Alicia I love this movie so much

Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

clanciai 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.

angetay 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.

pp312 Really, really awful. I was stupid enough to expect some kind of adult drama and instead got the kind of sword and sorcery schlock that was old hat in 1986. Good god, what were Ben Kingsley and Colin Firth doing in this rubbish? Were they both between jobs in the same fortnight?I could list the sins this film committed but I'll focus on just one: the female character. Oh dear, have we not yet had enough of female characters who are stronger, braver and more resourceful than any man ever was since the beginning of the world; who enter the film disguised as a man with face covered and are later discovered bathing naked in the local stream? Please, scriptwriters of the world--mercy! I hate to point this out, but not only is there a dearth of women in history noted for their sword fighting prowess but, dare I say it, women simply do not have the upper body strength of men and cannot outfight hulky villains non-stop for hours at a time. It's ridiculous, it's impossible-- please stop. And if by chance there were such women, whom history somehow overlooked, I'm sure they didn't look like highly made-up models with skimpy outfits and contemporary hairstyles that never get mussed in even the most violent encounters. Even by the standards of your typical teenage movie--and that's sinking pretty low--this is just impermissible.

miguel-j-maestas96 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.