Review: The Eagle

Set in 140AD, the film concerns Roman centurion Channing Tatum, whose father was the commander of the infamously ill-fated Ninth Legion of 5,000 men still MIA. Tatum attempts to restore prestige and honour to his family by tracking down the title gold eagle, which was a proud emblem of the Roman army, but is currently lost. Jamie Bell plays a British slave named Esca, who accompanies Tatum on his mission beyond Hadrian’s Wall. But can Esca be trusted? (His people were Tatum’s father’s sworn enemy, after all) Donald Sutherland plays Tatum’s uncle, Tahir Rahim plays a villainous tribal leader, and Mark Strong turns up as one of the lost legionnaire.

 

This 2011 film from director Kevin Macdonald (“Touching the Void”, “The Last King of Scotland”, “State of Play”) and screenwriter Jeremy Brock has some fine elements in it, but there’s a whole lot of wrong here too. The cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle (whose handheld work on “Antichrist”, “Slumdog Millionaire”, and “127 Hours” hardly makes him perfectly suited for a Roman epic) was a giant sticking point for me. I know it’s a moot point by now, but I’m just not into digital. By and large it just doesn’t look as good and I don’t care how cheap it is. The scenery (Scotland and Hungary, apparently) looks dim, muddy, and muted. In fact, it looks like a poorly shot episode of “Spartacus: Blood and Sand”. That’s a shame, because if shot normally, the scenery would look lovely and damp, without the added distraction of muted blue-green colour correction. Night scenes in particular really show you the limitations of video. It’s ugly and hard to see a damn thing. The day scenes are better, but still muted and monochromatic. Meanwhile, in one scene we have a room lit by yellow flames from candles and yet the scene is bathed in blue. Nothing in the room is meant to be blue, mind you. Yes, I’ll keep harping on about this until someone gives me an answer to why it needs to be like this. Don’t get me wrong, this photography isn’t incompetent. It’s deliberately stylised- I just don’t find the style personally appealing. The only time it worked for me was in the stylised dreams or visions, which are more interesting and brighter. They almost have a Marcus Nispel (“Pathfinder”) vibe about them. They’re the best part of the film, but sadly a minor part.

 

The action scenes, meanwhile, are the one truly botched element of the film. They are shot in a way entirely unappealing to me; Shaky-cam in full use and shot so close-up that the combination of these two things results in complete incoherency. I can see going in close every now and then might be effective, but when there are practically no wide shots at all, it can only lead to disaster and confusion. And damn it, your vision surely doesn’t shake when you’re engaged in battle, so doing so with the camera only alerts you to the fact that this is staged. Add to that a dour, pensive tone and a complete lack of energy mustered up by the director, and you’ve got a film that’s very hard to get invested in or excited about.

 

I also have an irrational problem with all these American (or in Donald Sutherland’s case, Canadian) accents in the film. Admittedly, British accents are no more plausible in a film set in Ancient Rome, but Yank accents always play awkwardly in these sorts of things. I guess the reason why certain characters speak with American accents as opposed to British is to distinguish between Romans (who speak with American accents) and Britons (who sound like Jamie Bell). It gets a little weird when British actor Mark Strong turns up as a Roman and thus speaks with an American accent instead of his natural British accent.

 

The performances are a mixed bag. Channing Tatum isn’t terrible and tries hard, but his pensive and solemn performance isn’t terribly interesting, either. Full marks for the dude trying to branch out, but when he’s not especially good at the kind of romantic hunk role he normally plays, maybe he’s not a ‘branching out’ kinda guy. I’ve seen worse casting in this sort of thing, though (Tony Curtis, Brad Pitt, and Paul Newman spring to mind). Similarly, character actor Dakin Mathews is an oddball choice for this sort of thing, but he’s fairly solid in a small role. Mark Strong, meanwhile, is once again better than the film itself, ditto Donald Sutherland. The best performance in the entire film comes from Jamie Bell, who once and for all leaves “Billy Elliott” behind him. His physique seems too modern and short for gladiatorial combat, but that’s nitpicking. If you’re gonna see the film, it should be for Bell’s performance, and the drum-heavy music score is really good.

 

This is a slow, dour film which is unattractive to look at. That’s unfortunate, because Jamie Bell is impressive, and the film is far more serious-minded than say “300” or “Immortals”. There’s not much in the way of villainy (at least for the most part) or even an interesting plot, but the film has its moments here and there. A complete lack of energy or thrust is what really holds this one back, however. It’s all a bit stodgy.

 

Rating: C+