Firstly i would just like to agree with the previous two other commenter's who have quite rightly rubbished khunia's comment about inaccuracy. As was quite rightly said, if you are going to make a loud complaint, make sure your facts are accurate!! As mentioned, the long cavalry sword or spatha is considered, by the late empire, to have replaced the stereotypical legionary short sword (gladius) as standard infantry equipment. Another thought is that if Aurelius was an infantry commander/prefect, he likely would have used a long cavalry sword anyway, as even in the early empire, most commanders would have spent the majority of battles on horseback. I found the depiction of the 9th legion enjoyable, especially how they formed and marched, were they extras does anyone know, or a hired reenactment group. I noticed that actually of the 4/5 units that were shown, we only saw one actually doing anything more than marching. There were also were a number of slight sticky points about the ninth. 1) Them being apparently still equipped in the stereotypical legionary manner, which as far as i know was not standard in the late empire. 2) regardless of how or why exactly it happened, it is generally agreed that the 9th legion no longer existed by the 3rd century Ad. 3) The standard of the legion is a dragon, and it is referred to as the legion of the dragon. Why??? The standard shown, is, as far as i am aware, one that was used by cavalry units, called a dracco, why would a legion have a dragon for a standard, even if, as i have heard, the eagle was removed at some point?
As for the story and film itself, while i always enjoy any decent display of the Roman Army, i did find the story of the film itself disappointing! However, the film is based on the book of the same title by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I read this book sometime before, attracted by the title, but found the ending disappointing, the same fault i have with the film. The film is limited by the material it is based 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 never could really have shone, even allowing for the common, though not always unique slaughtering of a good novel by it's adaption for film or TV. Also to be fair, the period in which the book/film takes place is one of such confusion and chaos that perhaps it is hard to write convincingly about it. The only good book about the Roman world at the end of the empire that i have read which does the period justice is "eagle in the snow" by Wallace brim, which i heartily recommend to anyone.
General Comments and opinions! Even with the inherent fault in the story this film is so so so so much better and more accurate than the horrible King Arthur 2004!
Firth does a good job. His portrayal of a roman commander is convincing, intending to cut off a thieve's hand would not have arisen much comment in those days, and a legionary commander would have been tough! I did also appreciate his portrayal of Aurelius's sense of despair at seeing his world fall apart.
Yes the boy from love actually is annoying in some ways, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good actor, little boys are naturally annoying on 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 on the Roman side.
As for the story and film itself, while i always enjoy any decent display of the Roman Army, i did find the story of the film itself disappointing! However, the film is based on the book of the same title by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I read this book sometime before, attracted by the title, but found the ending disappointing, the same fault i have with the film. The film is limited by the material it is based 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 never could really have shone, even allowing for the common, though not always unique slaughtering of a good novel by it's adaption for film or TV. Also to be fair, the period in which the book/film takes place is one of such confusion and chaos that perhaps it is hard to write convincingly about it. The only good book about the Roman world at the end of the empire that i have read which does the period justice is "eagle in the snow" by Wallace brim, which i heartily recommend to anyone.
General Comments and opinions! Even with the inherent fault in the story this film is so so so so much better and more accurate than the horrible King Arthur 2004!
Firth does a good job. His portrayal of a roman commander is convincing, intending to cut off a thieve's hand would not have arisen much comment in those days, and a legionary commander would have been tough! I did also appreciate his portrayal of Aurelius's sense of despair at seeing his world fall apart.
Yes the boy from love actually is annoying in some ways, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good actor, little boys are naturally annoying on 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 on the Roman side.