Eagle of the Ninth

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Dawson

I'm probably going to pass on this flick for 2 main reasons:

(1) Channing Tatum (sorry, CZAR )

(2) it is based upon a book series that was written for "reading level: ages 9-12" and will be rated PG-13. That makes me wonder how good the action sequences can actually be.

No prob man. Im sure u are gonna miss out on a very good film so be aware of that. Got Em!!

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Dawson

(2) it is based upon a book series that was written for "reading level: ages 9-12" and will be rated PG-13. That makes me wonder how good the action sequences can actually be.

I didn't know that about the source origins, but it's strange to hold that against the film. As we all know, films almost never wholly mirror their source material. There are extremely few films that follow their book counterparts to the letter. Random example - read Matheson's classic I Am Legend and then watch the Will Smith vehicle. It's a great film and a nice interpretation, but it's nothing like the novel.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by CZAR

What did u think of his performance in Guide to Recognizing the Saints if u saw it?

I haven't seen that film, but I looked it up and it seems like a movie I'd enjoy. I added it to my Netflix queue.

[Holmes]

I'm bothered by this post-Gladiator/300 angst over a PG-13 rating for an historical action film.

Let's consider one of the all-time great films of this broad "genre"--Lawrence of Arabia. Rated PG. Has several incredibly exciting sequences in it. Or Kubrick's Spartacus. Or Master and Commander. Or even Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, which, while fairly disappointing in general, boasted several very cool action sequences.

I'm not saying The Eagle is going to hold a candle to Lawrence of Arabia, Master and Commander, or Spartacus, lol, but my point remains: sequences can still be great without oodles of stylized arterial spray. If they're well-staged, shot and cut in an exciting way, and serve to advance the plot/characters, they'll do the trick.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

I didn't know that about the source origins, but it's strange to hold that against the film. As we all know, films almost never wholly mirror their source material. There are extremely few films that follow their book counterparts to the letter. Random example - read Matheson's classic I Am Legend and then watch the Will Smith vehicle. It's a great film and a nice interpretation, but it's nothing like the novel.

Good read. I love I Am Legend the film by the way. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

I haven't seen that film, but I looked it up and it seems like a movie I'd enjoy. I added it to my Netflix queue.

Yea man its not bad at all and I thought Tatum was very good. Let me know what u think. I just wish they would release Stop Loss on blu already. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Holmes

I'm bothered by this post-Gladiator/300 angst over a PG-13 rating for an historical action film.

Let's consider one of the all-time great films of this broad "genre"--Lawrence of Arabia. Rated PG. Has several incredibly exciting sequences in it.

I'm not saying The Eagle is going to hold a candle to Lawrence of Arabia, lol, but my point remains: sequences can still be great without oodles of stylized arterial spray. If they're well-staged, shot and cut in an exciting way, and serve to advance the plot/characters, they'll do the trick.

Yea man trust me I have seen films with certain ratings and depending on the director and if he knows what he is doing, can come away with a great film although the rating may be lower than expected. Its all about editing and how a film is put together. I have seen many PG-13 films watered down and badly made and I have also seen PG-13 films u would think would be rated-R based on how good they were. Just depends. Got Em!!

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Holmes

I'm not saying The Eagle is going to hold a candle to Lawrence of Arabia, lol, but my point remains: sequences can still be great without oodles of stylized arterial spray. If they're well-staged, shot and cut in an exciting way, and serve to advance the plot/characters, they'll do the trick.

Well said! As far as action scenes are concerned, what irritates me the most is when the direction is so frenetic and the editing is so disjointed that you cannot even tell what's going on. Also, I'm not a particular stickler for realism in movies, but I actually prefer it when the blood is dialed down - especially when the blood is added via CGI. Case in point, I love the film Red Cliff, but I was actually laughing a bit at the incredible amount of CGI blood fakery that permeated the action sequences.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Good read. I love I Am Legend the film by the way. Got Em!

I enjoyed it too, it was among the first Blu-Rays I bought when I got my PS3 & HDTV early last year! I think anyone who steps into a film expecting it to be just like the book is going to be disappointed, but I walked into I Am Legend just hoping for a great film. It didn't disappoint!

[Holmes]

I edited my post to include Master and Commander, which had several exciting battle sequences AND a rather hard-to-watch self-surgery sequence, all within a PG-13. Movies can definitely be tough and epic without a hard R.

And I agree, I despise excessive CGI blood. It usually takes me out of the movie, unless the film is REALLY stylized and silly in general.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

I enjoyed it too, it was among the first Blu-Rays I bought when I got my PS3 & HDTV early last year! I think anyone who steps into a film expecting it to be just like the book is going to be disappointed, but I walked into I Am Legend just hoping for a great film. It didn't disappoint!

Good man. Will was incredible in the film. Great blu to. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Holmes

I edited my post to include Master and Commander, which had several exciting battle sequences AND a rather hard-to-watch self-surgery sequence, all within a PG-13. Movies can definitely be tough and epic without a hard R.

And I agree, I despise excessive CGI blood. It usually takes me out of the movie, unless the film is REALLY stylized and silly in general.

Exactly. Just as I have said if the people behind the film knows what they are doin, u can do a lot within a PG-13 realm. Some folks just get paranoid and water it down at times and u can tell its a PG-13 film without knowing the rating before hand. Got Em!!

[Holmes]

Ebert gave The Eagle a positive review.

"The Eagle" is a rip-snorting adventure tale of the sort made before CGI, 3-D and alphabet soup in general took the fun out of moviegoing. So much does it evoke the energy of traditional sword-and-shield movies that I had to bring the term "rip-snorting" out of retirement; it's rarely needed in this era of sleek technology. Here we see for the most part the actual actors trekking through real locations, instead of quasi-animation. [...]

"The Eagle" has two strengths. One is that it is interested in its period, and what kinds of Romans and barbarians might have lived then. The second is that is really comes down to the relationship of Marcus and Esca, who risk their lives for each other but remain conscious that they are master and slave, and never become buddies. I suppose it is a negative strength that there are no major female characters; this is not the sort of world where women would be expected, and the insertion of romantic interest so obligatory in lesser movies would seem awkward here.

"The Eagle" is rated PG-13, and that’s about right. The blood and gore is kept to a reasonable level, and the battle scenes are about heroism and strategy, not special effects. "The Eagle" attempts to create characters with some dimension and complexity. During Donald Sutherland’s interlude as the wise uncle, it provides some notion of the function of empire, then and later. And Tatum and Bell do a good job of sculpting the heroes to a fairly human scale and not indulging in foolish poses against the horizon. The movie goes a little over the top in finally showing us the Eagle, but what can you expect?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110209982

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Holmes

Ebert gave The Eagle a positive review.



http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110209982

Nice! Do u know how many stars he gave it? Got Em!!

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Holmes

Ebert gave The Eagle a positive review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110209982

Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I respect and often agree with Ebert's assessment of movies, so this is good to hear. So far, out of 35 reviews, it's only at 51% on Rotten Tomatoes - not enough for a consensus yet, but it's split pretty even so far. Still, I'm almost positive I'll enjoy this one, based on Ebert's comments.

Originally Posted by CZAR

Nice! Do u know how many stars he gave it? Got Em!!

He gave it three stars.

[Holmes]

If this stays above 40% on RT, I'd be tempted to say it has good reviews. Just because of the delayed release (to February no less) and the "Channing Tatum?! As a Roman soldier?! UGH!" factor which is clearly prevalent... If it stays above 55%, I'll be thrilled.

What Ebert describes is exactly what I'm hoping for from this film.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Holmes

If this stays above 40% on RT, I'd be tempted to say it has good reviews. Just because of the delayed release (to February no less) and the "Channing Tatum?! As a Roman soldier?! UGH!" factor which is clearly prevalent... If it stays above 55%, I'll be thrilled.

What Ebert describes is exactly what I'm hoping for from this film.

Same here! I get your feelings about Rotten Tomatoes too, often the critics are much too harsh on certain films. I mean, I enjoy a slow-moving, thought-provoking film as much as the next critic, but I'm not so pretentious that I cannot admit enjoying films like Commando or The Running Man.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I respect and often agree with Ebert's assessment of movies, so this is good to hear. So far, out of 35 reviews, it's only at 51% on Rotten Tomatoes - not enough for a consensus yet, but it's split pretty even so far. Still, I'm almost positive I'll enjoy this one, based on Ebert's comments.



He gave it three stars.

Ok cool. yea i dont trip to much on critics but obviously Ebert is the critic of all critics although I dont always agree with him like The Lovely Bones. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Holmes

If this stays above 40% on RT, I'd be tempted to say it has good reviews. Just because of the delayed release (to February no less) and the "Channing Tatum?! As a Roman soldier?! UGH!" factor which is clearly prevalent... If it stays above 55%, I'll be thrilled.

What Ebert describes is exactly what I'm hoping for from this film.

Yea man I just hope critics give real reviews and arent biased like some people who go into a film hating sumthin before seeing it thus meaning they probably arent gonna like it anyway based on prejudging. Got Em!!

[Holmes]

Certain movies also suffer from a critical pack mentality, I think. Like, I wouldn't call Edge of Darkness a great film by any means, but it was annoying how so many reviews seemed to spend more time reviewing a certain actor's recent history than the film Martin Campbell actually shot.

Or reviews for potential Oscar contenders that seem more interested in reviewing the movie's Oscar viability than its actual quality. A reactionary line like "Wow, this might prove too trippy for older Oscar voters!" really seems out of place in a piece of film criticism.

[Offender_Mullet]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Why? What if it better than Centurion? U act like u have seen it and know its bad? Makes no sense to me. Atleast watch it before u make a comment like that. Got Em!!

There's an old saying that goes: "Sometimes you can smell sh*t before you see it." Got 'em!

But seriously though, so what....I jumped-the-gun predicting this movie will be slop. People do it every day on this site. I don't enjoy Channing, so as long as he's easy to ignore in this. And I DID say that I'd still view the flick mind you.

[Holmes]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

There's an old saying that goes: "Sometimes you can smell sh*t before you see it."

I remember Bob Dole (lol) said something to that effect about Trainspotting.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

There's an old saying that goes: "Sometimes you can smell sh*t before you see it." Got 'em!

But seriously though, so what....I jumped-the-gun predicting this movie will be slop. People do it every day on this site. I don't enjoy Channing, so as long as he's easy to ignore in this. And I DID say that I'd still view the flick mind you.

Ok well when u do view the flick go in with an open mind or else u wont like it regardless of how good it is. I see that everyday also and that is plain silly. Why watch a film u know u will hate regardless. I never understood that. Got Em!!

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by CZAR

I see that everyday also and that is plain silly.

It seems common for users to pop in on the threads of films they don't like just to slag them off. I don't quite understand that either. It's one thing to have an intelligent discourse, but entirely another thing to make your entire contribution to a thread as something like this: "This movie was boring, the acting was bad, and I wouldn't own the Blu if it was free!" If you're going to have a go at a film, give some specific details. In my case, I simply avoid the threads of films I dislike, because I know I have nothing interesting/useful/helpful to contribute there.