\'Centurion\' Neil Marshall\'s new film

[Casmin]

The girl on horseback is the antagonist. She was the Bond girl in "Quantum of Solace". I liked Neil Marshall's "Dog Soldiers". Centurion's plot is good conceptually. Depends on how it's delivered. Only thing I saw in the trailer I didn't like were the flame balls rolling down the hill.

[LvpvsRomanvs]

I saw the movie trailer today and I have to say, the film looks okay. I'll be going to see it. Ofcourse there will be inaccuracies but that's the film industry really, isn't it? Although I do have to say I'm not sure about the black legionary...would they have incorporated Africans into the legionary ranks? ...and I wish they'd actually use pila for once... I remember when I saw 'Gladiator' I had my hopes up when I saw the Romans carrying Pila but I was disappointed when they didn't use them.

[Narukami]

The new film Centurion was shown this week at SXSW in Austin, Texas. The first review is in and they liked it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100317/fil ... Jpb25hbnU-

[size=150:1oy09okq]Centurion an unpretentious swords-and-sandals film[/size]

AUSTIN, Texas (Hollywood Reporter) – A refreshing answer to filmmakers who believe any swords-and-sandals film must be epic or at least overwrought, Neil Marshall's "Centurion" delivers some large-scale action but plays almost like a Roman-era Western in its depiction of a few soldiers trying to get home alive after the slaughter of their comrades.

If its scope and lack of marquee names limit its commercial potential, the serious-minded and well-crafted film will please genre devotees and intrigue history buffs once it opens August 6. It also looks set to beat another similarly themed film, Kevin Macdonald's "The Eagle of the Ninth," into theaters this fall.

Leads Michael Fassbender and Dominic West are both veterans of "300," which like this film concerned the myth-shrouded defeat of a proud band of soldiers. But where the earlier film was all about the glory of combat (and of digitally enhanced abs), this one cares most about the battle's few survivors, struggling to keep the remnants of their Ninth Roman Legion alive while being chased by the Picts through what is now the northern part of Great Britain.
Marshall isn't uninterested in the battlefield, to be sure: In the film's first half, he stages enthusiastically gory scenes that, for audiences not averse to very tight framing and very quick cutting, effectively depict a conflict leaving most of this band of Roman soldiers dead.

But he is also eager to imagine a more intimate scenario, in which the son of a gladiator (Fassbender) tries to rescue survivors and get them safely through some beautifully photographed terrain to a Roman stronghold.

Viewers inclined not to side with empire-builders but with those they would conquer will be pleased here: While Fassbender is clearly the story's hero, Marshall's camera views the Picts with respect, and Fassbender's centurion is almost in awe of them as he attempts to plot a winding course away from their lead tracker.

Working with his regular cinematographer Sam McCurdy, Marshall delivers a picture with a dark, earthy style that suits the material well, making an easy transition from their well-received horror films ("Dog Soldiers," "The Descent") to more broadly accessible fare.

:wink:

Narukami

[ParthianBow]

I watched the trailer last night, and thought it looked good too. Gritty, like Dog Soldiers, which IMHO was terrific. Naturally, I will be going to see it. Let's hope it turns out to be historically accurate AND riveting. 8)

Lupus Romanus - welcome to RAT, and good luck with your proposed series of novels about the Tenth Legion. You should note that it's a forum rule to use your real name at the bottom of your posts.

[LvpvsRomanvs]

Lupus Romanus - welcome to RAT, and good luck with your proposed series of novels about the Tenth Legion. You should note that it's a forum rule to use your real name at the bottom of your posts.

Thanks

And, sorry aout the name thing, I keep fortting...

Grazie e Buona Fortuna

Lorenzo.

[Graham Sumner]

I too am looking forward to seeing this as I enjoyed both of Marshall's previous films.

It has often struck me that many Roman based films fail because they aim high and then fall flat, trying to capture the epic scope and just not having the budget. I have always thought that many small scale actions in Roman times could be the basis for successful stories that do not require a cast of thousands and elaborate sets.

I am prepared to give film makers a bit of slack as I appreciate many of the constraints that are involved.

What I will not tolerate are:
1.Blatant historical inaccuracies almost bordering on political propaganda, as in Braveheart! :roll:
2.Hopelessly inaccurate costumes, as in Braveheart! :roll:
3.Implausible military tactics, as in Braveheart! :roll:
4.One side good, the other side both really bad and stupid, as in Braveheart! :roll:
5.Elite troops, who in a supposedly serious movie and although they are on a level playing field, can suddenly not hit anything or fight properly against ill trained peasants, as in Braveheart! :roll:
6.One side managing to fight in a pitched battle with none of their soldiers shown being killed, as in Braveheart! :roll:
7.Total lack of knowledge on the use of field fortifications which appear to be more of a death trap for those within than offering any form of defence, as in Braveheart! :roll:
8.A film that does all of the above and yet which then wins tons of Oscars, which both deludes the public into believing what they have seen is a true presentation of the historical facts and encouraging other film makers to do like wise, as with Braveheart! :evil:

The trailer for 'Centurion' reveals they may be guilty of at least my number 3. To film makers it seems that the lack of gunpowder and explosions means all ancient movie battles have to have fire in them somewhere, Alexander excepted, to spice them up. The old rolling log technique is borrowed from Spartacus even though it did not do much good there but were at least used on a treeless hill! Even in the film it can be seen that the fire is as much a danger to those rolling the logs as much as to those on the receiving end and that when the come to a halt they form a barrier to the side using them.

Fire arrows are known and Scipio Africanus did use fire against a Carthaginian camp to devastating effect and setting fire to the grass was used against the Romans at Adrianople but other than in Spartacus I have never come across a reference to rolling logs on fire.

Graham.

[arklore70]

Graham,
I think you may be holding back a bit on us on how you feel about Braveheart

I agree with you points. Be interesting to see how this movie really turns out.

[Ron Andrea]

Hollywood doesn't make movies to please us. They make them to 1) make money, and 2) (optional) advance some ideological agenda. Historical accuracy isn't even on their list. If they don't accomplish the first, they don't repeat. :wink:

Fire rolling down hillsides is visually gripping. Remember Gladiator's opening battle scene? In a predominately blue-gray-green scene, yellow-red fire adds drama. hock:

Sutcliff's Eagle of the Ninth was a fun read, but unlikely to be as dramatic an adventure story as what Centurion's trailer suggests.

We'll see. If Centurion employed some local re-enactors, it can't have been all bad--even if the movie stinks. A day out for our guys. :lol:

[Doc]

Ron,

I have to ammend your list of priorities. 1) Make Money 2) Same as one 3) THERE IS ALWAYS AN AGENDA with historical films be they based on actual events with actual characters, or fictional characters in real events, or real characters with fictional events but with a real setting in time etc..... 4) Since 3 is always true, for a particular audience, 1 and 2 are automatic.

Look back in the 80's many action/adventure films made here in the US always portryed terrorists as having Arabic or Muslim background. There was an agenda......at the time there was the Iranian problem with the US, Libya...etc.

Obviously, when something eventually happens, people from certain places relate to what they saw on the Silver Screen to the actual event. This is what forms stereotypes.

Thus a movie should have an accurate representation without slant otherwise the uninformed think Gladiator is TOTALLY TRUE.

[Ron Andrea]

Too true. Even when--especially when the agenda is not obvious, it's there.

That said, none of us are objective. We all see the world through different "filters." It's mostly a question of being up front about our lack of objectivity.

Hollywood is not trying to malign Rome so much as make money. (Though Rome occasionally stand-ins for some producers target of the moment.) Leather segmenta (sp?) is cheaper than metal. :wink:

[sillicus]

I too am looking forward to seeing this as I enjoyed both of Marshall's previous films.
Fire arrows are known and Scipio Africanus did use fire against a Carthaginian camp to devastating effect and setting fire to the grass was used against the Romans at Adrianople but other than in Spartacus I have never come across a reference to rolling logs on fire.

Graham.

In this film they used huge 'balls!' hock: hock: hock: hock: 8)

[derek forrest]

Radio 4's front row gave Tom holland (Rubicon) the chance to review this. Seems to be about Romans pursued by a nubile pict. He said at age 12 he would have enjoyed it enormously;bags of blood gore and of course fighting. He also praised Agora a film set in the 5th cent about the burning of the alexandria library. Christians dressed as Taliban against the secular librarians. Best film he had seen on the subject!! Are there others?

[Narukami]

Derek,

Do you have a link to the review?

Thanks.

:wink:

Narukami

[D B Campbell]

... I have never come across a reference to rolling logs on fire.

How do you feel about flaming barrels stuffed with tallow, pitch and wood (BGall. 8.42)? :twisted:

[ParthianBow]

Saw it last night, on the first night it was on in the UK. I have to say that while in places it was excellent, overall I was underwhelmed (3 stars out of 5). There were many historical inaccuracies that grated, but it wasn't that. I think it was just the story didn't quite catch me.
(The biggest inaccuracy for me - and I know that lots of members here will pick up far more than me, not least because I write about the Republican period - was the legate of the Ninth Legion (Dominic West) armwrestling and drinking with his men in an inn or similar establishment, and then being aggressively and repeatedly challenged to another bout by what looked like a low ranker. I mean what? Even if the legate had been present in the inn, any soldier who addressed a legate like that would have been flogged/crucified/killed for such insolence.)