The Eagle
Author
Discussion

cardigankid

Original Poster:

8,879 posts

242 months

Sunday 27th March 2011
quotequote all
All the papers say its rubbish, gay etc. bks. It is a good film, at last without much in the way of CGI. Yes the lead actor could have been stronger. Yes the fight sequences aren't quite up to Ridley Scott standards. Yes, action is filmed in the same frenetic confusing way everybody from James Bond to Bourne does these days. The acting by Billy Elliott - don't know his name - is outstanding. There is a strong storyline which is not, incidentally , the same as the book. Far far better than it is being said in the papers.

Edited by cardigankid on Monday 28th March 09:11

5potTurbo

13,686 posts

198 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
In the local cinema they showed such a long trailer that my mate & I both decided we don't need to see it now! laugh

JagLover

46,820 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
Loved the book

Will probably check it out on DVD

chris watton

22,547 posts

290 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
Any historical (ancient) film that includes American accents puts me off immediately. As much as I love the Roman era, I shall give this one a miss.
I know (or at the very least, have read) that the film makers wanted to make a political statement regarding Imperialist America (Rome), and the poor downtrodden Scottish tribes (American Indians) – if that is the case, why the hell didn’t they just make a film about that, rather than ruining this movie with their overtly leftie ideals?

IMOHO, of course….

JagLover

46,820 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
chris watton said:
Any historical (ancient) film that includes American accents puts me off immediately.
Not sure they spoke the queens english either you know.

chris watton

22,547 posts

290 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
JagLover said:
chris watton said:
Any historical (ancient) film that includes American accents puts me off immediately.
Not sure they spoke the queens english either you know.
I know, but it seems more 'neutral'...

(remember Tony Curtis' Bronx accent in The Vikings?.. hehe)

JagLover

46,820 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
chris watton said:
I know, but it seems more 'neutral'...

(remember Tony Curtis' Bronx accent in The Vikings?.. hehe)
On the subject of accents I am reminded of those who didn't like Colin Farrels accent in Alexander, but to my mind that was an accent done right.

If we have standard Greek, as RP English, then a Macedonian should have a provincial accent to diferentiate themselves.

Going back to the Eagle. A member of a noble family of Imperial Rome could have an American accent it should not however be a strong working class one, whether that be Southern or The Bronx.


chris watton

22,547 posts

290 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
JagLover said:
On the subject of accents I am reminded of those who didn't like Colin Farrels accent in Alexander, but to my mind that was an accent done right.

If we have standard Greek, as RP English, then a Macedonian should have a provincial accent to diferentiate themselves.

Going back to the Eagle. A member of a noble family of Imperial Rome could have an American accent it should not however be a strong working class one, whether that be Southern or The Bronx.
I am one of the very few who actually like Alexander.
Regarding the eagle, my gripe is with the fact (?) that the film makers wanted to make a political statement about the US - hence the US accents for the 'oppressors'

Fittster

20,120 posts

243 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
The directory was on a recent Radio 4 front row program. The Romans have American accents to portray them as the imperial power, it's an allegory to America's current place in the world.

That's also the reason the slave in the film has a British accent.

Famous Graham

26,553 posts

255 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
It's got to be better than the ste that was Centurion.

4Q

1,277 posts

217 months

Tuesday 29th March 2011
quotequote all
It was an ok film...until the ending.

PURE STILTON!

cardigankid

Original Poster:

8,879 posts

242 months

Wednesday 30th March 2011
quotequote all
Yes the ending could have been better, which is surprising for a competent director. I noticed that the American accents disappeared at the end too. Those senators looked like specimens you might drag up in the commons Member's Bar. Almost like a poor setup for a sequel. To the extent that it was allegorical (which I don't think was the intention) it came out on the American side, which is hardly lefty. If that was the case, it was saying that sometimes civilisation is brutal, but savagery is worse, which is something worth reflecting on. I think that it was an attempt to film the book and put some degree of reality into some of the issues which must have existed.