Great Action
Added 2/3/2010
If you enjoy the "KING ARTHUR" type of movies, this is a great action flick that introduces
the viewer to "Excalibur."
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Good Acting, stark realisum, and not bad sword fighting.
Added 1/9/2010
Ben Kingsly does a great performance in this piece. The plot was okay. But the bad guys I thought could have been better. It is one that I'd reccomend buying though.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
An old-fashioned movie
Added 1/6/2010
I don't care that it's historically inaccurate (for heaven's sake, like King Arthur is historically accurate?!). This was a fun movie, with drama, romance, fight scenes, nifty costumes, and a happy ending. There was a refreshing lack of overdone "spectacle," with sweep skilfully suggested rather than shown -- this movie doesn't beat you over the head with CGI anything. The casting created a refreshingly un-Hollywood take on the stock characters: the taciturn commander has a sly sense of humor, the mystic is making most of it up as he goes, the girl doesn't go "soft" to the point of complete uselessness, and the men have served together for years and it shows in their interactions, both verbal and nonverbal. And the kid grows up believably -- he doesn't turn into a venerable statesman overnight.
I do wish the DVD had the extended cut, and not just the deleted scenes. But I liked seeing the fights choreographed, and from the "making of" documentary, it would seem that the cast had as much fun making it as I had watching it. Another reviewer wrote something to the effect of "one star for the cast, one for Rome, and one for King Arthur," to which I would add one: just because.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Long live the King...or the Caesar
Added 12/31/2009
With all the excellent reviews of dainty nature here, I can only add this: "The Last Legion" is among the best of the Arthurian big screen adaptations. To tie it in with something as amazing as the Roman-Emperor-to-be in post-Roman Britain is as good as it gets. And it is supposed to be fun.
Far better than the piece of crap "King Arthur" (2004), which purported to show "the true history" behind the legend, far more entertaining in its own light way than the excellent but rather Byzantine TV film "Merlin" (1998, starring Sam Neill)--this film stands shoulder to shoulder with the grand-daddy of them all, John Boorman's 1981 offering "Excalibur".
It is the treatment of all the characters, including Excalibur-as-character, that makes "The Last Legion" so much fun. Colin Firth is not out of his element here--to say so is to question his acting capabilities. Ben Kingsley is most certainly NOT given silly lines; his character is as compelling as the rest.
Admittedly, the director blew a few choice moments and didn't seem to understand his resources. I suspect that is because everything was sacrificed in order to tell a good tale. Good cinema is not always necessary for that noble goal.
What I love most about this film is simple: aside from historical inaccuracies--history itself is often inaccurate--one goes away from "The Last Legion" wondering if real life might have been something like it. Suddenly Arthur is not as much a legend as he is a historical possibility. Even Merlin seems as real, as Kingsley plays him, as any ancient historical figure.
GET THIS FILM and enjoy it. Think about it, and let it do what it seems intended to do: guide you to true historical study and rumination about man and myth. It's a darned good story. Let it amuse and enthrall you, let it wash over you like no other Arthurian legend film does. It is a gentle, family-friendly film...unlike the others--it is exactly what film is meant to be...
...fun to enjoy.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Good escapist fun. Don't quibble about historical accuracy.
Added 12/21/2009
The plot has been summarized by others, so I won't bother.
A lot of people have written negatively about the historical innacuracies of The Last Legion. Apparently they have never heard of "willing suspension of disbelief." If you want historical accuracy, go to A&E or the History Channel. This is *entertainment*, people. Not Classical History 101. It's clearly meant to be a "family" movie - stylized fights, lack of blood and gore, tender moments (but no sex scenes). In one of the Special Features, the cast and director call it an "intimate epic." That's a good description.
I think that the cast did a great job; the dialog is kind of clunky, but they seemed to have a good time with it anyway. The fights are choreographed nicely, and Aishwarya Rai moves so fluidly that she makes her actions look both exotic and believable. Most of the characters are easily recognizable - the Warrior, the Wizard, the Child-King, etc. Colin Firth is definitely cast against type as Aurelius, the Warrior, but he makes the character more 3-dimensional than your usual brainless, muscle-bound lunk. The stalwart general is thrown into situations far beyond what he has ever experienced, and Firth does a good job showing the discomfort and confusion that arise.
I recommend watching the entire movie once and then watch it again with the Director's Comments turned on. Douglas Lefler's commentary is the best that I have yet to encounter, with interesting comments about casting decisions, shooting locations, impediments encountered while filming, etc.
The soundtrack by Patrick Doyle is sometimes bombastic and doesn't so much stir your emotions as try to grab them and beat you on the head with them.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
