie - they all have a bearing onwhat takes place in this story of a small group of Roman soldiers whotake the 12 year old Emperor Romulus to Britannia once Rome has fallen.This low profile film has high production values and an excellent cast- Colin Firth is the officer of the soldiers, Ben Kingsley is adruid/mentor, Aishwarya Rai is an exotic warrior maiden, and theexcellent Thomas Sangster plays young Romulus, old before his time.There is a lot of action, well choreographed, and beautiful locationsas well as some acceptable process photography.And, although there are a lot of battles, there is nothing very graphicand no bad language, so this is an exciting film for families to watch.

eofa1204 2012-05-19 16:41:08

The Last Legion

The thing to remember when going into see this movie is that isn'ttrying to be Lord of the Rings or Gladiator. This is a throwback to the1950's and 60's style of movie making- no stylized violence, odd camerafilters or extraneous CGI. That said the movie itself was veryenjoyable. The plot follows Romulus Augustos as he, and remainder ofhis bodyguard travel, to the ends of what is left of the Empire of Rometo find the Ninth Legion. Along the way they run into Goths, agents ofthe Empire at Constantinople and talented Indian woman. While they'vemessed up the dates again and there are any number of historicalinaccuracies, the film itself is entertaining. Its an Action Adventurefilm and it makes no bones about it. I was entertained for an hour anda half- what more can you ask of a movie.

satyanegara 2012-05-18 23:09:27

When does the hurting stop..

The movie has little entertainment value for anyone above the age of11. The plot is weak and it doesn't give you anything to make youforget that the script seems like a two page treatment. No overwhelmingbattlefields and the man to (wo)man combat scenes are short and lackany sense of action, on the playground of a kinder garden you'll findbetter fights. No in dept characters just poor look-a-likes from moviessuch as Lord Of The Rings. None of the actors can carry a movie andnone of them can cover-up this poor script.I gave it a 2 for it's OK camera work and that kids might enjoy it butfor the rest of the movie-watching-population it's torture.

2012-05-16 22:56:19

the last legion

I wasn't very impressed with this movie. It is very clean as with language. There is violence of course but even that isn't too bad. The story was okay but not that thrilling. THe acting wasn't that great either.

arsalan62 2012-05-16 16:21:35

Waste of time for viewers, waste of money for the film makers!

I watched this movie on a Saturday night and that was the biggestmistake i made! the sets look unreal, special effects were awful andthere are numerous scenes where people are being stabbed without asingle drop of blood pouring out! the climax buildup for the finalbattle will be shattered into pieces once you see the most Funny endingi have ever seen!! not to forget the starting 30 Min's are much moreidiotic! specially the rescue of Ceaser! they may look heroic to a 10year old... but certainly for people who have watched movies likeTroy,Gladiator etc this one would surely be a headache as it does notmeet up the standards set up by these movies either for combat scenesor for special effects!Don't Watch it....honest advice! i wont have had i gone through areview like this!!

2012-05-10 00:40:23

Better than King Arthur! More Rome for your buck!

The Last Legion mines territory similar to King Arthur, but is more ambitious in the intertwining historical and plot elements than its whiz-bang, big-budget predecessor. As in King Arthur, the Romans are the heroes, making a last stand in Britannia against the barbarian hordes. The man who is to be their king is a local-turned-Roman-warrior. But instead of King Arthur's straightforward buildup to a big fight, The Last Legion starts in Rome, wanders to the Isle of Capri for a swashbuckling prison escape, and then finds its way to Hadrian's Wall in the last third of the film. It thus ends up where King Arthur takes place all along.The Last Legion spends more time building personalities, even if they are a bit cliché, and involving Roman politics, as a pint-sized emperor (played well by young Sangster) has to flee the capitol as the barbarians take it. But it soon brings in senators, more Goths, a gorgeous female Indian warrior (Rai), and plenty of sword fights. Only the proud, mostly quiet Aurelius (Firth) rallies troops behind this young doomed Caesar as they cross the European landscape, alternately fleeing and standing their ground.The Last Legion is a new prelude to the Arthurian legend, with the last Caesar playing a big part. Prophecy, destiny, and fate are always on the tip of Ambrosinus' tongue (Kingsley), who is first a simple teacher to the boy than a prophet who leads young Caesar to an Excalibur-like sword created by Tiberias centuries beforeIf it all sounds confusing, it can be. My wife was lost a few times. Those familiar with the TV show "Rome" and the Arthurian legends will be right at home and enjoy this new take on the opening strains of Britain's greatest story. Those who enjoy extended fights and old-fashioned swashbucklers will also enjoy this.

DoubleBarrel 2012-05-09 15:01:06

I don't like ya...tried to be to clever

Watched this and got the impression that it was just another movie,where they give a few men (plus one woman)some swords and let themstand about waving them round a field for a hour a half. And guesswhat...that was about it.If the twist at the end was included by the writer of the novel, morefool him. As instead of the dramatic end they most probably wanted thisfilm to have, it nose dives straight to the bottom of the groansville.Why they have to go to such lengths to try and write a clever film plotis beyond me, I suppose the groan element at the end was comforted alot more by the fact that the rest of the film was poor too, if it hadbeen enjoyable to watch, that ending would have been more annoying.What we do learn from this film is: You can brand someone in a randomway and they will receive a perfect aligned scar... And if you want tomake a 1000+ people listen to you on a battle field, whisper from thetop of a hill, because that seemed to work in this film.

r-vinci 2012-05-05 04:58:47

waste of time and money

Again I had to write a comment for this because lot of people gave thismovie quite good ratings...It really hurt watching this movie and I watched it until the end onlyto see my opinion confirmed. It has absolutely no relevance to the realworld at all though it tries to give a feeling of how the world lookedlike and worked in terms of politics and society at those times around400 B.C., even movies like Oliver Stones' "Alexander", Ridley Scott's"Gladiator" or even Wolfgang Petersens' "Troy" managed to get a morerealistic approach done.Some people might say that this movie isn't about relevance and factsat all, but about entertainment, but even that didn't work out! Theplot is stupid and predictable; the dialogs are by far the most wornout and stereotype dialogs I have witnessed in a Hollywood movie in along time; the movie is filled with plot holes and continuity errorsthat shouldn't have been there considering the budget they obviouslyhad for it. All the time they try to get some thrilling moments throughand a few seconds later they throw in some gags; neither of both worksout. The characters are lame, two-dimensional and you can't relate toany of them (in fact watching the movie I hoped for them all todie...).To conclude my opinion about this movie; it's a waste of time andmoney; don't watch it, you'll regret it for sure, like I do...

chrisjflavell 2012-05-04 15:04:49

Ignore the film, read the book

A lot of criticism is geared towards believability (such as the findingof the sword), historical accuracy (length of swords, dress) and awhole host of other things.As per my title, read the book by Valerio Massiomo Manfredi, it waswritten and published before the film. It is a good read (as re hisother books), characters are developed well, plot is believable and youcan get engrossed.It is in other words, everything the film is not.The script does contain the bare bones of the books plot, but the wholejourney across Europe to the shores of Britain is missing. Scenes aredisjointed and badly edited, you get no sense of who the characters areand what drives them.They had Sir Ben Kniglsey (doing a dodgy Welsh accent - supposedly toshow some link between traditional legends that the Arthurian storieswere Welsh in origin) yet the action is set in the far north ofEngland. On reflection I am sure this will be one film he hopes doesn'tcome back to haunt him.I certainly don't blame the actors, lets hope the screenwriter takes along hard look at his material before putting it in front of anotherproducer.As to the the lengths of swords as has already been pointed out, Romancavalry swords were indeed longer (watch Gladiator's opening battlescenes and note Maximus' sword!!!) In conclusion, read the book, it'lltake you longer but at least it won't have been a waste of an hour andhalf of your life.

mardio_101 2012-05-02 12:58:16

plain simple... pathetic

so where do i begin with the just blandness of this movie. *SPOILERS*1. the cheesy dialogue 2. the predictable storyline 3. terrible smokeeffects (this is beyond terrible) 4. how smart is this kid really, ifthey knew the prophecy how the hell did they not find the sword anyearlier 5. boring and if it wasn't for the extra-loud sound effects forthe sword slashing and what-not i would've had a nice nap 6. also, theworst character development i've seen in all my life ( Ben Kingsley'scharacter aka. terrible Father Time). answer me this: is he or is henot a sorcerer? 7. the also terrible symbology used in this movie 8.the most frustrating ending i've seen, who the hell did not see the E SCALIBVR coming when little Caesar threw the sword in the air and landin a f'kn rock! like give me a breaknow this review ain't all bad. there were some good laughs here andthere (ex: when they all watch mira fight, and then Demetrius went toopen the door for her) also i was intrigued by what characterdevelopment Ambrosinus/Merlin had (the best for the whole cast, yetstill the worst i've seen) when he pushed Vortgyn into the burning treeand said "burn in hell" that's as good as this movie is gonna get and fails at trying to bethis imitation of some other period-epic. i don't know whats worse thedirector of this movie or the author of the book. hopefully there won'tbe anymore movies from this author that follow the series. i can'twatch another flop war/period-epic (ex: Alexander, 300, etc.)

disenfranchised_micronom 2012-05-01 16:02:41

A woefully bad movie

It just sucks, the whole thing, just like a pussy sore, oozes overwrought clichés. It was just uncomfortable to watch some great actorsmake complete asses of them selves. I suppose its one small savinggrace are the nice looking locations, that is the locations thathaven't been mutilated by the gaudy looking CGI. I didn't get too boredwatching the film it flows from s**tty dialogue to s**tty fight scenequite well. This film does the job as a nice little earner for thestudio and producers, but crashed in a ball of white hot flames thatimmolated the notion of a decent movie. I just don't know why i watchedit, neither i suspect, will many other people who endeavour to do so.

pk_sherkhan 2012-04-30 15:08:01

Perfectly Done

I may say that this movie has been the perfect movie i have everwatched this year. The actors has done a great job. And talk aboutAishwary Rai, i mean, i couldn't believe she would do those moves.Everything seems so real. I think this movie has been perfectly done, imean the plot and every scene that took place. But in this movieremember not to loose concentration because if you do then you'llprobably say that this movie is confusing, which is not true. Thismovie does not contain bad scenes (sex) or bad words( swearing).So inthis case i suggest this movie might be the perfect movie to watch withthe all members of the family.

Bob Warn 2012-04-30 09:20:03

A good watch - with a 'cute' story twist. Good fun.

It is a good film for what it is: an adventure story built on onelegend and trying to add their own. There have been several theoriesabout 'King Arthur' (if indeed such a character exists). Much wasinvented by medieval monks who updated the legend to their ere (hence'knights in shining armour in the traditional view)- it was furtherdressed up by Tennyson and Malory and others in the 19th century. (Seealso Wikipedia). A recent Nat Geo Channel documentary looked at a fewoptions - one of which was the Roman link: possibly a Roman soldier whowith some others with British families, remained behind when theLegions left.The matter of who's sword was Excalibur (or spoiler warning - 'E SCalibur' ... )? Well: we do not even know if a King Arthur ever existedat all. So, for story tellers .. who cares? One legend is as good asthe next. In this context, the film is 'good fun' - and the cast do agood job. Highly recommended. With a higher budget and more script workand maybe some recasting, etc, it could have been a story alongside'Gladiator'.

2012-04-28 17:08:20

Heavy on the borrowing

This is a movie that borrows heavily from The Lord of the Rings (mountain scenes, sword fights), Gandhi (Ben Kingsley as religious guru), Xena (Aishwarya Rai as a woman warrior) and the later Star Wars (a little boy destined for greatness).It's OK, particularly the role played by Colin Firth, but nothing spectacular. The plot is dubious, the bad guys too exaggerated, and the woman warrior too slight and small to be convincing in her fight scenes. It passes quickly and only at the end over what ought, by the title, to be the central theme of the movie. The fighting scenes of Rome's "Last Legion" in Britain, scenes that could have shown in great detail the fighting prowess that won Rome countless battles, can be measured in seconds. Instead, you get the pointless sword fight scenes typical of so many movies, scenes too choreographed to be real. In this film, some bad guys are already moving where they're supposed to go before the good guy even touches themIf you'd like to read a good story with a plot this tale might have adopted, read G. K. Chesterton's "The Ballad of the White Horse," a story of King Arthur struggle against the invading Danes so gripping, the English quoted from it during the darkest days of World War II, particularly the lines where Arthur is told that he must fight on, whatever the odds:I tell you naught for your comfort,Yea, naught for your desire,Save that the sky grows darker yet,And the sea rises higher.Unfortunately, no one has made "The Ballad of the White Horse" into a film.--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

DICK STEEL 2012-04-28 03:00:14

A Nutshell Review: The Last Legion

There are many adaptations and versions to the tale of King Arthur andhis Knights of the Round Table, with Merlin the sorcerer, and of themagical sword Excalibur, some versions which set it into stone, whileothers, handed out by a lady in the water. The Last Legion isessentially touting a story about the beginnings of Excalibur and howit took to the former. However, it took a long route to tell thisstory, going all the way back to 400-something AD, a time where Rome isin turmoil.Actually Rome is in turmoil ever since Julius Caesar got killed byfriends, Romans, countrymen. In a time where generals scheme to usurpthe throne and politicians of the Senate are corrupt as hell, it'slittle wonder why one of the best and most loyal generals Aurelius(Colin Firth) gets recalled to protect the rear of the newboy-king-god-Caesar Romulus Augustus, played by Thomas Sangster (thekid in Nanny McPhee and Tristan and Isolde). Naturally the enemiesspring a surprise attack, and our merry men have to flee Rome, andjourney to Britain to regroup with the 9th Legion (henceforth alsoknown as the Last Legion), bringing in tow a seer Ambrosinus (BenKingsley), and a lady warrior in Mira (Aishwarya Rai).Like most medieval stories with elements of magic or involving thehigher powers from Mount Olympus, The Last Legion does away with thesorcery portion, like what Troy and King Arthur had done, optinginstead to focus more on reality, and what possibly could have beendone without divine intervention, or fantastical assistance. Thus thismakes Kingsley's role a little redundant, and relegates him into afortune teller rather than an all powerful wizard, despite his garblooking a lot like Gandalf's. While it could have gotten away with its material given 10 years back,unfortunately the stakes in the genre have been raised, and everyone'sexpecting a spectacle of huge armies battling in hand to hand combat,with its combatants having some form of fancy killing moves. The LastLegion pales in terms of providing that level of detail and spectacle,and chose instead to provide unsophisticated battle scenes, orswordplay that is a tad too uninspiring. Most of the fanciful moveswere reserved for Aishwarya, but even that too began to becomerepetitive. Not even her booby trapped enhanced short sword offeredanything we're never seen before.With characters you don't really care about, what made it a littleunbearable amongst the good guys, was the totally hokey, unbelievableromance between Rai and Firth's characters. It doesn't mean that havingcharacters from the opposite sex means they find each otherirresistible and want to get into each other's pants. There isabsolutely zero chemistry and zero buildup. One minute they're allies,the next they're admiring each other's swordplay, and then, the bedbeckons. And if the villains justify what kind of heroes we get, thenit's a no brainer that they are bland and devoid of any interestingnotion. World domination seems to be their only objective, and both theRomans and the British (using the term loosely here) villains aremerely caricatures. As I said, while The Last Legion might have worked if it's released 10years ago, this movie can't justify it being made now. It's suitable atmost for that DVD rental for a lazy afternoon, but nothing more, andonly if you're in dire need of some, or any, form of entertainment.

kosmasp 2012-04-26 09:47:17

Neither for kids nor for adults!

The user Jeff-1813 (or was it 1318?) has a great comment about thistoo. He gave it only 1 star, but I'm going to bash this one like hedid, too! Let me explain what I wrote in the summary line. It isn't for the kids,because you shouldn't let them watch something badly executed! Seeediting, character development etc. etc., although I should've said,look how bad/non-existent those things are. Just because they're kidsdoesn't mean they have to watch bad movies.Adults shouldn't watch it, because it's not coherent (plot), pulls it'spunches (see action scenes and/or the "editing" of those) and haslackluster acting to top it all! Yes even big names can have a badmovie here and there. What must(?) have sounded/read like a greatfantasy movie, didn't translate on screen! The movie checks all thingsa fantasy movie should have (you could say it's by the book), but italso feels like that, or better it feels like nothing! There's nocompassion for any of the characters, just an emptiness!

traveln1 2012-04-25 17:51:45

Awful - Delaurentis n Lefler turn 60M to cheesy B movie.....hard to watch but 60Million!! where, how??

I must say that it isn't every day that you get to watch 60 Million godown the tube but this movie had a nice cheesy script, decent actorsbut i put all the blame on the director. As one said above, if RidleyScott would have put his touch to it - surely it could have potential.Instead, the directing is so amateurish i thought i was watching Clashof the Titans 2 with the same wardrobe even the silly golden mask onthe evil character.. which was beyond cheesy.But the hardest part is to imagine where did all those 60M go?? itwasn't the sets, the sfx were too unrealistic to be expensive unlessfor a mere video game, but maybe the actors got paid millions.Aishwarya was hot and probably the only eye candy but if it cost 5Mperhaps it would all make sense.It just goes to show that any good movie requires a director that canturn the script into a moving story and get great performances but thisfilm looked like a miniseries for abc.. just painful to watch on thebig screen. i just hope Lefler doesn't take the helm of anymore movies- i honestly didn't notice one decent close up shot and i agree thecostumes were on target but they still looked right off the rack as ifeveryone went to a halloween costume store, and the setsunrealistically clean, it was not Switzerland but roman and English whodidn't have street cleaners every day...and all the beginning romansets make the movie look like it was shot in the 70s - one isn't surethey ramsacked a simple temple or all of Rome.And I agree, the child was horrible...esp the beginning shots on theroman statue - yikes.. i could go on and on but it is pointless..And to those that feel this movie is worth 10 bucks.. sorry but i wouldfeel cheated even more but luckily for me it was almost free. I give ita 3 because i wanted to see lovely Aishwarya who did a great job in herfighting sequences and too bad she didn't have more lines..at leastthere would have been some beauty on the screen.Save your money and just watch the trailer, and wait for it as afreebie, and even than you'll be terribly disappointed unless you havea great sense of humor than maybe it will become a B movie cult classic- the second most expensive after Waterworld.. at least that had goodaction shots.