The Eagle/The Eagle of the Ninth

[Narukami]

Don't misunderstand, I'm merely pointing out an obvious true-ism of Hollywood without endorsing it. Box Office success breeds followers, and occasionally one of those follow on films will actually be worthwhile. However... Box Office success, or lack there of, is no indication of artistic merit what-so-ever.

Now, as to The Eagle, having just returned from a showing here in Burbank, I can safely say I now understand why the producers changes the title from Eagle Of The Ninth to simply The Eagle: Other than the general plot outline and some character names, the film bears little resemblance to the book.

As for Box Officer performance, The Eagle will not when the weekend sweepstakes (despite my earlier supposition).

The Friday estimates give The Eagle 4th place with just over $2.7 million. It was beat rather handily by the new Justin Bibber film (who is this kid?), the Adam Sandler comedy Just Go With It and even the animated feature Gnomeo & Juliet which took in over $6 million.

Here in Burbank ticket prices have risen to $10 for non-3D films. For the price of a pair of tickets you can buy the DVD (probably even Blu-ray) and watch The Eagle in the comfort of your own living room. And the popcorn will be cheaper too.

:?

Narukami

[Neuraleanus]

I just got back from seeing the film and I liked it. The Eagle has the best roman fighting scenes to come out of hollywood for some time and I also appreciated the lack of CGI.

[Lucius Aurelius Lurco]

This movie was...well...I really wanted to like it.
Ignoring the historical,uh,accuracy issues, the storyline was weak, the acting was weaker, the plot development was muddled, character development was non-existent. Cliche's abound, the dialogue is laughable, and the whole movie kept threatening to break into buddy movie/chase movie territory at any second.
Good points: great scenery, nice sets, really good cinematography. It's a visually nice film. Oh, and kudos to the team for using Gaelic for the native language, although I question whether all the tribes would actually speak the same version and be able to readily communicate.

[jkaler48]

Good:
Roman buildings
Fort and Defenses
Hadrian's wall
Scuta (If only the paint were brighter colors)
Belts
Gladii
Pila* More than one type one good and ones seen on the gate tower questionable.
Roman medical care


Fair:
Helmets Sort of Coolus but all the same helmet
I think they used stirrups but tried to hide them (probably a safety consideration)
British using Roman rather than British type Chariots (maybe it was cheaper)


Bad:
Leather Armor
Bracers

Implausible:
British tribe not having adopted metal tools and weapons (ie: Still in the Stone age)
Boy who could keep up with the warriors who ran down the heroes on horseback
Scythe chariots in Britain
Lots of valuable metal left on the battlefield of the Ninth's destruction
No communication or trade with anyone north of the Wall. (Weren't there some Roman settlements Forts north of the wall at this time?)

Ugly:

Boy being murdered.

The gear wasn't so terrible it ruined the movie - they were so close to getting it right:
like running a Marathon and deciding to quit a few blocks from the finish to go fishing!

[Quintius Clavus]

They used CGI to create Hadrian's Wall - and based on what I saw, the foundation of the scene started with an actual stretch of the Wall along the high crags, looking east. They really should have cgi'd out the groves of trees that now days grow right next to the Wall, but they did NOT.

[Quintus Claudius Scaevola]

Ave,

I think I probably have a different view of the movie, likely because I DIDN'T read the book first, to save myself disappointment. (Reading the series long before the movies ruined 'The Lord of the Rings' for me, no matter how good the effects...) With fewer pre-conceived notions of what the movie should be, it was more enjoyable, though I still had some issues with the movie.

Good: Roman buildings, Fort and Defenses, Hadrian's wall, Scuta (If only the paint were brighter colors), Belts, Gladii, Pila* More than one type one good and ones seen on the gate tower questionable, Roman medical care

The scuta bothered me as well. I know they muted colours to give the film a 'darker' look, but I didn't care for it in this case.

Fair: Helmets Sort of Coolus but all the same helmet
I think they used stirrups but tried to hide them (probably a safety consideration)
British using Roman rather than British type Chariots (maybe it was cheaper)

Oh! Good catch on the stirrups; I didn't even think about looking for that. *nods* Likely done for safety reasons, though I'm sure there are equestrian groups out there that don't use stirrups even now.

Bad:
Leather Armor, Bracers

Agreed.

Implausible:
British tribe not having adopted metal tools and weapons (ie: Still in the Stone age)
Boy who could keep up with the warriors who ran down the heroes on horseback
Scythe chariots in Britain
Lots of valuable metal left on the battlefield of the Ninth's destruction
No communication or trade with anyone north of the Wall. (Weren't there some Roman settlements Forts north of the wall at this time?)

I hated how they tried to make the wall be some great border of civilization that "No one ever crosses!" If that was the case, they wouldn't have bothered to build a gate for people to come and go as they wished. my friend Dean said as much when the credits were rolling; The wall was also used to funnel trade and collect taxes from traders coming through. I'll even go as far to add a few more points that strained my believability below...

Ugly: Boy being murdered.
The gear wasn't so terrible it ruined the movie - they were so close to getting it right:
like running a Marathon and deciding to quit a few blocks from the finish to go fishing!

Agreed again. If the movie was supposed to be some sort of 'Masterpiece' or actually have a higher message (Such as, say, 'Schindler's List' or something like that...), then you could probably get away with having a child be murdered in the movie. In a generic action movie? Bad form, sir. Bad form.

My personal issues started when they sent out a patrol - Dean and I both wondered "Why didn't they send out cavalry scouts?" Makes sense to both of us, and as you can see from the movie it's not like horses were in short supply or anything. Next issue I had is why a military commander would say "F*ck it! We're leaving the safety of a FORTIFIED DEFENSIVE POSITION to go run a testudo into the middle of their forces." Seriously? At this point one can armchair-quarterback the merits of sallying forth versus staying inside, and if the Romans were equipped to withstand a siege or simply said "They've got us, either way; Let's go out fighting..." My next issue is why the Roman forces feel the need to break and flee to the safety of the fort when chariots are ahead. They just ran a testudo into the heart of the enemy line, and NOW they're frightened and are routed? Why not simply re-form into a strong testudo and make an orderly withdrawl back to the fort? I doubt the barbarians would have trained war-horses, so it's not very likely a horse is going to crash into a large obstacle like that (And we've seen what a shield-wall can do, ala 'Gladiator'...)

It's also very comical the way that Channing keeps demanding answers every three seconds from almost every non-latin speaking person he meets. :lol: The end-battle was a little 'Meh' as well. Highlights were the ever-famous spring-board leap OVER the lines to crash well on the other side (I can see someone sent flying over the lines if they're launched by a throw or a shield-flip, or jumping INTO their lines, but never over), and one soldier who, after completing a slow-motion spin/cut, throws off his scutum for some undetermined reason - Was that just a movie mistake, or part of the choreography? And after raining for three days and being out in the middle of nowhere, getting all that wood together and making a pyre that had no difficulty catching fire. I'm sure they just had oil with a mule that was parked somewhere outside of the battle...Most of the battle scenes were just reminiscent of 'Last of the Mohicans'.

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot the contrasting predictability and lack of logic in the movie: "Well, looks like I'm new anal commander here and no one likes me...I guess I'll have to quickly earn the respect of the troops before the plot actually gets going. I wonder if we'll get attacked soon?" And the lack of anything resembling what we in the military affectionately call a 'plan;'

"Rumors say that the Eagle has been seen in some pagan temple far to the north..."
"Really? That sounds really interesting! I suppose I should go do some research on that, or actually TALK to someone to verify that info before I leave.....but instead I'll just go past the wall and wander around with my guide until I simply trip over the damned thing - That's a MUCH better strategy to find something that's been lost."

The biggest issue I had was the excessive use of the 'shaky cam' technique for battle. There are some movies where it works and adds to the realism ('Saving Private Ryan') and then there are others where a steady-cam is a MUCH better option for battle ('Braveheart') I can't see what the deuce is going on because the camera is shaking about so much to give someone an epileptic fit, and therefore is not entertaining - Meaning the director has failed in his job. Makes me wonder if they just shook the camera around to save money on an actual fight choreographer...

All-in-all, the movie was 'okay'. I wouldn't pay to see it again in theaters, but I might buy the DVD if it was cheaply offered on Amazon. I did appreciate the lack of excessive CGI in the movie, and I understand why they had to use it when showing scenes of the wall itself. We did show up in kit to see the movie, and received many compliments on our attire (Including one church group wondering if we might speak to their congregation about Romans during the time of Christ or a Passion-play sort of thing). The manager even spoke to us after the show and wondered if we might dress-up and promote other movies like this down the road for free tickets. It was also amusing when we were trying to sit down in the seats; The aisles of the theater are carpeted, but the rows between seats are not, and the floor is made of concrete and sloped; There was NO traction at all for hobnails, and we nearly fell over several times. :grin:

-Quintus Claudius Britanicus,
Legionnaire, LEGIIAVG

[Justin I]

Overall, it sounds like there's more anti-Channing Tatum sentiment abroad than anti-Eagle sentiment. I wonder who might have made a better casting choice? A young Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson doesn't come along very often (once per generation is about the average.)

How about *ahem* an actual actor, instead of a male model/stripper? The reason why Spartacus is my favorite film of all time is because Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov and Kirk Douglas were actual actors who took acting seriously... and actually, y'know, learned how to act.
There are theaters all across the US and UK that are filled with people who received formal training and understand what it takes to portray a character convincingly... I say give one of them a chance, even if maybe they don't have six-pack abs.
I am getting really sick and tired of these casting agencies that find attractive young men and women and tell them "Hey, people like to stare at you... why don't you try acting?" It's demeaning to the profession.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

@ Quintus: Where are you from? I have a feeling that if any of us showed up for a film in full kit we would be arrested. Swords = weapons. Bad. Bad. Very bad. It is against state law to bring a weapon withing 100 (?) feet of a school here (New Mexico). No school demonstrations. The only people who can carry weapons are the students(snarky comment).

I applaud the fact you did show up in kit. I wish we had enough interest in my area to do things like that. I will, of course, buy a copy on DVD.

Ralph

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Noel,

Thanks for that very informative review of this movie.
First note: too bad you did not read the book. That would but some issues into perpective. Some, but not all. Yes, it would have spoilt the movie for sure (I already know it will do that for me, but i am going to see it). But you would understand some decisions of the producers.

(Reading the series long before the movies ruined 'The Lord of the Rings' for me, no matter how good the effects...)

Series? What series? LOTR is one book in 3 parts, not a series??

I hated how they tried to make the wall be some great border of civilization that "No one ever crosses!" If that was the case, they wouldn't have bothered to build a gate for people to come and go as they wished. my friend Dean said as much when the credits were rolling; The wall was also used to funnel trade and collect taxes from traders coming through. I'll even go as far to add a few more points that strained my believability below...

Actually, the book explains that. The war in which the eagle was lost, and the Roman punitive expeditions after that, actually created a wasteland immediately North of the Wall. We can doubt that of course, but the situation was still very bleak in the book, economically speaking.

If the movie was supposed to be some sort of 'Masterpiece' or actually have a higher message (Such as, say, 'Schindler's List' or something like that...), then you could probably get away with having a child be murdered in the movie. In a generic action movie? Bad form, sir. Bad form.

I think it’s totally unnecessary. Nothing like that in the book. Esca chooses for Marcus because they are friends, Marcus saved his life in the arena and he has little or nothing to go back to. Nothing more. Sutcliff made friendship and loyalty a main theme in all of her books, and alterations like these rip that apart. A shame.

My personal issues started when they sent out a patrol - Dean and I both wondered "Why didn't they send out cavalry scouts?" Makes sense to both of us, and as you can see from the movie it's not like horses were in short supply or anything.

From the book. No horses seem present in that fort (we’re talking about Marcus’ initial command, aren’t we?) and the patrol is checking the local village. A cavalry scout would not have been better, this way they showed a local presence.

Next issue I had is why a military commander would say "F*ck it! We're leaving the safety of a FORTIFIED DEFENSIVE POSITION to go run a testudo into the middle of their forces." Seriously? At this point one can armchair-quarterback the merits of sallying forth versus staying inside, and if the Romans were equipped to withstand a siege or simply said "They've got us, either way; Let's go out fighting..."

Scene from the book : the patrol is fighting their way back to the fort, and Marcus makes a sally to rescue them. Then, the chariots show up..

My next issue is why the Roman forces feel the need to break and flee to the safety of the fort when chariots are ahead. They just ran a testudo into the heart of the enemy line, and NOW they're frightened and are routed? Why not simply re-form into a strong testudo and make an orderly withdrawal back to the fort? I doubt the barbarians would have trained war-horses, so it's not very likely a horse is going to crash into a large obstacle like that (And we've seen what a shield-wall can do, ala 'Gladiator'...)

Again, the book.
It’s a melee when the (scythed – yes! The book was written in the 1950s) chariots turn up and threaten the Roman formation. No idea if that would be possible, in the book the danger is imminent. Marcus chooses to act and jump on the first chariot (that of his British friend), causing it to crash and thereby stop the chariot charge. This is where he receives his wound.

The end-battle was a little 'Meh' as well

End battle? What end battle? The book does not end with any battle. The only real battles are Marcus’ first and last battle in Isca, and two person recalling the last battle of the Ninth.

"Rumors say that the Eagle has been seen in some pagan temple far to the north..."
"Really? That sounds really interesting! I suppose I should go do some research on that, or actually TALK to someone to verify that info before I leave.....but instead I'll just go past the wall and wander around with my guide until I simply trip over the damned thing - That's a MUCH better strategy to find something that's been lost."

Mayor deviation from the book, where Marcus and Esca travel around as eye-doctors for weeks and weeks before they stumble upon this rumor.

The biggest issue I had was the excessive use of the 'shaky cam' technique for battle.

Yeah, but shaky is FASHUNUBUL.

All-in-all, the movie was 'okay'. I wouldn't pay to see it again in theaters, but I might buy the DVD if it was cheaply offered on Amazon.

I feared as much. This book was literally the first I read about the Roman world, and it hooked me for life (I later managed to buy it from my library when they were dumping it).. I think it’s going to be a gangbang on a very good young adult novel.

We did show up in kit to see the movie, and received many compliments on our attire (Including one church group wondering if we might speak to their congregation about Romans during the time of Christ or a Passion-play sort of thing). The manager even spoke to us after the show and wondered if we might dress-up and promote other movies like this down the road for free tickets. It was also amusing when we were trying to sit down in the seats; The aisles of the theater are carpeted, but the rows between seats are not, and the floor is made of concrete and sloped; There was NO traction at all for hobnails, and we nearly fell over several times. :grin:

Great show!!
Next time, bring your folding chairs, that’s better I think that trying to use the theatre chairs..

[Quintus Claudius Scaevola]

@ Gaius Decius Aquilius: I'm in Oregon. Unless you're actually in Portland, law-enforcement tends to be...not lax, but definitely more easy-going about such things (They can tell that you're not there to cause trouble, but celebrate history). Not to mention that a call to the police ahead of time with advanced notice to keep them in the loop goes a long way towards having cordial relations. In any event, we didn't actually bring weapons because we weren't sure what the reaction from the theater would be, and no one wanted to chance them getting stolen in the event of a car break-in. A shame really, but there it is...

@ Vortigern: The city? I thought the grain shipment was supposed to be out in the wildreness somewhere (Though actually ambushed at some point by the barbarians). It makes sense in that case to use cavalry to cover more ground and speed word of the status. You're right though; Patroling in the city, foot-soldiers are more effective.

Hrm...I can see that I'm going to have to read the book now to make a lot more sense of the overall story *sigh* Looks like it's next in line once I finish 'The Wheel of Time' series.

-Quintus Claudius Britanicus,
Legionnaire, LEGIIAVG

[Ron Andrea]

Great discussion. Like Robert, I read The Eagle of the Ninth decades ago and it opened a whole new world for me.

I recently read Sutcliff's The Shining Company (about The Gododdin) and enjoyed it, too. I realized she'd made much of it up, but it's fiction, so, what can I say? We probably know less about the Gododdin that we do about the Ninth Legion. (She also have the benefit of forty more years of research.)