Michael Ledo This film is a me-too movie attempting to capitalize off the success of pseudo histories such as Robin Hood and Arthur. My first objection to the movie is the font they chose to write the subtitles, locations, and plot points. It was difficult to read on my analog TV, especially when they opt for white on a pale blue background using an ancient looking font that is difficult to decipher in the first place. Now the reason why we have subtitles is for the Picts, who are native of Northern Britain. They don't speak English, but the Romans speak 21st century English, including one soldier with a British accent. "Sorry mate, but orders are orders," he says as he slices a Pict throat. OH PLEASE! If the Picts don't speak modern English, don't try to make it realistic with subtitles only to have the Romans speak English. The language spoken by the Picts is actually unknown.A Roman governor wanting to make a name for himself, opts to send the 9th Roman legion into the Pict stronghold in order to kill their king. The Roman governor uses a female Pict slave (whose parents were murdered by Romans, with her being raped as a child and her tongue cut out) to guild them into Pict territory. Guess how that works out Scooby-Doo? The ninth legion is wiped out except for the general who is taken captive and 7 Romans (who look more like an international group). They opt to do the stupid thing and attempt to rescue the general in the heart of a Pict camp. After they fail at that, they are hunted by Picts. For those who like killing, blood, urine, and violence this is your film. The overly simplistic plot, lack of good characterization, making us identify with the bad guys who we know will lose, poor attempts at humor, makes this the least enjoyable of the pseudo histories to date. They spent a lot of money making this film and wasted it on an inferior script.The story of the missing ninth Roman legion being destroyed by the Picts is legend. It actually got transferred to Judea.

Miles-10 After staying up late watching this blood-drenched but exciting adventure film, I was stunned to learn that it was something of a box office flop, having made back about half of what it cost to make. Most likely this has to do with how few screens the movie opened with, just over 100 in the UK and about 25 in the US, presumably with no hype. (I never heard of it until seven years after it opened.) This is certainly not your average date movie unless both parties like their violence graphic. So much for the chancy, grim aspects of movie-making. (Almost as grim as the blood in this movie.)The story and acting are pretty good for an adventure/survival yarn: A small band of survivors of an ambush must take a circuitous route through enemy territory to get home. The hero is the son of a gladiator whose father taught him all of his skills and tricks. The best villain is a fierce woman warrior who tracks down the Roman prey. She wears animal skins and war paint, never speaks or smiles, and wields a scary, partisan-like polearm as if it were an extension of her body and soul. (This is not only about guys doing macho stuff, it has a couple of macho women characters, too.)If you do not mind the blood and gore, this is a great adventure story with amazing photography of untamed Scottish mountain country. An interesting note (to me, anyway): The Romans speak English instead of Latin while the Picts speak Scots Gaelic instead of Pictish. Very little Pictish has been preserved, but from what we know of it, it would have been more similar to Gaelic than English is to Latin.

Kirpianuscus but not real predictable. one of film who reminds clichés and fight scenes, and brutal confrontations , a necessary love story and a good cast. all in the sauce of the dark atmosphere, with heroism as spice and few scenes of involuntary humor. bitter, great and ordinary. inspired by the Roman history of Britain, it is out to be more than an action movie in which cruelty could save appearances. or one of films who you see only for the actors because the story is far by elementary expectations. sure, the good points are not missing. but the director seems be adapted to a clear recipes who impose clear rules and ignore any flavor of imagination. Romans on dangerous territory, clash with Barbarians and the same manner to present America using the references to the ancient Rome.

NateWatchesCoolMovies Neill Marshall's Centurion is a brutal, streamlined, balls to the wall story of several lost members of a Roman legion trying to survive the elements, ruthless enemy forces, and each other. It's not so much a sweeping, epic piece like 300, Troy or ones like that, but a more intimate, individualistic take on it. It's like the Bourne Identity of the sword flicks, all tooth and nail survival action as opposed to large scale battle sequences. Michael Fassbender plays , a centurion whose legion is decimated by a rogue group of fierce picts, led by Etienne (Olga Kurylenko in full beast mode). Their commander (Dominic West) can't hold the stragglers together, and soon a group of five or six of them are forced to hurdle through the barren, snowy terrain in hopes of escape from their relentless, pelt wearing pursuers. West is killer good in the few scenes he has, peppering his mannerisms and dialogue with a belligerent glint in his eye. Fassbender makes a stalwart protagonist. The gorgeous Imogen Pootds, a relative newcomer when this was released, is radiant as a forest dwelling loner who takes the gaggle of survivors in and cares for them. Liam Cunningham underplays his ageing soldier role beautifully. The camera work is also to be noted, capturing some stunning fight scenes set atop a snow dusted plateau, and later an abandoned keep. It's a fairly underrated slice of bloody genre fun, with Marshall being no stranger to this sort of breathless escapism, and having helmed the pilot of Game Of Thrones, adding all the right touches to make it well worth our while.