The Last Legion. Why am I just now hearing about this?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've been seeing previews and such for it for a while now...I'm just not impressed.

I think I threw up a little in my mouth the first time I saw it.

I think I'm just getting tired of everyone wanting to do their own Arthur movie and making it 'realistic'.

They all seem to think linking the Romans in is terribly interesting and ... it's not.

And in a "realistic" movie, the proto-Knights of the Round Table look like a multi-ethnic group of teenagers of both genders. Sort of like the Power Rangers.

Oh, and there's the bad guy with the chrome lion (?) mask.

This is Dino DeLaurentis realism, which is to say, not realistic at all.

 

[Mark]

The Last Legion. Why am I just now hearing about this?

Not sure why . . .

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197386

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, I think the Romans have always been linked to King Arthur (since Gildas clearly describes Ambrosius Aurelianus as Roman), it's just that many earlier films omitted the link. Although it should really be Romans and Romanized Brits who were living there, not ones that come for a visit for whatever reason.

 

[sniffles]

Never mind this movie! I just noticed that they're making a movie of The Dark Is Rising! How come I didn't know about it?!

Ian McShane as Merriman, though ... I dunno.

Not making - made. It'll be on US screens in October. And they've changed the title. It's now The Seeker - The Dark is Rising.

 

[Scribe Ineti]

This looks awesome! How have I not heard about it until now? The suits in Holllyweird need to realize that advertising dollars spent can help a movie.

Ah well. My wife and I will go see it. I likes me some fantasy epics.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

Just saw the movie. I knew going in that it would not be historicly accurate so I didn't hold it to that standard. I have to say that I enjoyed it quite a bit more then I expected. The movie had been delayed quite a bit and I had heard that the acting, script, look, ect was bad. Infact the only thing I heard that was good about the movie was Aishwarya Rai and Thomas Sangster. But I really enjoyed it and I recommend it, this is one I'll buy on DVD when it comes out.

I repeat though, it is NOT historicly accurate even beyond the fact that in the movie they have Romulus Augustulus going to Britain because there was still a legion there - the IXth by number called the Dragon Legion. He didn't go to Britain nor were there any legions there when he was deposed in 476; they had all been recalled 50+ years before. The movie uses the date 460 and I have no idea why they chose that year and just didn't use the accurate date of 475/476 for RA. There are quite a bit more things but I say go see it and enjoy it, as I told my friend that was with me - here's a movie with guys in armor hacking at each other with swords, what's not to like?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Well, I think the Romans have always been linked to King Arthur (since Gildas clearly describes Ambrosius Aurelianus as Roman), it's just that many earlier films omitted the link. Although it should really be Romans and Romanized Brits who were living there, not ones that come for a visit for whatever reason.

Yep, there are strong ties to the Romans leaving Britain in the Arthurian legends. Sir Ector (Hector), Sir Kai (Caius), etc.

The fall of Rome left a power vacuum, and someone rose to fill it. The transportation of the Sarmatians (Sarumatians) to Britain is recorded, as is the fact that the Sarmatians had the stirrup, an invention that the Romans largely ignored, Roman strength was in their infantry. The stirrup may have lead to mounted lancers and swordsmen in the wake of Roman withdrawal.

I am kind of looking forward to seeing this movie.

The Auld Grump, also wondering when someone will do a movie about Sir Maroc - the werewolf knight (sort of).

 

[AnonymousOne]

When my 13 year old brother says it's bad, then you know you have a problem.

 

[Dire Bare]

Just saw this movie today and really enjoyed it. It's not the best Arthur movie nor the best pseudo-historical fiction movie ever released, but I had a great time!

Go see it!

 

[Capellan]

It was modestly entertaining, and about as historically accurate as <i>Gladiator</i> (i.e. not at all). Good for a harmless two hours.