- Información importante sobre actualizaciones de Firmware: ¿Tienes problemas con tu reproductor de Blu-ray? ¿No se leen algunos discos? Puede ser que necesites actualizar el firmware de tu lector Blu-ray. Más información.
Eagle [With Digital Copy] [Reino Unido] [Blu-ray]
Ofertas especiales y promociones
Los clientes que vieron este producto también vieron
Descripción del producto
Nel 140 A.C. la Nona Legione dell'esercito romano marcio' nei territori conquistati della Britannia del nord, sparendo misteriosamente. Qualche anno piu' tardi Marco Aquila, insieme al fedele schiavo Esca, parte alla ricerca della Legione, nel tentativo di ristabilire l'onore del padre, all'epoca a capo della spedizione... VD --Este texto se refiere a una edición agotada o no disponible de este título.
Detalles del producto
Opiniones de clientes
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com (beta)
Tatum plays Marcus Flavius Aquila, son of the commander of the Ninth Legion. He's gone into the army himself and worked hard to get sent to Britannia, where he hopes to not only recover his father's honor, but also that of the Legion and to recover it's beloved standard; a gold eagle. The Roman legions fetishized their eagles (or "aquila", a word suspiciously similiar to the last name of our hero), to an impressive degree. Better in many ways to lose every man in your legion than to lose your standard.
Anyhow, young Marcus gets to Britannia, takes command of a legion, promptly gets injured and drummed out of the service, then acquires Esca (Jamie Bell), a young slave. He eventually hatches a plan to find the Eagle and along with Esca, heads north into darkest Caledonia. Along the way the two fight, bond and generally have an interesting time of it.
I really enjoyed this movie. It was entertaining, well-done and well-paced. Several of the plot twists were telegraphed well in advance, including the biggest one, which was shown to us in the trailers. But that minor complaint aside, it was good. The historical accuracy was decent (though some of the tactics the Romans employ made me roll my eyes. Where's your pila, boys?), and anytime I see a movie with Romans not using stirrups I get a least a bit happy. Plus it was cool hearing the Picts speaking Gaelic. Yes, it wasn't Pictish, but it was the best they could do, and at least it wasn't the Pictsies. Also, the acting was quite decent, and Channing Tatum seems to have done a good job of redeeming himself after some of his other works.
This is minor escapist fare. It's nothing great, but it is pretty fun and on the whole there's certainly far worse ways to spend a couple hours.
But that hasn't stopped writers and moviemakers from speculating about what did happen. "The Eagle" is a solid adaptation of Rosemary Sutcliff's novel "The Eagle of the Ninth" -- a gritty, mud-slicked quest movie set in a time when Rome still ruled the world. Channing Tatum is a little wooden, but he's more than made up for by Jamie Bell's subtle performance.
Centurion Marcus Flavius Aquila (Tatum) is the son of the Ninth Legion's commander, and is determined to regain his family honor. But after he's horribly wounded in battle, he finds himself honorably discharged and facing a life of boredom... until he hears rumors that the Ninth Legion's golden eagle has been seen north of Hadrian's Wall. If he can get the eagle, his family's honor will be restored.
The problem is, no Roman has gone past the wall and lived to tell about it. So Aquila sets out to northern Britain, with his Briton slave Esca (Bell) as his only guide -- and quickly runs into deserters, rogue warriors, and the deadly blue-painted Seal People who helped destroy the Ninth Legion. Can they rely on each other long enough to find the golden eagle... and can they make it back to Roman land alive?
Of the three movies made about the Lost Legion in the last few years, "The Eagle" is probably the grittiest and most realistic -- there are no glorious battles, Hollywoodized Celts or Arthuriana. Instead, director Kevin Macdonald fills the movie with mud, rain, cold pale light, grimy little outposts, frenetic small battles and the spare expanses of Scotland.
And for the most part, the movie succeeds. It's a small, lean movie with a lot of underlying tension, and some hauntingly atmospheric scenes like the Seal People's firelit ceremonies, complete with a horned-god figure and lots of dancing/chanting. Also a nice touch: all the Britons speak Gaelic. It isn't entirely accurate, but is a nice change after countless movies where everybody speaks English. Even better, there are no subtitles, so we're as lost as Aquila whenever they speak.
The one downside: the climactic battle is visually beautiful -- it's savage, bloody and wild. But the conveniently-timed arrival of Aquila's allies is just too "Hollywood."
And Macdonald avoids identifying either the Romans or Britons as "bad guys" -- they both commit atrocities, but they both also have good honorable people as well. Esca and Aquila represent both their peoples in this story, so obviously the movie rests on the shoulders of Tatum and Bell. Tatum is rather wooden at first, but he gets more flexible and emotional as the movie goes on; and Bell gives a pitch-perfect performance as a proud young Briton with an iron-clad code of honor.
Sure, there are a few other actors of note in here -- Donald Sutherland and Mark Strong have brief, well-acted roles, and Tahar Rahim does an excellent job as the blue-skinned Mohawked prince of the Seal People, but the star roles are really what this story depends on.
As for this blu-ray edition, it will apparently contain the original PG-13 version, plus the unrated version. There is also going to be an alternate ending, deleted scenes, directorial commentary, a featurette about the making of the movie, smart phone interaction and something called UHear.
"The Eagle" is a movie that feels very richly authentic, and has just enough mud, blood, rain and heather to make it seem as if you've traveled back in time.
Marcus(Channing Tatum) is forced out of his career as a soldier by battle wounds received while defending his first command post in distant Britain. The son of an infamous Roman commander who marched 5000 men into northern Britain and subsequently vanished, Marcus's dream of winning back his family's honor through soldierly deeds is summarily crushed by his discharge from service. Languishing in civilian life in his uncle's villa, Marcus' hatches a plan to win his family's honor back with the help of his Briton slave, Esca (Jamie Bell), by different means. Marcus will find the eagle standard of his father's lost legion by traveling into the hostile unconquered northern lands (Caledonia, or modern day Scotland) and Esca will lead the way. The tension and conflict between The Eagle's two main characters powers the movie along to its surprisingly up-beat conclusion.
It is a rare treat to see a movie that takes place in pre-Christian Britain. The costuming is impeccable and the people are gritty, filthy and refreshingly normal looking: no magic Hollywood showers or supermodel background characters ruin the believability of the time and place this movie hearkens to. As far as visual storytelling goes, I was impressed that so many plot points, shifts in attitude, and changes in relationships were indicated by simple glances, a change in wardrobe or what a character happened to be holding in a scene, without any dialogue whatsoever.
The strengths of this movie lie in its visual story telling, its pacing, and in the acting skills of its secondary characters. Jamie Bell gives an incredibly believable and understated performance as Esca. One of the most heart wrenching moments is the movie (and unquestionably the best acted monologue) is Esca's tale relating the fate of his family. There is no flowery verbage, no dramatic shouting, yet this simple soft-spoken monologue brought tears to my eyes. Tahir Rakhim's portrayal of the Seal Prince (a group of people entirely invented for this movie) was also done with staunch realism and believability. The inclusion of Gaelic dialogue was a pleasant surprise that helped emphasizes the social and cultural differences that existed between the people of the British isle and the Roman invaders at that time. It was with the Roman actors that I felt a bit of a disconnect, finding the mannerisms and verbal ticks of Strong, O'Hare and Sutherland to be a little too modern, though Sutherland's up-beat performance was remarkably refereshing in an otherwise emotionally heavy movie.
I'm very fond of this movie but will admit its most immediate faults. A common historical inaccuracy is perpetrated in the gladiator scene, with the thumbs-up/thumbs-down being reversed. I fear that this may be a mistake the movie industry never rectifies. And while the movie holds together beautifully up until the final battle with the Seal People, around then the dialogue gets clunky and loses some of is brusque magic. Guern's " I just have to tell you real quick yer dad wasn't a coward" speech as well as Marcus's pyre speech made me cringe a little. Both were very heavy-handed and awkwardly performed. Also, a rather large plot hole was torn open with the murder of the Seal Boy. Are we actually to believe that while chasing Marcus and Esca down on foot, the Seal Warriors carried this kid along just to kill him? After the boy is laid down in the water, he is never seen again. Guern receives a hero's send off, and the child Esca befriended is nowhere to be seen. I doubt the boy's murdered needed inclusion at all. If his death was only to induce Esca to fight, well...it was already fairly reasonable to believe that because of their bond, he would have fought with Marcus anyway.
Overall, this movie is visually stunning and emotionally intense without being melodramatic (at least until that end bit), and so I happily recommend The Eagle to history buffs, fangirls and fangirls of history. It may not be perfect, but The Eagle has the rare ability to transport a viewer to another time and place for two hours. Give it your time, and you will certainly be amused.
When people nitpick a lot about films that have a lot going for them, it looks like the film is not working on some deeper level for them. One can nitpick about ANY film, but we generally let the small things go when there are bigger things that we appreciate. I do the same. I like sci-fi films and Westerns and love stories that are not completely realistic and so on if they work overall. I wish all the nitpicking reviewers of the Eagle had articulated what it was that made them dwell on the rough spots. But of course it is hard to "know thyself" and easier to nitpick.
What kept me involved with the film? For one thing it was beautiful to look at. There was well photographed scenery and attractive and believable sets and well photographed interactions. The Seal People were necessarily made up images, but they were great images. Donald Sutherland was wooden at times, but he made up for this overall and as a distinctive character. Etc. Channing's acting seemed right and convincing for a serious young soldier who had a special motive for being in the thick of things. The ancient Romans are said to have been serious business like people and that is how he played the lead. If he has played it as young Hamlet it would have been inappropriate.
Maybe I would have kept watching it with the sound off -- I am not completely serious, but I am trying to make a point that it was easy on the eyes.
Perhaps what really kept me involved was that it it was pretty clear early in the film that it was going to be character and mood driven and would not depend simply on blood and sandals spectacle. Young men driven by honor and loyalty to do crazy things is a fascinating topic in my mind. This part was pulled off very well in my opinion. It kept me in suspense as a matter of "human interest" -- how far would this kid go to get back some stupid eagle? How far would his slave go out of loyalty to his master, despite his ambiguous feelings about him to begin with? Parts of their "buddy adventure" could be seen as tedious but for me they just kept up the tension of when will one or the other reach a breaking point?
Obviously viewers who can not empathize with boys who go into insane war conditions out of a feeling of honor or pride in the flag and who have over the years seen many of them disillusioned would not relate to the film this way. And obviously people who do not empathize with people who go overboard out of loyalty to friends and then have seen the loyalty reach a breaking point also would not relate to the dramatic tension in the film the same way I did.
Thus one thing I want to say here is that I really appreciated the alternative endings that were presented, because they were important parts of the whole story for me. I watched the non-rated blu ray version. The theatrical ending was really lame in my opinion, but it was probably the crowd pleaser. Mission accomplished, the eagle is brought back to the big shots and then the kid has earned the right to tell them off. Cliche #10,000.
The alternative ending was also a cliche, but it was in my opinion more fitting with the rest of the film because it suggested that the boy warrior had learned something and matured from his contacts with "the enemy." Most superficially he had learned that the symbols were not that important and that the esteem of the rulers was not that important. What was important was people and their substance regardless of rank and honors.
This gets us around to why I say it was good enough to be controversial. The film is sell enough done to get you involved with the characters and wonder SHOULD they just keep going with honor and loyalty. Is being patriotic to Rome really worth all this? How sane is honer taken to this level, which is not entirely unrealistic for some guys. There is something admirable, and I am not putting it down. But it is debatable and worth discussing.
Yes then as former slave and master go off into the sunset all but holding hands this might look sort of corny, but it does tie things together. They had both grown into real people instead of puppets of their cultures.
Some have called their relationship homoerotic. Well, maybe. Who knows? Who cares? What would that have to do with anything? It was a buddy film, and buddies can come to love each other in buddy ways as brothers or whatever. There was intimate male bonding and that would be natural after all they had been through. Is that really corny or even unusual when you think about it? Male intimacy is still awkward for many guys in our culture, and there are some women who see male coalitions as threats. So that part of the alternative ending may have been objectionable to some because of "deep" psychological reasons, and it might be tempting to "dismiss" it as homoerotic (whatever that means). But painting labels like that is a distraction from the simple fact that the two had been though a heck of a lot and obviously had developed the trust and mutual respect to consider making a life together as partners. So this was the consistent ending in terms of the tension all along that had been working itself out in their relationship.
In addition to the alternative ending -- that I would say is a must watch -- the deleted scenes were substantial and worthwhile. The "making of" was better than most but not tops. I confess that I got tired of the director's commentary and stopped watching. But then I was coming down with a bug.