This film is a me-too movie attempting to capitalize off the success of pseudo histories such as Robin Hood and Arthur. My first objection to the movie is the font they chose to write the subtitles, locations, and plot points. It was difficult to read on my analog TV, especially when they opt for white on a pale blue background using an ancient looking font that is difficult to decipher in the first place. Now the reason why we have subtitles is for the Picts, who are native of Northern Britain. They don't speak English, but the Romans speak 21st century English, including one soldier with a British accent. "Sorry mate, but orders are orders," he says as he slices a Pict throat. OH PLEASE! If the Picts don't speak modern English, don't try to make it realistic with subtitles only to have the Romans speak English. The language spoken by the Picts is actually unknown.A Roman governor wanting to make a name for himself, opts to send the 9th Roman legion into the Pict stronghold in order to kill their king. The Roman governor uses a female Pict slave (whose parents were murdered by Romans, with her being raped as a child and her tongue cut out) to guild them into Pict territory. Guess how that works out Scooby-Doo? The ninth legion is wiped out except for the general who is taken captive and 7 Romans (who look more like an international group). They opt to do the stupid thing and attempt to rescue the general in the heart of a Pict camp. After they fail at that, they are hunted by Picts. For those who like killing, blood, urine, and violence this is your film. The overly simplistic plot, lack of good characterization, making us identify with the bad guys who we know will lose, poor attempts at humor, makes this the least enjoyable of the pseudo histories to date. They spent a lot of money making this film and wasted it on an inferior script.The story of the missing ninth Roman legion being destroyed by the Picts is legend. It actually got transferred to Judea.

Cheaply made, predictable, bad special effects, painful acting...why does Fassbender make these films (avoid Assassin's Creed as well)? My gf and I started laughing at it got so predictable. Mostly I am not sure why this film needed to get made? - it just brings nothing to the screen. I think pre-dated GoT so it's not mining that vibe. It actually served it's purpose for me as I needed a bad movie on to minimally distract me as I caught up on email.

Listen, I'm a big fan of Michael Fassbender, a big fan of war movies, and a big fan of historical films. This, however, didn't hit the depth that I was hoping. It had nice historical significance, showed a side of the Roman Empire I hadn't seen before, but I was lost wondering who I was supposed to be rooting for, I couldn't feel the emotion that the characters were trying to portray on screen, and I was distracted by heavy violence that felt was put in the movie "just because." They tried to make this an impactful film, with emotion that you would find in Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and We Were Soldiers, it just didn't hit it. It's worth seeing if you enjoy these type of war films, just don't expect to be blown away or to have your life changed.

but not real predictable. one of film who reminds clichés and fight scenes, and brutal confrontations , a necessary love story and a good cast. all in the sauce of the dark atmosphere, with heroism as spice and few scenes of involuntary humor. bitter, great and ordinary. inspired by the Roman history of Britain, it is out to be more than an action movie in which cruelty could save appearances. or one of films who you see only for the actors because the story is far by elementary expectations. sure, the good points are not missing. but the director seems be adapted to a clear recipes who impose clear rules and ignore any flavor of imagination. Romans on dangerous territory, clash with Barbarians and the same manner to present America using the references to the ancient Rome.