The beginning of the movie seems promising, but unfortunately after 15 minutes it becomes a mediocre epic movie.
Storyline: The Storyline is acceptable, in a way it's just another version of the King Arthur-myth, so there are a lot of familiar aspects. It has some good plots, but some are ruined by bad acting of the actors, while others are very cliché (the 9th legion coming to rescue when all hope has faded... hm... Rohan (LotR) anyone?).
Scenery's, sets, clothing: Scenery's and sets look pretty good, but the clothing is just horrible. The Germanic 'Barbarians' are dressed in typically Hollywood mindless barbarian clothing: horned helmets (which didn't exist), lot's of animal skins and dirt, which makes it hard to see their face. The Goths are typically casted as evil bad guys to be killed at will by the heroes, without any personality whatsoever. The truth is far from that.
Acting: The overall acting is terrible. The Goths: The acting of the evil barbarians is overdone, either they are plain stupid or too evil (Wulfila - Kevin McKidd), which combined with the ridiculous un-authentic clothing, makes you laugh at the sight of them. They are not intimidating at all. Only Hrothgar (James Cosmo) appears to be a bit normal, but James Cosmo is just cool :) Too bad he only got a small part in the movie even though he is the better actor (for proud, strong warlike types), because he was mostly the reason why I wanted to see it anyway. the Heroes: Ben Kingsley is doing OK. He seems to have fun, although his character is a bit weird. Colin Firth's acting seems more like 13 in a dozen 'Let's get this over with' kind of thing. He is very timid and seems mostly frustrated that he has signed to do this mediocre movie. Aishwarya Rai: looks pretty, but she is just not an actress
Good parts: James Cosmo, storyline is decent, but ruined by the rest of the movie
Overall: It's a mediocre epic movie. It claims to be in the vein of 'Lord of the Rings' but can't compete by a long shot. I think the movie 'King Arthur' is even better (and has a more believable explanation of the myth, although there are too many inconsistencies in that one) and that movie is not very spectacular.
I would rate it 5 out of 10, because the sceneries and sets look decent and at times the movie looks nice, but often it more looks like an unintended parody to the genre.
Storyline: The Storyline is acceptable, in a way it's just another version of the King Arthur-myth, so there are a lot of familiar aspects. It has some good plots, but some are ruined by bad acting of the actors, while others are very cliché (the 9th legion coming to rescue when all hope has faded... hm... Rohan (LotR) anyone?).
Scenery's, sets, clothing: Scenery's and sets look pretty good, but the clothing is just horrible. The Germanic 'Barbarians' are dressed in typically Hollywood mindless barbarian clothing: horned helmets (which didn't exist), lot's of animal skins and dirt, which makes it hard to see their face. The Goths are typically casted as evil bad guys to be killed at will by the heroes, without any personality whatsoever. The truth is far from that.
Acting: The overall acting is terrible. The Goths: The acting of the evil barbarians is overdone, either they are plain stupid or too evil (Wulfila - Kevin McKidd), which combined with the ridiculous un-authentic clothing, makes you laugh at the sight of them. They are not intimidating at all. Only Hrothgar (James Cosmo) appears to be a bit normal, but James Cosmo is just cool :) Too bad he only got a small part in the movie even though he is the better actor (for proud, strong warlike types), because he was mostly the reason why I wanted to see it anyway. the Heroes: Ben Kingsley is doing OK. He seems to have fun, although his character is a bit weird. Colin Firth's acting seems more like 13 in a dozen 'Let's get this over with' kind of thing. He is very timid and seems mostly frustrated that he has signed to do this mediocre movie. Aishwarya Rai: looks pretty, but she is just not an actress
Good parts: James Cosmo, storyline is decent, but ruined by the rest of the movie
Overall: It's a mediocre epic movie. It claims to be in the vein of 'Lord of the Rings' but can't compete by a long shot. I think the movie 'King Arthur' is even better (and has a more believable explanation of the myth, although there are too many inconsistencies in that one) and that movie is not very spectacular.
I would rate it 5 out of 10, because the sceneries and sets look decent and at times the movie looks nice, but often it more looks like an unintended parody to the genre.