After reading through the comments, I was floored at how many people totally missed the point of the film. This is a tale of legend, and it tells it quite well.
For those who commented on the historical inaccuracies of costumes, armor etc., they are completely wrong, the costumes are accurate to the late period, (ask a recreator, we know). And yes, the long sword was in use by the Roman Army for a very long time. Late Imperial cavalry-length Roman blades were around 26 to 27 inches in length as opposed to the standard legionary 22 inch Gladius.
Anyway, as I said in the beginning this is a film about a legend. Do you think "Gladiator" was a true story? Yet it swept the Oscars. It is what it is, and after two viewings, I still have found no fault in the story, the acting or the direction. Historical fact and cinematic storytelling are to a certain degree mutually exclusive. No matter how hard you try to stick to facts when creating historical fiction in any medium, be it books or film, you will inevitably come across the necessity of a compromise between what can be established as "fact" (and even there period sources of the time are questionable) and what suits the story. In other words, you can be accurate to a fault, so to say, and have a story that reads - or visualizes - like a lead balloon, or you can alter the so-called "facts" to suit your purpose and create much more - and far more visually compelling - drama.
I guess some people just need to find fault to make themselves feel superior.
(Possible Spoilers) As for the story line... The concept of a Roman link to the Arthurian legends is not a new one. Mary Stewart's "The Crystal Cave" was the first book that introduced me to the concept, and since I'm a Western Civilization teacher, I'm fascinated by the histories and legends that have risen from what is known as the "Dark Ages" of Europe.
All and all, "The Last Legion" is a great film. I recommend it to any SCAdian, recreator, Pagan, Wiccan or Dark Ages history freak.
P.S. It was certainly better than "King Arthur" starring Clive Owen.
For those who commented on the historical inaccuracies of costumes, armor etc., they are completely wrong, the costumes are accurate to the late period, (ask a recreator, we know). And yes, the long sword was in use by the Roman Army for a very long time. Late Imperial cavalry-length Roman blades were around 26 to 27 inches in length as opposed to the standard legionary 22 inch Gladius.
Anyway, as I said in the beginning this is a film about a legend. Do you think "Gladiator" was a true story? Yet it swept the Oscars. It is what it is, and after two viewings, I still have found no fault in the story, the acting or the direction. Historical fact and cinematic storytelling are to a certain degree mutually exclusive. No matter how hard you try to stick to facts when creating historical fiction in any medium, be it books or film, you will inevitably come across the necessity of a compromise between what can be established as "fact" (and even there period sources of the time are questionable) and what suits the story. In other words, you can be accurate to a fault, so to say, and have a story that reads - or visualizes - like a lead balloon, or you can alter the so-called "facts" to suit your purpose and create much more - and far more visually compelling - drama.
I guess some people just need to find fault to make themselves feel superior.
(Possible Spoilers) As for the story line... The concept of a Roman link to the Arthurian legends is not a new one. Mary Stewart's "The Crystal Cave" was the first book that introduced me to the concept, and since I'm a Western Civilization teacher, I'm fascinated by the histories and legends that have risen from what is known as the "Dark Ages" of Europe.
All and all, "The Last Legion" is a great film. I recommend it to any SCAdian, recreator, Pagan, Wiccan or Dark Ages history freak.
P.S. It was certainly better than "King Arthur" starring Clive Owen.