The Eagle of the Ninth (2010)

Looks like Neil Marshall isn't the only director diving into Roman history this year. Kevin Macdonald—the guy behind "The Last King of Scotland" and "State of Play"—is also jumping on the bandwagon. This one is an adaptation of The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff, which kicks off her series of nine novels centered on the Roman Legion.
The cast features Channing Tatum, Jamie Bell, Donald Sutherland, and Mark Strong. Word is the budget sits around $20 million, and they shot throughout the US and Canada. We're looking at a US release on February 25, 2011, with the rest of the world catching it in March 2011.



IMDB

Official site

TRAILER

PLOT

In 140 AD, twenty years after the unexplained disappearance of the entire Ninth Legion in the mountains of Scotland, young centurion MARCUS aquila (Tatum) arrives from Rome to solve the mystery and restore the reputation of his father, the commander of the Ninth. Accompanied only by his British slave Esca ( Bell), MARCUS sets out across Hadrian's wall into the uncharted highlands of Caledonia - to confront its savage tribes, make peace with his father's memory, and retrieve the lost legion's golden emblem, the Eagle of the Ninth.

PHOTOS

It looks interesting, even if the whole plot is basically laid out in the trailer....

An American poster...

Personally, I found myself quite taken with the film; I didn't find it boring or particularly aimless at any point, if I'm being honest. I'd probably give it a solid 9/10.

Boring and slimy. You've got this irritating lead who's the son of some disgraced general, so nobody respects him—except he quickly earns his stripes because he’s somehow "better and more honorable" than everyone else, blah blah blah... typical mob boss tropes in the military. The story isn't exactly groundbreaking, though the scenes where the Roman Legion fights in formation are decent. You shouldn't expect much from this (or movies like it), but man, this is genuinely bad. I have no idea how they managed to convince Donald Sutherland to be in this.

ambertinker41 said:Boring and slimy. You've got this irritating lead who's the son of some disgraced general, so nobody respects him—except he quickly earns his stripes because he’s somehow "better and more honorable" than everyone else, blah blah blah... typical mob boss tropes in the military. The story isn't exactly groundbreaking, though the scenes where the Roman Legion fights in formation are decent. You shouldn't expect much from this (or movies like it), but man, this is genuinely bad. I have no idea how they managed to convince Donald Sutherland to be in this.

After seeing the Romans wearing uniforms they would've ditched centuries ago despite the setting being the 5th century, I can only imagine how "realistic" this whole thing is.

Richard Wilson4 said:After seeing the Romans wearing uniforms they would've ditched centuries ago despite the setting being the 5th century, I can only imagine how "realistic" this whole thing is.

Honestly, I’ve never cared enough about historical minutiae to obsess over them, so I have no clue what kind of pajamas a Roman should be wearing in any specific century.
My focus was strictly on the plot and the acting. Even Americans tend to be pretty biased against certain groups—you'd think they were from another continent—but again, I'm not an expert here, so I won't go claiming it's a flaw when I don't actually know better.