Watch The Last Legion For Free

Sadly Over-hyped

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Most people behind this film are Italians, and you can tell that from the design: theatrical almost operatic story, colorful staging, great imagination, playful development of characters and story, florid fabulation and great joy of epic story-telling - most of the production names are De Laurentiis. All this makes up for not a bad movie at all. In fact, the story is not incredible, although utterly untruthful, and both Ben Kingsley and Colin Firth make credible characters and performances enough. Focus is though on the boy, who is the only thoroughly splendid character, both as an invention, the type and his development and acting. What actually happened is unknown, but both Odovakar and Romulus are historical figures. In the film the events of Romulus' abdication occur in 460 after having been emperor for no more than a year, while it actually happened in 476 but is historically correct. No one knows what happened to Romulus, however - his fate is lost in history, and his young character and mystery is like made for legends. Odovakar did not remain king of Rome very long, being soon overthrown by Theoderic the Great of the Ostrogoths. Vortigern, the awful villain of the film, did exist but remains a rather doubtful character - in the film he is grossly exaggerated to fit the role of a supreme villain, a tyrant of great paranoia and cruelty, while some sources name him the discoverer of Merlin. A great epic adventure film made on a great epic story, in brief, a worthwhile entertainment with the positive consequence that it must raise your interest in the darkest medieval history.

I was very disappointed in this film. Given the brilliant cast, I thought it would be well worth watching. How wrong I was! It's a shame as the film had so much potential - which is probably what the cast thought. What a total waste of acting talent! The fault is most certainly due to the director who lacked vision. The film lacks any form of direction and does not seem to know what its target audience is. Is it a historic action film? A family film, perhaps? Neither as it happens. Just a mish-mash of genres trying to please everyone and pleasing no-one.Despite a good story to build upon the film just seems a bit aimless and lack-lustre. The cast had not been given any proper direction and the screenplay itself also left little room for character development. The result of this is that there was no empathy for any of the characters who seem quite one dimensional.However, it was the bad editing and camera-work which I found to be the the most off-putting. Clips were cut far too short with no lingering moments for emotion to be portrayed. Even the camera-work was sometimes shaky. Given the beautiful scenic backdrops the cinematography could have been amazing. Instead the cameraman chose to do middle-shots almost throughout. The whole thing just seemed a bit amateurish.In my view what could have been a really good film with great potential was ruined by a total lack of direction and inability to use the cast to their full potential.

First off let me say i know a little bit about history and the historical inaccuracies made me want to kill myself. The violence was awful and i hate that technique where you are about to see something violent and then it cuts away. It was a stupid idea making this pg- 13 because if it was R it could be like 300 or Immortals and the inaccuracies don't matter just hot women and people dying. I was about to stop watching until that hot girl came out of the water and I still almost regret finishing it. It had good actors so that was not a problem but after i looked this movie up I found it was based on a book and very loosely based on that book. Seriously the people who made this movie like the director did not know what they were doing and they do not know anything about history or common sense. There were Goths wearing fur on a hot island in the sea for crying out loud. And the idea was just a copy from the movie King Arthur with Clive Owen that ties it to the Roman Empire which was smart cause they had enough to make it work but this did not.

Oh, dear. It's a really bad movie, but still worth watching, even for laughs (or for unshaven Colin Firth).I swear I was told it is an "epic historical drama". By my sense, it is just a little less historically accurate than "Asterix in Britain". Why didn't they go for a full fantasy picture, but only used style of filming typical for fantasy movies and pretended to be using historical setting? Maybe that's how you could film a legend.Legends, however, most of all show how certain people today want to define their identity. By this interpretation of the Arthurian legend Britain apparently says: "we, the British, have the true spirit of Roman soldiers, and totally so do Black and Hindu people under our rule." I'm not sure if it's plain imperialism or just political correctness gone wrong and whether I should laugh (well, I did almost every time I saw that fat African-American dude among the Roman legionaries) or just get sick (it's a modern movie, do people really think that way?). I think Firth's many roles as an upper-class English gentleman contribute to this picture.There are many things that didn't make sense neither historically nor within the plot. It's hard to say whether the creators of the movie were ignorant or rather purposefully wanted to show their beliefs and values regardless of the general knowledge. I'm not going to list every detail, but surely the better you know history, the louder you'll laugh.Putting the confusing overtones and nonsensical settings aside, it is an enjoyable adventure with some funny moments and moving hugs. The movie is also family-friendly, because there is nothing inappropriate except sword fights. And even though Aishwarya Rai looks gorgeous, there's no chemistry between the male and female protagonists, the romance is implied just because they are the male and female protagonists. The implication is so weak, that I (an imaginative adult) honestly though they lied on the bed together because it was cold.My guess about the target audience was perfect. Within IMDb demographics the movie is rated the highest by Males under 18 (action-adventure plot with a sophistication of the last decade's PC game) and Females over 45 (sincerly, Colin Firth has never looked so manly in any other movie). Doesn't it speak volumes?I must have really overrated the movie with 4 stars, but at least I had a good laugh and didn't get bored. Also, there was the moon shown twice in different phases, which is the most rare things in movies (in almost all cases it is only the full moon which is the proper hint that it is night) and that excuses the poorly digitally pasted backgrounds in view scenes and saves a star.Dear me, I still can't stop laughing. Maybe re-reading some fragments from a history book and re-watching "Mamma Mia!" will help me restore sanity.And if there is any new movie about Spartans, Vikings and Ninjas coming out, make sure Colin Firth is in it. Unshaven.