03-29-2011, 01:58 AM
Graham, Robert and Alan -- excellent reviews and comments, you put my own modest review to shame with your cogent and well thought out comments. :oops:
At the risk of repetition, I will quote again the comments by Kurt Vonnegut concerning books adapted into films:
"There are only two American novelists who should be grateful for the movies made from their books. I am one of them (for Slaughterhouse-Five). The other one? Margaret Mitchell, of course."
All of us have said, more than once, that even poor films about ancient Rome are better than no films about ancient Rome (the film, The Last Legion being the exception) and as poor as The Eagle or Centurion might be on several grounds, they do serve the purpose of engendering interest in this period of history. However... At this point in film history, we can and should be doing better, both in terms of historical accuracy and cinematic art.
The Eagle may not be a bad film, but it is not a particularly good one either. I suspect this film got 'green lighted' because the director's last film won both critical praise and an Academy Award, the source material is from a best selling novel, and he promised to bring the film in under $20 million. Even though box office returns have only been fair, ($26 million vs. $25 million in production & distribution costs) the film will eventually turn a profit with DVD, Blu-ray and broadcast sales. (Too bad they did not think to turn out some toys & games -- I'd love a collection of Imperial Roman Action Figures.) :roll:
I will take exception with Starship Troopers -- the only improvement that film made on the original book was the more complex Bug evolution, otherwise the film was really rather poor (well, except for the shower scene -- ah the joys of a co-ed army). A better film version of Heinlein's book was done by James Cameron, although he titled it Aliens. :?
But I digress.
If nothing else, The Eagle has served to fuel some interesting discussions, and I have learned much from these exchanges. My thanks gentlemen.
:wink:
Narukami
At the risk of repetition, I will quote again the comments by Kurt Vonnegut concerning books adapted into films:
"There are only two American novelists who should be grateful for the movies made from their books. I am one of them (for Slaughterhouse-Five). The other one? Margaret Mitchell, of course."
All of us have said, more than once, that even poor films about ancient Rome are better than no films about ancient Rome (the film, The Last Legion being the exception) and as poor as The Eagle or Centurion might be on several grounds, they do serve the purpose of engendering interest in this period of history. However... At this point in film history, we can and should be doing better, both in terms of historical accuracy and cinematic art.
The Eagle may not be a bad film, but it is not a particularly good one either. I suspect this film got 'green lighted' because the director's last film won both critical praise and an Academy Award, the source material is from a best selling novel, and he promised to bring the film in under $20 million. Even though box office returns have only been fair, ($26 million vs. $25 million in production & distribution costs) the film will eventually turn a profit with DVD, Blu-ray and broadcast sales. (Too bad they did not think to turn out some toys & games -- I'd love a collection of Imperial Roman Action Figures.) :roll:
I will take exception with Starship Troopers -- the only improvement that film made on the original book was the more complex Bug evolution, otherwise the film was really rather poor (well, except for the shower scene -- ah the joys of a co-ed army). A better film version of Heinlein's book was done by James Cameron, although he titled it Aliens. :?
But I digress.
If nothing else, The Eagle has served to fuel some interesting discussions, and I have learned much from these exchanges. My thanks gentlemen.
:wink:
Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
