Centurion

Men vs. Wild. These guys would need a few lessons from Bear Grylls. If they run out of bad luck, they run like hell. When they run, they don't think. They don’t have any of the good sense that is expected from the viewers. Ninety minutes of running, sitting, chewing, blathering (about wounds that can’t be seen and such) and killing. The most obvious thing in the scenes of carnage is the geysers of blood, which bring to light Marshall’s background in horror. There are none of the scary scenes that the situation comprising "a few nobodies in the wilderness" would require. Nor is there any value added beyond the ancient violence. Just as the parallel to the Iraq war, which is also a drawn-out and fruitless endeavour, is luke-warm, the presence of an Arab and a black man on the "team" is contrived. I don’t understand the point of such a film as this, like The Fellowship of the Ring, but with significantly less money and intellect invested in it. Even though the terribly illegible opening credits promise a grand spectacle, there apparently wasn’t enough money left over for money shots and if you’re not turned on by severed limbs, you can look forward only to two women, who are – as always in male fantasies brought to life – mysterious, quiet and sexy. But you don’t need a ninety-minute film for that; just close your eyes for a moment. 50% (01/19/2012)

How could I have missed Centurion all these years? Historical films have always interested me, especially the ones that turn out well. I always enjoy watching such films to get a sense of life back then. Believe me, you wouldn’t want to be in northern Britain in the second century A.D., because ending up in the hands of the Picts? No, thanks. I must admit that historical accuracy isn’t the film’s strongest aspect, but it doesn’t matter much when it’s visually engaging and the battles are portrayed so realistically. The strangely looking digital blood did occasionally jar the eyes, but it was mostly tolerable. What I enjoyed most was the wartime chaos. Fassbender was a brilliant choice for the lead role, and the others supported him well, especially the devilishly silent Kurylenko, whose actions spoke louder than words. For such a low budget, the film looks as gritty as it should, and the choice of filming locations was also commendable (the scenery was stunning). The story may not deviate from established norms, but due to the R-rated action that doesn’t hold back and the more than solid performances, it’s worth watching. I give it 79%. (12/28/2017)

Objectively, this is probably Marshall's weakest film, but in the "bloody historical carnage" category it's still a strong above-average film. It rests mainly on the director's sense of maximum blood (never mind that it splashes digitally) and charismatic actors. For an hour and a half where nothing actually happens, the film is fully immersive and makes you feel that sometimes there is real beauty in simplicity. (08/17/2010)

I'd like to give it four stars, I really would. For how exciting Centurion is, for how something is (almost) always going on, for how it's (almost) never boring and full of likeable characters, for how uncompromisingly it chops, stabs, cuts, slices, and God knows what else, for Marshall's ferocious direction, for Eshkeri's music, for the (to me) surprising Olga Kurylenko.... But I can't, because of the final confrontation, the witch and the more or less stupid ending. That’s too bad. Really too bad. So I give it a better three stars, knowing that I won't have a problem watching Centurion again sometime, which is definitely also a plus point. (03/04/2011)

I can't help it, but I was incredibly bothered by the fact that most of the bloody wounds here were digital. It's a shame that traditional tricks and masks weren't used. It would have suited the movie much better because "Centurion" is action-packed and gritty, and in that aspect, it definitely won't disappoint the viewer. However, it doesn't impress in terms of plot. (07/14/2017)