The Last Legion: A renter, at best

[PWD]

Don't bother seeing it at the cinema. It's not crappy, per se, it's just nothing beyond a fancy Xena episode without the lesbians.

Even driving to pick up the DVD from a rental joint may be giving it too much credit. Maybe wait 'til it hits the movie channel.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Don't bother seeing it at the cinema. It's not crappy, per se, it's just nothing beyond a fancy Xena episode without the lesbians.

Even driving to pick up the DVD from a rental joint may be giving it too much credit. Maybe wait 'til it hits the movie channel.

I went and saw it last week. It's okay (I'm a bit of a history buff and a fan of the Arthurian myth, to boot), and I didn't mind seeing it, but I wouldn't pay twice to see it.

[Northcott]

It's the Hollywood curse: they just can't get a fucking Arthurian movie right. Boorman did a fine job, but outside of that? Eugh. And look how many stabs they've taken at it!

Personally, I think it's the same reason they keep fucking up Superman: Hollywood is filled with cynical, self-obsessed suits with massive egos. When people like that all scramble to make their personal, ego-driven changes to a mythos based on idealism, they can't help but fuck it up as they don't have the vision to see the source material clearly.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

It's the Hollywood curse: they just can't get a fucking Arthurian movie right. Boorman did a fine job, but outside of that? Eugh. And look how many stabs they've taken at it!

Personally, I think it's the same reason they keep fucking up Superman: Hollywood is filled with cynical, self-obsessed suits with massive egos. When people like that all scramble to make their personal, ego-driven changes to a mythos based on idealism, they can't help but fuck it up as they don't have the vision to see the source material clearly.

Oh, I agree. I still consider Excalibur to be the definitive Arthurian movie, on which all other Arthurian movies must be measured.

[PWD]

Oh, I agree. I still consider Excalibur to be the definitive Arthurian movie, on which all other Arthurian movies must be measured.

Thirded

[shabois]

My buddy saw it without knowing what it was a and said it was terrible. I saw Superbad, which is funny- worth the matinee price.

[PWD]

It's certainly not terrible, but then I'm famously low in tolerance for people who don't research before they shop, and choosing movies is no different.

It is however very low rent. You can't look at most shots without thinking how other movies did the same thing better, or how a talented CGI crew with a budget could have really pulled off something special here and there. The acting's passable, the writing isn't terrible, the costumes are better than an average Dr. Who episode... but all in all it just feels like something strung together on the budget of a Xena episode, involving mostly Xena extras outside of the few name actors in the star roles.

It tries hard, but it just doesn't connect. It also suffers from a serious lack of star power. Colin Firth may be well suited for all those victorian melodramas, but a swashbuckling action hero he ain't.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, I just got back from seeing "The Last Legion.":D

Just out, it isn't a bad movie. Really. However, clocking in at less than 2 hours--I think it was 90 minutes or so--it came across as rushed, shallow, and entirely under-developed. It seemed like a "Xena" episode with a slightly larger budget.:D

I still do not understand why Hollywood cannot seem to get an "Arthurian" movie right. Excalibur, circa 1979, I have to say--not only is it one of my favourite movies, and a classic--but also the standard that any Arthurian movie to date must be held against. Interestingly, I think it is a salient testimony to Boorman's brilliance, and the entire crew that did Excalibur--in scenery, direction, writing, acting, plot, battle, and so on--in every way, it is an excellent movie. Here, going on almost 30 years later, Excalibur still manages to kick the shit out of any Arthurian pretender all before breakfast. That's quite a tribute to a magnificent film that stands the test of time--despite huge advances in film, computer, and special effects technology.

Which those last points always surface as rapiers thrust into the heart of such lackluster films like "The Last Legion", "King Arthur" and other pretender films. With all of the advances in myriad technologies, why can't Hollywood get with the fucking program and make an outstanding, bench-setting Arthurian film? It truly boggles the mind.

Having said that, "The Last Legion" had such potential. Ben Kingsly? Fine actor. Verenus from HBO's "Rome"?--outstanding. Why the fuck wasn't HE cast in the role of Aurellius, played by Colin Firth? Then there was the old Scottish barbarian--the guy who played Hamish's father in Mel Gibson's "Braveheart." He is a talented actor, flavourful, and has excellent presence. Why did he only get one combat scene, and less than a handful of lines during the entire movie? Such a waste. Speaking of Verenus--his character, Wulfhire or something in the film, aside from killing people and looking menacing, he also had only a handful of lines in the film. This guy can act, and even if he wanted to play the barbarian warlord role, he could easily do a far better job of it than what this film allowed. Again, another waste of wonderful talent and potential. How about the huge black guy? He had a handful--maybe three lines in the film. Did we find anything about him? Where he was from? Nothing. But he certainly had presence, and could have been used for a more dramatic role. Nestor--Aurellius's senator friend that betrays him in the movie. His role could have been made far more dramatic, showing a scene or two where he conspired with Oderacer--the barbarian king and conqueror of Rome--which would have made his fight with Aurellius and Aurellius' killing of him have far more emotional impact. Instead, it was shallow, and a quick throw away scene, entirely devoid of any passion whatsoever. Another character weak-point was the Byzantine commander and implied lover of Mira, who she later kills. Again, his role could have done more.

The fights with the barbarians for the most part seemed lifted right out of "Xena"--they were campy, weak, and utterly flaccid. There was never any real sense of danger. They had crazy fucking hats on, showed lousy weapon skill, and ran about like idiots instead of hardened, savage barbarian warriors.

Colin Firth. Well, this guy is a good actor, but a heroic hard-mother fucker that brings it--he's not. He couldn't even hold a cup of water to Russel Crowe's character from "Gladiator." Poor casting of him by the director for sure. Mira? She's hot looking, and as a new sort of character, actually did well. It made me wonder if the fucking film was more about her. She did far more talking, spotlighting, and fighting than any other character in the film.

Overall, the film was a decent enough popcorn film, to while away a few hours in the evening, with nothing better to do. But as a genre film, as something else? The film falls flat, and is yet another disappointing *Arthurian" film by Hollywood. In addition, the film seems low-budget, and as audiences have come accustomed to $100 million dollar budgets, and 3-hour films, this film falls desperately short again. It has interesting characters, and an interesting story line that needs $50 million dollars more, two hours more time, and stronger casting to tell the story it could have told.

Grade: C

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Northcott]

I think Shark hit on an interesting point here -- with inflated budgets now a standard for blockbusters, and the lazy dependence upon CGI a standard in every film, are they even trying to do something with impact?

I think a low-budget Arthurian movie, with the right cast, a producer/director familiar with the subject material, and a lot of heart, could kick the crap out of what we've seen so far. When you look at Boorman's work, the special effects were, by today's standards, crap.

It's entirely conceiveable that an ambitious and creative team could get away with doing a decent Arthurian flick with just a few million (hah-hah! "Just a few million") dollars.


I wonder what Michael Praed's doing these days? Been an age since he was cast in anything decent (Robin of Sherwood), and by now he'd be old enough that he'd make an interesting figure for the Arthurian tales.

[TiQuinn]

I think everyone's already got their own answer for why Hollywood can't get "Arthurian" movies right: Because they've already done it with Excalibur. What's distinctive about The Last Legion, First Knight, and King Arthur is that each one of them tries to get away from the more mythological story that was in Excalibur, and into a semi-plausible, quasi-historical setting sans magic and the like. Honestly, I can give a rat's ass about the latter. Each time I see one of these flicks, my "King Arthur"-o-meter is reset to zero. I'm kind of burnt out on Arthur movies now.

[Northcott]

I think everyone's already got their own answer for why Hollywood can't get "Arthurian" movies right: Because they've already done it with Excalibur. What's distinctive about The Last Legion, First Knight, and King Arthur is that each one of them tries to get away from the more mythological story that was in Excalibur, and into a semi-plausible, quasi-historical setting sans magic and the like. Honestly, I can give a rat's ass about the latter. Each time I see one of these flicks, my "King Arthur"-o-meter is reset to zero. I'm kind of burnt out on Arthur movies now.

And yet they horribly butcher the history anyway with revisionist, politically correct bullshit. I'd love to see a film version of Gillian Bradshaw's work -- all the grime and grit of the "historical" version with a nice dash of fantasy thrown in.

[PWD]

And yet they horribly butcher the history anyway with revisionist, politically correct bullshit.

Case in point: Mira (or whatever her name was), the byzantine emperor's addition to the party, who fights all ninja-like with dual weapons, trained in india, and is also a totally sweet drow ranger babe... err ethnic warrior chick... who upon her revelation as a chick is immediately accepted with barely a shrug by all around, because empowered women was totally the way of the military back then. Cue love story angle, because a movie needs that.

[Northcott]

Case in point: Mira (or whatever her name was), the byzantine emperor's addition to the party, who fights all ninja-like with dual weapons, trained in india, and is also a totally sweet drow ranger babe... err ethnic warrior chick... who upon her revelation as a chick is immediately accepted with barely a shrug by all around, because empowered women was totally the way of the military back then. Cue love story angle, because a movie needs that.

And let's not forget Kira Knightley's turn as SUPER-GWEN! It would be lovely to see a script in action where the women can be strong without turning into simplistic mimicry of the "violence as strength" nonsense.

Shamefully enough, First Knight was the closest they've come to this in recent years -- and that was so painfully bad I just punched myself for even thinking of it.

[EhtoZed]

First Knight... semi-plausible, quasi-historical settingReally? First Knight? Really?

[doc]

Don't bother seeing it at the cinema. It's not crappy, per se, it's just nothing beyond a fancy Xena episode without the lesbians.

Even driving to pick up the DVD from a rental joint may be giving it too much credit. Maybe wait 'til it hits the movie channel.

No Lesbians ??? Not worth seeing :(

[TiQuinn]

Really? First Knight? Really?

Yeah, it was "Semi" plausible, "Quasi" realistic. Didn't say it WAS plausible or it WAS realistic.

[EhtoZed]

Yeah, it was "Semi" plausible, "Quasi" realistic. Didn't say it WAS plausible or it WAS realistic.
So Richard Gere in tights gave you a semi. Got it. ;)

[TiQuinn]

Richard Gere in tights gives me a semi.

I prefer Julia Ormond. ;)

Whatever happened to that chick?

[EhtoZed]

Whatever happened to that dick?I think Cindy Crawford still has it. She might share it with you though.

[Snatch]

What's distinctive about The Last Legion, First Knight, and King Arthur is that each one of them tries to get away from the more mythological story that was in Excalibur, and into a semi-plausible, quasi-historical setting sans magic and the like.

I think that's the crux of the problem. Arthur's tale is one of myth and fantasy. Producers need to realize that and stick with it.

[cnath.rm]

I think that's the crux of the problem. Arthur's tale is one of myth and fantasy. Producers need to realize that and stick with it.But if they do that... how will they put their mark on the story and show what wonderfully and amazingly smart people they are? how will we know of their vision and genius if they stick to the original story?**

**The above being an attempt at sarcasm and irony and not to be taken as an attempt to flirt with anyone, have a nice day.

[Northcott]

I think that's the crux of the problem. Arthur's tale is one of myth and fantasy. Producers need to realize that and stick with it.


And of course Hollywood has known for years that myth and fantasy don't sell! It's why they won't go near the genre!


How many producers do you suppose were punching themselves in the nads after they saw the returns on LotR and Narnia? You just know visions of dollar signs they'd let slip away were clouding their minds.

[PWD]

And of course Hollywood has known for years that myth and fantasy don't sell! It's why they won't go near the genre!


How many producers do you suppose were punching themselves in the nads after they saw the returns on LotR and Narnia? You just know visions of dollar signs they'd let slip away were clouding their minds.

Combine liberally with Harry Potter's success and thus we now have every kids/fantasy series under the sun hitting theatres. Oh joy.

[Snatch]

And of course Hollywood has known for years that myth and fantasy don't sell! It's why they won't go near the genre!


Hollywood knows what sells is what has been done before. Nothing sells better than a sequel or multiple movies on the same subject at the same time. :rolleyes:

[shabois]

I prefer Julia Ormond. ;)

Whatever happened to that chick?

She is French so she either surrendered or ran away..;)

[Northcott]

Hollywood knows what sells is what has been done before. Nothing sells better than a sequel or multiple movies on the same subject at the same time. :rolleyes:

Isn't it funny how suddenly there was a spate of movies with fantasy themes? It's almost like Hollywood discovered the world of books!

[TiQuinn]

Combine liberally with Harry Potter's success and thus we now have every kids/fantasy series under the sun hitting theatres. Oh joy.

Yeah, I saw about 6 previews for children's fantasy stories when I went to see the latest Harry Potter.

If I see another 12 year old blue eyed kid with a sense of wonder in his or her eyes as he looks at some CGI fantasy landscape while light, prancing fairy music plays in the background and Ian McKellen/Ian McShane/Ian Holm says "Welcome to Fantasia/Narnia/The Land Beyond Beyond/etc.", I'm going to puke from saccharine overload.

[Northcott]

We need Conan back. We need Conan to show up, encounter a complex political problem, solve it by killing everybody involved, and then fucking their daughters.

Then he loots cab fare from their dressers and rides off to try and find a place where he hasn't yet turned the entire populace into his sworn enemies.

[Black Angel]

We need Conan back. We need Conan to show up, encounter a complex political problem, solve it by killing everybody involved, and then fucking their daughters.

Then he loots cab fare from their dressers and rides off to try and find a place where he hasn't yet turned the entire populace into his sworn enemies.

I'd pay good money to see that. :D

[shabois]

There will be a new Conan, they are working on casting and getting the movie off the ground.

[TiQuinn]

There will be a new Conan, they are working on casting and getting the movie off the ground.

They've been working on a new Conan movie for about 10 years now, so I'll believe it when I see it. :(

[PWD]

They've been working on a new Conan movie for about 10 years now, so I'll believe it when I see it. :(

I won't believe it until after I've seen it, gone home, woken up and confirmed that it was real after a good night's sleep, and not some fever or drug induced dream.

[Northcott]

Are they still working on that animated version with Ron Perelman as the voice of Conan? The initial drawings looked fine.