User Reviews

Reading the back cover of the DVD and seeing that Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley are given top billing, I expected an intelligent King Arthur story. Well, it really wasn't either, although I did find it entertaining. I must not have read the description carefully enough. No matter; overall, it was fun but just a little too silly. I'm beginning to wonder about the discernment of some of these actors, how they can play such intelligent roles for a film or two and then revert to something like this.

Anyway, the story is really a Roman empire one, not a King Arthur story. We only see the tie-in to the later in the last few minutes of the film, in the epilogue. This action story is all about the last Caesar, a small boy, and the last legion that fought as Rome had now been taken over by the Goths. The Roman Empire had come to an end.

Mixed in with that tale was the famous "excalibur" sword. We see the origins of that and how it eventually got into the hands of King Arthur. But, once again, that is only explained in the final minutes. However, the sword is used by the good Roman general who protects the last Caesar from the Goths, who want him imprisoned for life, or killed.

What made the story interesting, at least for me, was the chase-scene type atmosphere of a small band of heroes protecting a little boy, fleeing the bloodthirsty Goths until they could mount some sort of counter-attack in the north in Brittania. That, and the pretty computer-generated scenery and action stunts, kept it interesting. However, don't look for credibility in those action scenes and expect the typical political-correctness of today (i.e. where a woman beats up hundreds of men and the good guys of all colors prevail despite ridiculous odds).

Some parts of this will leave you shaking your head in disbelief. You will feel you're watching a kids' film at times. However, if you want an hour-and-a-half of decent escapist fare, and can put your brain on hold for that time, it fits the bill and will at least entertain you.

There are many adaptations and versions to the tale of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, with Merlin the sorcerer, and of the magical sword Excalibur, some versions which set it into stone, while others, handed out by a lady in the water. The Last Legion is essentially touting a story about the beginnings of Excalibur and how it took to the former. However, it took a long route to tell this story, going all the way back to 400-something AD, a time where Rome is in turmoil.

Actually Rome is in turmoil ever since Julius Caesar got killed by friends, Romans, countrymen. In a time where generals scheme to usurp the throne and politicians of the Senate are corrupt as hell, it's little wonder why one of the best and most loyal generals Aurelius (Colin Firth) gets recalled to protect the rear of the new boy-king-god-Caesar Romulus Augustus, played by Thomas Sangster (the kid in Nanny McPhee and Tristan and Isolde). Naturally the enemies spring a surprise attack, and our merry men have to flee Rome, and journey to Britain to regroup with the 9th Legion (henceforth also known as the Last Legion), bringing in tow a seer Ambrosinus (Ben Kingsley), and a lady warrior in Mira (Aishwarya Rai).

Like most medieval stories with elements of magic or involving the higher powers from Mount Olympus, The Last Legion does away with the sorcery portion, like what Troy and King Arthur had done, opting instead to focus more on reality, and what possibly could have been done without divine intervention, or fantastical assistance. Thus this makes Kingsley's role a little redundant, and relegates him into a fortune teller rather than an all powerful wizard, despite his garb looking a lot like Gandalf's.

While it could have gotten away with its material given 10 years back, unfortunately the stakes in the genre have been raised, and everyone's expecting a spectacle of huge armies battling in hand to hand combat, with its combatants having some form of fancy killing moves. The Last Legion pales in terms of providing that level of detail and spectacle, and chose instead to provide unsophisticated battle scenes, or swordplay that is a tad too uninspiring. Most of the fanciful moves were reserved for Aishwarya, but even that too began to become repetitive. Not even her booby trapped enhanced short sword offered anything we're never seen before.

With characters you don't really care about, what made it a little unbearable amongst the good guys, was the totally hokey, unbelievable romance between Rai and Firth's characters. It doesn't mean that having characters from the opposite sex means they find each other irresistible and want to get into each other's pants. There is absolutely zero chemistry and zero buildup. One minute they're allies, the next they're admiring each other's swordplay, and then, the bed beckons. And if the villains justify what kind of heroes we get, then it's a no brainer that they are bland and devoid of any interesting notion. World domination seems to be their only objective, and both the Romans and the British (using the term loosely here) villains are merely caricatures.

As I said, while The Last Legion might have worked if it's released 10 years ago, this movie can't justify it being made now. It's suitable at most for that DVD rental for a lazy afternoon, but nothing more, and only if you're in dire need of some, or any, form of entertainment.

I just got done watching this movie. And I must say, if you really want to see this movie, save yourself an hour and a half, and just watch the trailer. The trailer is really as good as this movie gets. I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie too. I'm a big fan of medieval and roman films, but this one really just falls short on everything. I would say thats its worthy of being a sci-fi channel original movie, but I don't don't want to insult the sci-fi channel (Seriously, they have tons of aliens and monster, don't tick them off. You will get eaten.)

This movie falls short on pretty much every account. Casting was awful. I'm a fan of Sangster, he was great in Love Actually, but he's not yet strong enough to be a leading man. Firth, with his quirky charm, should stick to romantic comedy. He's much better at fumbling through a confession of love than being an epic hero. The plot, dialog, acting and directing were all horrible. I kept sitting there thinking how it could have been done better, only to come to the realization the best thing to do would be to throw out everything and start over from the plot outline. The sets cheap and generic. They would have done better dusting off set pieces from Ben Hur(1959). Costumes were pulled from every generic Barbarian/Roman stock wardrobe or Halloween store. Perhaps one of the most distracting things was the music. I think the composer is sleeping with one or more of his trumpet players because thats all we heard. Trumpets playing as they hide, Trumpets sounding during the battle, Trumpets here, Trumpets there. Couldn't get enough of them.

At best this movie is a rental to watch at home. When you're alone. In a windowless room. Don't invite your friends over, they will make fun of you. I'm sorry if this sounds cruel, but, like the parent of a child failing kindergarten, I'm simply trying to express my disappointment for a film that could have been so much better. Its just sad.

This is a nice production with an average budget, great sets and thundering battles about the fall of the Roman Empire. Although the complete Roman Empire decline and fall took centuries, by the end of fifth century it was simply a battleground for warring rival Caesars and Barbarians chiefs. The Germans gather, take over and pull down the Roman gates. The Goths commanded by Odoacer(Peter Mullan), king of Herulos, invade Rome(476 AD), assesinated Orestes(Iain Glen), father of emperor Romulus Augustulos (Thomas Sangster). The young Caesar is sent to Capri along with his preceptor Ambrosinus(Ben Kingsley). A motley group of soldiers led by loyal Aurelianus (Colin Firth) are assigned by senator Nestor (John Hannah) to free him. They're accompanied by a beautiful Indian warrior named Mira (Aishwarya Rai). Without another alternative, they travel to Britannia to meet the last legion, located near the Wall of Adriano; but they're pursued by relentless barbarians (Kevin McKidd, James Cosmo). Although the Romans had partially withdrawn from Britain and its politics essentially dissolved into chaos. Later on, it's thought that a minor war lord, probably named Artos, did his best to maintain civilization and Christianity in the west of England.

This is a larger-than-life production with good direction, interesting scripting, and enthusiastic performances place this far above the usual empty-headed historical spectacle. Several action scenes are outstanding with spectacular battle images and thrilling fights. Unfortunately, on small house screens much of the splendor will be lost. You will be left with the wooden Colin Firth and the gorgeous Aishwarya Rai in a love story that was underdeveloped due tho the film's emphasis on spectacle. The picture packs colorful cinematography by Pontecorvo and evocative musical score by Patrick Doyle. The flick is professionally directed by Doug Lefler, who previously made ¨Dragonheart , a new beginning ¨. Rating : Good, it's a nice extravaganza well set in ancient Rome, done in great scale and praised for its action sequences.

THE LAST LEGION is a semi-realistic historical fantasy based on a novel by popular Italian historical novelist Valerio Massimo Manfredi. It's a story that attempts to merge both Roman history and Arthurian legend, and although it's not always entirely believable, it does have a fast pace to take your mind off the unbelievable bits.

One of the worst things about this film is the cheap and cheerful direction, which makes it look like a B-movie. I wasn't surprised to find out that director Doug Lefler cut his teeth on both HERCULES: THE LEGENDARY JOURNEYS and XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS, because THE LAST LEGION looks a lot like those shows and has the same kind of shaky, bloodless action scenes.

However, the film does have a great cast going on it with nearly ever role in the film occupied by familiar faces. GAME OF THRONES fans are in for a particular treat with parts for Iain Glen, Nonso Anozie, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, James Cosmo, Robert Pugh, Alexander Siddig, and Owen Teale. SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND star John Hannah plays virtually the same role as in that show, and ROME's Kevin McKidd is the bad guy. The major roles are claimed by Colin Firth, who never really convinces as an action hero, and Ben Kingsley, reliably entertaining as the wise old sage. Meanwhile, Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai plays the token female role, unbelievable in the fight scenes but heavily sexualised throughout, much like Keira Knightley in KING ARTHUR. THE LAST LEGION isn't a great film, but it's a passable time filler and just watching all those familiar faces filled me with joy.

Well, i just read the previous comment and i can't say I'm quite happy with it :( I mean, the movie was not that bad at all!! Everything was in the right place: the music, actors, the plot and all... No, really... I just don't get why he said (I mean that guy) the actors were bad. They were just brilliant! Well, maybe to watch this movie u gotta have a sense of humor because many scenes in it were quite funny. Ben Kingsley, Colin Firth and Thomas Sangster were really good it seemed to me. Well Aishwarya Rai could of acted better probably... But anyways I reckon there are so many really bad movies and I don't think this one is just watch-it-once-and-then-forget-it film! Besides, the whole thing was real: I mean the castle, all the decorations, they shot it on location, and if you see throngs of people running on the battlefield you know this is all real! I guess u gotta appreciate it because they could of made in on computers... I mean, it's such a rare thing nowadays... Speaking about the plot... Yeah, maybe it's a bit naive and even silly (remember this when you watch the final scene) but overall it was quite dynamic and everything. Finally it was Dino De Laurentis production, they've been writing the script for 6(!) years so do you really think they didn't notice it was crap or something? Well maybe it's not that great compared to '300' but it's good enough anyway My conclusion is: you gotta watch the movie especially if you like Colin Firth, Ben Kingsley or Thomas Sangster or if you like adventures. And it seemed to me it's a kind of a teen movie rather than a serous one (i suppose it's for people of 12-25). And one more thing to say: though it's a historic movie (and i really hated history at school!!!) somehow i liked it and I've seen enough movies to tell a good one. Enjoy!

I watched The Last Legion with some hope, but not that much and was still disappointed. What starts as a huge CGI filled epic, goes into a weak,empty story with not the best acting,action and a terrible story.

The acting talents and chances of a good film as so badly wasted and in parts the film seems to not know what it wants to be.Action film, Epic historic tale, kids adventure and even comic farce, which was a huge mistake.

Its empty and totally soulless.The ending is so bad, so very very bad that Myself and a friend sat stunned.lol

Its such a great shame that the main star of ROME the TV series was anywhere near this film.Rome it totally superior in every way. If you want a well written,acted and totally realistic version of Rome, see ROME don't waste your time on this.

The movie starts with an interesting theme, but quickly turns into one cliché after another.I liked how they linked the Arthurian legend to the line of Caesar. How ever the Standard group setting in Sword and Sorceror movies soon kicked in. Complete with the girl pretending to be a man, the Black guy(unexplained) in the middle of a foreign country, the battle weary soldier, the wise-old man and the child they must all protect. The acting by the Goths was laughable as well as the main villain. It's like they took a movie written for children and tried to add violence at the last minute. I say it was a waste of time and a disappointment

I can understand why some people may be disappointed watching this movie, especially if they were expecting a CGI laden gore-fest. If you do not expect this then you should not be too disappointed.

I think the negative comments go too far. It never pretended to be anything other than an action/adventure movie from the beginning (so why compare it to hardcore historical stuff), it was funny, mixed up a few legends, and had a very simple but nevertheless entertaining story.

This light hearted and enjoyable movie provides well-paced entertainment that would be suitable for a teenage audience (perhaps 10+) but can also be enjoyed by adults.

There is no gore, sex, or swearing, and whilst the fine cast will not win any Oscars for their performance, they did a fine job in fulfilling their roles, given the movies objectives.

This movie does what it says on the tin and does it well. A fine example of how a movie can be enjoyable without every scene being covered in blood (although I enjoy those movies too).

Folks, in the same way as the previous poster, I disagree strongly with all the negative posts.

The most important that needs to be made when you're watching this movie, as in many such movies, is that it didn't start off as a movie script - it's based on a book. That means that all your usual movie expectations are left hanging, but with good reason!

Simply because the movie isn't chock full of special effects, unnecessary sex and callous bloodshed doesn't make it a bad movie by any means - and if you'd like to say that it does, you need have a good think about what you're looking for in a movie!

Because it'll feel like at least ten hours. Wow, I read the reviews before seeing this movie/ thing. People hated it. People liked it. I decided those who hated it were bitter, angry people who should lighten up and enjoy life. To those people, I apologize for thinking that. You were right. This movie seems to crawl from place to place without vision or energy. It's an epic stitched together with dull talks from actors who will take their paycheck and hope they can bounce back after this.

It does feel small budget. It also feels like the editor was told to put this together so families could watch it and then just decided not to try anymore. So not only does it drag, but the fight scenes are more like pushing and shoving scenes. But there was a technique employed that was clever. In it, we see someone throw something (an axe for example), we cut to another actor's reaction ("That's bad. I'm awake, right?"), then see the weapon lodged in a person's body. I think they did this three times, a great example of how well this was conceived.

If you don't understand what makes some movies bad and others good, check this out. It really will help you appreciate the good stuff.

The movie is actually pretty good. I saw it as a sneak preview today, so i didn't know which movie they would be playing. But when it started I knew it would be a movie for me, cause I usually enjoy fantasy movies.

Don't expect anything too epic though. The acting is OK, but doesn't excel at any point. But it's good enough.

The story is good, but sometimes somethings just don't make sense. Things just happen for no apearant reason at all. But it must be said: this movie actually has some really funny parts. You'll laugh a lot actually, even though it's not a comedy. Especially the ending... You really aren't expecting 'that' to happen (go see the movie and you'll see what I mean)

Well, overall good movie. Had a nice time watching it.

7/10 stars

This movie didn't feel like it should be on the big screen more like a miniseries. The plot goes nowhere, it is just so confusing, seems like a huge rip off on King Arthur.

I really like historical movies but if your going to make one (Historical Movie) then the script writers should have done some research. The entire lookand feel of this movie comes off more like a fantasy adventure the Romans don't look, act or even dress like Romans nor are they even armed liked Romans. The main character carries a long sword rather than the short sword favored by roman legionnaires. The list goes on and on it is ridiculous.

I waited in impatient anticipation for this movie to say i was extremely disappointed would be an understatement. The fight scenes were dull the acting more so, as for colin firth as an action hero well seriously you gotta be kidding me.

6 years to write this movie hahahaha thats the funniest thing i have heard in a while, they should have just googled the historical facts and the story would have been much more accurate, fun and bearable to watch.

The potential of this movie was huge and it was all wasted, terrible casting, horrid script, music (atrocious), acting (dull) and poor camera work all add up to a terrible movie.

To be honest my recommendation is to wait for this to get to free to air television.

After reading a few posts i hvae decided to add more to this post, the entertainment value has nothing to do with special effects and gore, it comes down to the actors making the characters believable and drawing the viewer into the story. It has nothing to do with Gore (I watch horror movies for that), but if your going to have fight scenes and battles do them right. As for objectives well a movies main objective is in the main "to entertain", my son was as confused as I was with the story he walked off halfway through and I was 5mins behind him. As a movie I say once again this movie fails on all levels, it is neither entertaining, educational or emotionally engaging, seemed more like a pathetic effort by all involved with the making of this film.

Generally speaking I dislike gore, superfluous sex (between the sheets) and am not especially fond of special effects. In my opinion it is a big plus, if a movie can do without these. At the other hand I enjoy sword and sable fighting - think of Erroll Flynn or the French musketeer movies. Finally the period of the late 5th century, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, is highly fascinating.

This movie is not an untold story. It is historically completely inaccurate, something like president Bush being in charge during the Vietnam war, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt being his political opponent. As examples I will only take two points. Odoaker took over power in 475, not in 460. Wulfila died around 383.

Really, I like retelling or even reinventing legends. But I don't like utter nonsense. Clearly 6 years was not enough yet to write a decent script. Even then, if the story was told in an interesting way, the directing was skillful, I might have forgiven. But no. In the beginning ancient Rome was used as a background. It was unrealistic like cheap epic movies from the 50-s. Ben Hur got it much better. And the story? The director hardly takes time to show the emotional struggle of a young boy being the mightiest person in the world. It better could have left out. Now it is just one of the many scenes, which remain hanging in the air.

Odysseus-6 is completely right about the actors, so I will not repeat it. I am sorry, several old sword and sandal Italian B-movies are better than this one. Every director degrading the highly talented and skilled John Hannah to a wooden amateur like this, should be put on a black list. One has to pay full attention, then one can pick a few moments, where the actors get the chance to act - for instance the scene, where Odoaker decides to keep the boy alive. I can imagine a savage barbarian behaving like that. Problem of course is, that the real Odoaker already had spend several years in Rome and was not a barbarian anymore .... He was quite a popular ruler in Italy, after almost 75 years of incompetent Caesars.

I will just wait for someone filming Mary Stewart's Crystal Cave or a book of Rosemary Sutcliffe. These authors show, that historical drama can have roots in hard facts.

Surinamese TV showed the movie at midnight, so alas I cannot ask my 12 years old son, if he was entertained. I was hardly.

Firstly i would just like to agree with the previous two other commenter's who have quite rightly rubbished khunia's comment about inaccuracy. As was quite rightly said, if you are going to make a loud complaint, make sure your facts are accurate!! As mentioned, the long cavalry sword or spatha is considered, by the late empire, to have replaced the stereotypical legionary short sword (gladius) as standard infantry equipment. Another thought is that if Aurelius was an infantry commander/prefect, he likely would have used a long cavalry sword anyway, as even in the early empire, most commanders would have spent the majority of battles on horseback. I found the depiction of the 9th legion enjoyable, especially how they formed and marched, were they extras does anyone know, or a hired reenactment group. I noticed that actually of the 4/5 units that were shown, we only saw one actually doing anything more than marching. There were also were a number of slight sticky points about the ninth. 1) Them being apparently still equipped in the stereotypical legionary manner, which as far as i know was not standard in the late empire. 2) regardless of how or why exactly it happened, it is generally agreed that the 9th legion no longer existed by the 3rd century Ad. 3) The standard of the legion is a dragon, and it is referred to as the legion of the dragon. Why??? The standard shown, is, as far as i am aware, one that was used by cavalry units, called a dracco, why would a legion have a dragon for a standard, even if, as i have heard, the eagle was removed at some point?

As for the story and film itself, while i always enjoy any decent display of the Roman Army, i did find the story of the film itself disappointing! However, the film is based on the book of the same title by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I read this book sometime before, attracted by the title, but found the ending disappointing, the same fault i have with the film. The film is limited by the material it is based on and so regardless of how good or bad the acting or accuracy, which in this case were both of a convincing quality, the film never could really have shone, even allowing for the common, though not always unique slaughtering of a good novel by it's adaption for film or TV. Also to be fair, the period in which the book/film takes place is one of such confusion and chaos that perhaps it is hard to write convincingly about it. The only good book about the Roman world at the end of the empire that i have read which does the period justice is "eagle in the snow" by Wallace brim, which i heartily recommend to anyone.

General Comments and opinions! Even with the inherent fault in the story this film is so so so so much better and more accurate than the horrible King Arthur 2004!

Firth does a good job. His portrayal of a roman commander is convincing, intending to cut off a thieve's hand would not have arisen much comment in those days, and a legionary commander would have been tough! I did also appreciate his portrayal of Aurelius's sense of despair at seeing his world fall apart.

Yes the boy from love actually is annoying in some ways, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good actor, little boys are naturally annoying on the whole and he does do a good job.

OK as for Aishwarya Rai, i think she did OK!

I did find it sad seeing Kevin McKidd, who played Vorenus in ROME, playing a goth, and i kept expecting to see him appear with Pullo on the Roman side.

I went to see this movie only because it had one of the Bollywood leading lady – Aishwarya Rai. I knew the movie had poor ratings and did not expect much from it before entering the theatres.

The story is about the blood line of Julius Ceaser – a young child Romulus Augustus (Thomas Sangster) whose parents are killed, kingdom overthrown and he imprisoned. His personal guard Aurelius (Colin Firth) joins hands with a couple of his own guards and Mira (Aishwarya Rai) and with the help of a sorcerer Merlin (Ben Kingsley) rescues the child and defeats the enemies.

The movie is stupid to say the least, as if we are seeing some B-grade movies of 70s. It has good sets, and excellent actions; but the screenplay and dialogues are a big let down. Overall the casting is very poor. Colin Firth huffs and puffs to fit the role of a warrior guard, and so overacts Thomas as a child emperor. Ben Kingsley – what are you doing in this movie? As a moral guardian of the young emperor Ben Kingsley still sounds like Mahatma Gandhi when he opens his mouth and says some philosophical and thoughtful things. Aishwarya was okay. To make her look like an Indian beauty the make-up artist put layers of brown shining dusk on her face and body. She performed her role with commitment, but over-expressed herself in violent actions scenes.

For director Doug Lefler, this was his second ambitious project and that too with historic setting. I should say that the quality of details in expensive sets and costume etc. was finely done. The action scenes were good but not up to the mark of great directors.

So what was positive about this movie? I think it is a good entertainment for children and family. It does not have a heavy complicated story, and gory of sex and violence – that is normally seen in such movies. It is a clean entertainer in that way.

(Stars 4.5 out of 10)

The movie is pathetically stupid.

• A patriotic movie (Britain is praised over and over again)

• Peudohistorical movie based on a legend ("Troy", "300", "King Arthur")

• Movie-as-a-legend ("Eragon")

• Light-hearted pseudohistorical action movie ("A Knight's Tale")

"The Last Legion" may have become if not a rival but a worthy successor to any of those movies. Only if the screenwriter and the director could agree on what exactly was what they were shooting. The result is a lackluster disappointment.

I've watched it solely because of the actors in the title roles - Firth, Kingsley, Sangster, Rai. It's a pity that they wasted their time and talent on this... well... waste of time. See this movie only if there's nothing else to see.

Risible. Or it would have been if it was funny.  Where was the sub-plot: where was the plot?    The only Roman theme in this was that of suicide: the theatrical suicide of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley. This film was down there competing with Yentl and that Caribbean caper with Geena Davis for worst film ever.   OK, I am a sucker for Roman history, but the glumping inaccuracies in this were, er, legion: and the filming, and the script - ooh, Matron!  And the sets - I mean, I know its Christmas soon, but do we need pantomime cardboard walls so early?  Then the journey... over the top of the Matterhorn was never the best way to Britannia, even in the fifth century. No wonder Colin Firth looked uncomfortable.   Gladiator meets Lord of the Rings, they get drunk together and scrawl a script on the back of a fag packet.  Result: The Last Legion.  Poor Rome: not even Alaric, Gaiseric and Totila combined ever inflicted such humiliation on her.