Open Letters Monthly: Zero Dark Thirty

One of the most important moments of our generation is easily the attack by extremists on September 11, 2001. If you were to ask ten people on the street, nine would be able to tell you exactly where they were when news of the first plane crashing into Tower One. Since then, we as a nation have been subjected t constant conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries around the globe in what has become known as "The War on Terror." While it has yet to come to a close, 2011 saw an end of sorts when a covert task group succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda and the man responsible for organizing attacks on our home soil.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has been trying to make this film since the success of her last Middle East war tale The Hurt Locker, and what she succeeds in bringing to the big screen takes everything you thought you knew about the War on Terror and turns it on its ear. Maya is a CIA operative newly stationed in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks. She single-mindedly dedicates herself to finding and eliminating her country's greatest threat, and sees many friends come and go for almost a decade. Finally, when all hope seems lost, one tiny lead will finally lead her to the end of her mission and the safety of her country.

Zero Dark Thirty is directed by Kathryn Bigelow and stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle, Edgar Ramirez, Mark Duplass and James Gandolfini. It is the #1 movie of 2012.

Click here to read the full review on Open Letters Monthly.

Way Over the Rainbow

It's not often that a film gets blasted before a single soul ever sees it. Normally, a well-known piece of American literature (in this case Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars") would be at least respected by potential audiences and reviewers months in advance. And yet, thanks to what has been called a "lackluster" marketing drive by Disney and a $250 million budget routinely criticized by movie "experts", there is a good chance that you will not see John Carter on the big screen in the coming days. That would be a mistake, as no matter how much Disney might not know how to advertise a movie geared towards boys (after all, their entire business used to be solely appealing to girls) it doesn't change the fact that I had a ton of fun watching it this past weekend. Todd and I had a choice between this and Silent House (which I'll be reviewing next week), and we decided that we were more in the mood for a light-hearted adventure tale than a spooky horror flick. Sure, 3D hasn't always been kind to me. Sure, it's being released in March, and there's not much released during this particular month that is usually any good. But dammit, we wanted a mindless sci-fi action film, and we didn't care from where we got it.

Soon, he'll be adding Best Picture nominee Battleship to his resume.

When Confederate Civil War hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) finds himself mystically transported to Mars (known to the locals as Barsoom), he finds himself squarely in the middle of an inter-species conflict, as war rages between the cities of Zodanga, a warrior nation intent on destruction, and the peaceful, scientifically superior city of Helium. Somehow Zodanga's leader Sab Than (Dominic West) has gotten his hands on a weapon superior to anything Helium has been able to produce. Dominating his enemies, Sab Than is intent on conquering Helium, and taking the genius Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) as his bride. Asked to help, John Carter is searching for meaning in his life but nevertheless intent on returning to his little bit of nowhere in the American West and a substantial deposit of gold that awaits his return. In his way is the war, a tribe of green skinned aliens known as Tharks, and a mysterious sect known as the Holy Therns, who have their own plans for cities and people of Barsoom.

Yeah, yeah, she's hot... but can she ACT?

John Carter might not seem it at first, but sitting through it makes you appreciate the work of Burroughs, essentially one of the great-grandfathers of modern science fiction. First published in 1912, Carter's adventures have always enjoyed a pulpy feel to their telling, a method that translates to the big screen easily, even if this is the first time the tale has been told in such a visually spectacular way. Director Andrew Stanton, whose resume has mostly consisted of animated films Finding Nemo and Wall-E, does an excellent job in his live action debut, though perhaps not as well as his Pixar compatriot Brad Bird did with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. He's helped by the fact that most of the film is animated to begin with, with almost all the backgrounds, effects and most of the leading roles created in post-production. The design of the alien Tharks is especially realistic, helping John Carter sport the best visual effects since Avatar. Stanton also perfectly captures the intended fictional vision of Mars, a wasteland that despite looking completely barren manages to support life on a grand scale. Top it off with excellent 3D and a musical score by Michael Giacchino, and you've got a perfectly realized Barsoom, easily the most realistic-looking setting for a sci-fi film I've witnessed in a long time.

It's an early twentieth-century sci-fi story... of COURSE there's a dog!

Sadly, the story doesn't quite live up to the standards set by the special effects. Though I haven't read any of the original novels, I'm willing to bet that the quality of the story can partly be attributed to the fact that the tale itself turns one hundred this year, and certainly not everything could be included for fear of simply not getting better with age. Thankfully, this is all but solved with liberal doses of humor that are scattered evenly throughout the film. Unlike last week's Ghost Rider, the humor here is 100% intentional, so there's never that moment where you're laughing at what a farce the show has become. Sure, sometimes the humor goes a little over the top or takes the obvious route to a laugh for the expressed purpose of ending a scene, but no matter what the reason for use, John Carter never fails to be funny when called upon to do so.

"Okay, yeah... I can take them!"

Really, the only disappointing aspect of John Carter is in the acting. It's not the supporting cast that fails us, however. Drawing upon substantial talent like Dominic West, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds (who seems to appear in everything these days), James Purefoy and Bryan Cranston in live action roles, the people on the screen would appear to be as mighty as any seen in the past few years. Add in the vocal talents of Academy Award nominees Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton, and you really do have a cast to be reckoned with. Sadly, it doesn't matter how many excellent supporting actors you've collected when your leads are a pair of noodles just taken out of the water. Taylor Kitsch is at least decent, though I don't see anything beyond his rugged good looks that certify him as a star in the making. Sure, he COULD be the next Hugh Jackman, but Jackman was a theatrically-trained actor who can also sing and dance, regularly showcasing abilities surpassing his presence among the top action stars in Hollywood today. If Kitsch wants to make a name for himself, he'll have to take on a role (and soon) which requires more from him than a guttural regurgitation of simplistic dialogue. The worst however is Lynn Collins, who can at least state that her performance is better than the one she put forth in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. No, that's really not saying much. Perhaps it's partially the character's fault, as Dejah Thoris pretends to be a strong female role while being simultaneously disallowed the opportunity to explore that idea. I felt that the dog had better character development, not a good sign for this pretty but not talent-endowed actress.

Awww, he just wants a hug... of DEATH!

As I've said, the film has flaws. I would have loved to look more into the background of the Therns, a mystical race much like Star Trek's Q species, omnipotent space-faring people that manipulate world event not for evil, but because they can. Perhaps that can be explored in the future, as John Carter was always meant to be the beginning of a film franchise. Whether that happens or not will be decided by how much business it builds in the next few weeks, but in the meantime I seriously enjoyed this film, to the tune of #4 for 2012. Rarely last year did I witness an action film that was the match of what John Carter put before me (the only one surpassing it would have been Hanna, and that title wasn't blessed with the same level of amazing effects), and between this, Underworld: Awakening, The Hunger Games and The Avengers in the year's first half, it's turning into a good year for genre films. I for one was more than pleased to discover that catching this particular title on the big screen was indeed no mistake.

Tinker Tailor on Mr. Anderson

When British author John le Carre released his fifth novel featuring Secret Intelligence Agent George Smiley in 1974, he can be forgiven perhaps for not realizing what he had on his hands at the time. The first novel in what became known as his Cold War-set "Karla Trilogy" went on to become a bestseller of international proportions, had radio and television adaptations made, and remains one of the best known British novels to date, completely revolutionizing the spy drama in the process. So when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy finally was given the cinematic treatment by director Tomas Alfredson (who made the original Swedish Let the Right One In), there were those fans of the book whose response was “it’s about time!” It helped that the cast brought in was chock full of talent, from standouts like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth to perhaps lesser known Tom Hardy and Toby Jones. Would any of these stellar abilities get any lasting recognition for such a renowned title? And how does this well-anticipated film fare over the course of a two hour movie when both previous adaptations had to be slotted into seven-part miniseries? My trek to the theater to add this to my yearly film allowance would hopefully answer that.

Gary Oldman: classic curmudgeon

In the wake of a blown operation in which British spy Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is shot and captured by Russian intelligence operatives, a shakedown is performed at the top of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, forcing out "Control" (John Hurt), the SIS’s director, and his right hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Control is convinced however that one of the four men left in charge of the SIS in his departure is in fact a mole, funneling secrets to Russian Intelligence. When Control, already ill, passes away, it is left to Smiley to ferret out what few clues can be found and to see which of the four operatives, code-named Tinker (Toby Jones), Tailor (Colin Firth), Soldier (Ciaran Hinds) and Poorman (David Dencik), is the culprit, and whether the mole has anything to do with the top secret source of intelligence from Russia, known only as “Witchcraft”.

Yes, books... you might have heard of them

As I mentioned before, the exhaustive cast is one of the major draws if Tinker Tailor appeals to you. Gary Oldman reminds us of what a star he used to be in the nineties, as recent years have seen him starring in less-than-reputable titles or tagging on side roles in big series' like The Dark Knight or Harry Potter. Given center stage, however, he cuts a swath through the material in front of him, with every deliberate motion and dour grimace given for a very good reason, with no wasted energy to muddy up his delivery beyond exactly what is needed. It doesn’t hurt that he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, most notably Colin Firth as a rival Intelligence head and one of those suspected to be a mole. Firth plays up the clichéd British arrogance for the role, but because he’s Colin fricking Firth his performance doesn’t come off as trite or silly. Other standouts include Toby Jones as the smug new head of the SIS, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s confidante and overly cautious agent, and Mark Strong in a relatively small role as Jim Prideaux, the agent (and Firth’s character’s best friend)  whose capture sets off the whole mess. Kathy Burke impresses in one scene as a foul-mouthed source of information (I guess her character had a larger role in the book), vacillating between helpful and flirty with Smiley. Unfortunately, crushing the story of the book down to a two-hour film means a whole got left out, including a lot of back-story for suspects played by Ciaran Hinds and David Denick. It’s a shame as both are well-regarded actors who would have benefited from a little more screen time. Also impressive is rising Hollywood star Tom Hardy as young agent Ricki Tarr, whose appearance in London allows Smiley clues to the mole in his midst. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable with a shaggy head of hair, shows that no matter the role, no matter how out of place it might seem for him, he can do it. It’ll be a shame to see his career go mainstream (such as in the upcoming This Means War), but if there’s any justice in the world, his name atop billboards will inspire people to see his films sooner rather than later.

What's more ridiculous; his career ascension, or his hair?

The aforementioned plot compressions create other problems besides just glossed-over characters. On one hand, the story feels told as if no crucial details are left out, and the tension the film bears throughout feels completely natural to a spy thriller like this. On the other hand, the tension is born from square one, with little downtime for the viewers to stop and catch their breath amid all the potential treason. While no major details feel left out, the same cannot be said for minor, clarifying ones, and some narrative miscues will throw the viewer off for whole scenes at a time, especially some featuring Mark Strong early on. Overall, the whole thing feels as though you need to have read the book to fully appreciate the experience of seeing this film. This is unfortunately the byproduct of plot shrink, and thankfully it’s no more than a minor nuisance on the film as a whole. Sure, some characters and plot points would have made far more sense with a bit more prodding, but for the most part such details would have been nice additions, not necessary exposition.

He may not get an Academy Award, but he's still Colin Firth!

For a film based on a beloved novel, there were certainly plenty of places where a lesser filmmaker would have screwed up. Thankfully, Alfredson did his source material due diligence and brought together the perfect cast, melding them into a story that would have devolved into drawn-out mumbo-jumbo without a strong hand to guide them. This is one of the few times I will argue that a film should have been LONGER, but thankfully this is no reason not to see what amounts overall to a very good film. While perhaps not reaching “Must See” status, it’s just a rung below, and even if you don’t see this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in the theaters, I hope you’ll at least consider it a serious rental in a few month’s time. More importantly, I hope the Academy will show the film and especially lead Gary Oldman more love than the Golden Globes have. Oldman deserves a Best Actor nomination for his efforts, as much for how he has been ignored in today’s Hollywood as he has been vindicated in this international thrill ride.

Brightest Day or Blackest Night?

Are we getting sick of comic book films yet? That question will have been answered this past weekend when the take from the opening of DC Comics' Green Lantern has been counted out. Reported to be a $200 MILLION picture, its creation represents a huge risk, especially since there are only a handful of films released this year that earned that much. A large number of superhero/comic book films have been released this year as well, as titles from the mediocre Green Hornet to the excellent X-Men First Class making 2011 unparalleled for like releases. To top things off, Green Lantern has always been a B-class superhero for DC comics, with the company rotating the emerald mantle among a number of different characters to attract readers (Alan Scott, John Stewart, Guy Gardner, Kyle Ranier; take your pick). The point is that Green Lantern is a nice idea for a movie, but doesn't quite pack the anticipation for an audience comprised of more than your local fanboys (you know who they are). Despite these concerns I was still interested in seeing this film (and scoffed at by any who were told), not only because I'm a pseudo-comics fan, but because I was also attracted to the talented cast that featured Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively and Mark Strong. I also heard nothing but good things about Peter Sarsgaard as the film's villain, and with those combined talents I simply couldn't say no to an opening weekend show. I was surely only one of a few (my theater was sadly half-full) but sometimes you go into a film anticipating little more than visual spectacle; sometimes that's all you get. Other times you may come away with something more.

I hereby induct you into the Society of Bro's

After panicking and mentally freezing during a training exercise, test pilot Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is grounded and unable to come to terms with the fear that has plagued him his whole life. That makes the next series of events even more unbelievable, with the arrival of a dying alien, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), and a cosmic power ring that he hands to Jordan, naming him the newest recruit to the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force that protects the innocent. One of the Corps' greatest enemies, a being powered by fear called Parallax (Clancy Brown) has escaped imprisonment and is building strength before attacking the Lanterns outright. With Earth square in Parallax's path of destruction, Jordan must overcome his fears and save the universe, proving he has the mettle to be a true hero.

Hal's awkward prom years...

Though this title is far from the first comic book film released this year, Green Lantern did have one distinct advantage out of the gate; it was the only major property from DC Comics to have a release for 2011. In the past, the products of DC's rival Marvel Comics have often made for poor films, while DC has enjoyed great success, especially with the franchises born from their greatest heroes, Superman and Batman. For a long time, it seemed like their products could do no wrong (Yes, I am ignoring Steel, starring former Celtic Shaquille O'Neal). In recent years, it has been the opposite, as DC has barely maintained a minimum quality to their theatrical releases, with the obvious exception of the Batman reboot. Green Lantern gives the comic company a potential frontline unit, to build not just one but a series of films around.

Yeah, if I were you I'd get that looked at...

On the casting front, at least Green Lantern sports the right names for the job. Hal Jordan for years as a comic character was kind of square, so shoehorning Reynolds into the part works out exceptionally well. Reynolds brings the same blend of talent and humor that he brings to every role, resulting in an entertaining performance that screams "leading man". His natural charisma of course is the reason he's been so successful in the first place, but he really tries to stretch himself to new heights here. It's too bad all his best jokes were revealed in the film's several trailers; many funny moments elicited nary a titter from the audience. Lively again forces herself away from the Gossip Girl spotlight in a more mature role. After being underrated in last year's The Town, Lively doesn't quite ascend to those lofty heights; however, she still acts beyond her years as Carol Ferris, who thankfully is no mere love interest for Jordan, as she's too smart, strong, spunky and brave to be stuck in that gutter. She would probably be seen as the best part of the cast, if it weren't for Sarsgaard. The actor, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for the 2003 film Shattered Glass, does a wonderful job playing Hector Hammond, an acquaintance of Jordan and Ferris who unwittingly becomes exposed to the influences of the film's main villain and becomes one of Green Lantern's nemeses. It helps that the role is sympathetically written, as you actually feel sorry for Hammond over the course of the film. Sarsgaard takes that aspect and runs with it, and how this man hasn't had a high-profile leading role astounds me (mayhaps our good friend Elmo has something to do with it, Sarsgaard being married to Maggie Gyllenhaal, his longtime object of affection). Some of the supporting roles are chocked with talent, but don't do a whole hell of a lot. Angela Bassett is wasted on DC supervillain Dr. Amanda Waller, who doesn't do much more than deliver dialogue in a sardonic manner. Same with Taika Waititi, who plays one of Jordan's best friends but only appears in the few scenes where Ferris doesn't fit in. Morrison may be best known as Jango Fett but does a good job in the small role of dying alien Abin Sur. The Green Lantern Corps as a whole doesn't really do much more than that, with Strong once again putting forth a strong (sorry) performance as Sinestro, and Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan doing some suitable voice work on the side. You get the feeling that if there are future films, they will hold a larger role, but here don't have as much of an impact.

How does one best admit that he has a magic lantern and flies around in tights all day?

And impact is mostly what's missing from Green Lantern, both in the visuals and in the narrative. It's obvious that a lot of money was spent rendering and polishing all the animation and converting it into yet another 3D film. More than a few of the visuals however look unfinished, especially those that take place in space and on the Green Lantern planet of Oa. Though the imagery is better than several similar films over the course of 2011, this was already a film that relied on visuals more than story, and to falter even slightly in that respect makes for an underwhelming experience. The main story's focus on overcoming fear is hardly strong enough to stand on its own, although it is at least done in a realistic manner. Green Lantern also takes some darker turns in the final act which feel out of place amid the rest of the story. Finally, the film doesn't feel like a standalone product, with Parallax and Hector Hammond seemingly holding the fort until a real villain comes along, presumably in a sequel.

A childhood dream of being known as "The Crimson Avenger goes unfulfilled

But a sequel would seem unlikely, given the circumstances. Instead of introducing a new superhero to the masses, Green Lantern only manages to appeal to diehard fans of the character, and even the groundbreaking comic series Sinestro Corps and Blackest Night over the past few years hasn't raised his popularity to the point where a movie is necessarily a great idea. Still, the film is better than it probably has any right being, and overall I enjoyed myself in the theater despite its multitude of flaws. It will probably be remembered as among the weakest superhero films of 2011, but people shouldn't take that as a sign that is a bad movie. It had a good if not great time, and if you can't wait until it comes out on DVD, do yourself the favor of at least not paying premium rates to see it in 3D.

The Empire Strikes Back

You might recall back in November, I reviewed an independent film from Descent director Neil Marshall called Centurion. The film followed a band of lost Roman soldiers being chased from Pict tribes in what is now known as the Great Britain, the edge of the known world at the time. At the review's end, I predicted that the wide-release and extremely similar Hollywood film The Eagle, when it was to be released, would be nowhere close to the quality of Marshall's film, despite director Kevin Macdonald being a more renowned director (winning an Academy Award for his 2000 documentary One Day in September). The film not only takes places around the same time as Centurion, but also uses the fabled disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion as its main plot device. In this, it is far from the first. In fact, the Lost Ninth has been the focus of many books and films, not the least of which is the 1954 novel The Eagle of the Ninth, on which the film I'm reviewing today is officially based.With the lack of viable film releases in recent weeks and harboring no desire to be depressed into next month (sorry, Biutiful, I'll get to you soon), I decided this last Saturday to take in the historically-inaccurate action film. I certainly did not expect much from The Eagle, but I was at least hoping it would surpass my limited expectations and make for an enjoyable if brainless activity.

Marcus's secret attack - The Smolder

The film begins with the arrival of Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) in Roman-occupied Britain approximately twenty years after the legion led by his father - you guessed it, the Ninth - disappeared in the wilderness of the north, never to be seen again. Since then, Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of what is known today as Hadrian's Wall, with the intent of keeping the barbaric tribes outside of Rome's control from attacking "civilized" folk. After serving briefly as a Roman Centurion, Marcus hears rumors of the lost legion's standard, a gold eagle statuette, seen north of the wall. Intent on recovering the symbol of Rome and restoring his family's honor, he heads into the unknown world with only the Scottish slave Esca (Jamie Bell) as escort. Together, they search for the item and honor, facing the dangers of Britain's northern lands every step of the way.

Yes, I'm stealing this line from Airplane: "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

Kevin Macdonald made some interesting, perplexing decisions in making the film. The most obvious was his casting Americans as the conqueror Romans. Normally in film, when you have an over-lording empire, whether it be the Romans or the Sith, your average casting job in these instances calls for lots and lots of British actors. Besides the obvious talent pool you have from filming in Europe, it simply feels more authentic when your empire soldiers speak with a clipped British accent. I know that doesn't make a ton of sense, what with English not being even close to being a language at a time and Britain in fact not even being officially on the same LAND MASS as the city of Rome. But, for me at least, the British accent makes it feel more familiar and acceptable. American voices in comparison just sound so... UNREFINED. Even talented actors like those of Donald Sutherland (yes, I know he's Canadian) simply don't seem to belong in these roles, and they represent the upper echelon of acting talent. In an early scene basically spelling out the pretense of the film, Macdonald managed to secure some of the worst vocal talents this side of a Limp Bizkit concert to set up the film's tale. I mean... I GET IT. You use Americans to represent this country's history as a conquering nation, using Picts and Gauls to represent Native Americans. I can understand that just fine. What I can't forgive is the ham-handedness with which this was carried out, culminating in a first third of a film that just doesn't feel very well put together.

Yes, that will probably hurt

Another unfortunate decision was to make the film PG-13. There are numerous fights that occur through the course of the story, and if this had been a more ambitious film, it would have upped the blood and gore conspicuously absent from the film. It certainly didn't need to be as bloody as Centurion (which made a point of dismembering each representative limb at least TWICE during the length of the film) but the surprisingly bloodless battles and just-off-screen violence make The Eagle feel lifeless and dull in even these instances and practically begs for an "unrated" DVD release. There are some acts (including the murder of a small child) that would easily have knocked the film's rating up to R had it just been slightly more in the frame. This can only be seen as cowardice on the part of the filmmakers, perhaps worried that their film would not reach a prospective audience with an R rating.

What's hidden is that not one of them is wearing pants

As for historical accuracy, Macdonald had said he wanted to be as accurate as possible, but when you're dealing with a disputed legend and ancient tribes for which little is known, there's not a whole lot to work with. The best you can do is nail down the Romans, and for all intents and purposes, the director seems to at least pull that off. Of course, the only major detail they focus on - and of course they make SURE you notice it too - is the fact that the Roman helmet apparently left a distinctive (and convenient) welt under your chin. I guess I can't be too disappointed, since the film is based on a novel written for children, not any actual historical tale. Most historical analysts won't be paying much attention to this film anyway, I suspect.

Joey REALLY liked gladiator movies

The acting left a lot to be desired, though much can be attributed to a lazily-woven script rather than unambitious acting. I thought Tatum was actually much better here than than he had been in GI Joe, though any who remember that particular film know that's not saying much. At times his natural charm shines through, but at others he's still wooden and uninteresting. He's certainly got the looks to be a star; now he just needs his acting talents to rise to that same level. Jamie Bell suffers from the flaw of his first film role being the most memorable; he might likely never reach the level of success predicted for him after Billy Elliot made him an overnight sensation. Since that time he's mainly played supporting roles in big movies, and his future as a top-billed performer probably will be determined by how well his role is received in this year's Tintin movie. Still, he's the best part of this film, instilling heart into young Esca, with the audience never knowing for sure where the slave's loyalties lie. Donald Sutherland is as I have said a talented performer, but he has pretty much resorted to slumming it up in lesser films like this, chewing scenery long enough to get the story underway. I guess now that he has his official star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he feels he can stop doing the good jobs and just go for a paycheck. Well, I guess I can't blame him for that. Mark Strong (Seriously? Seems like he's in everything lately) appears as a tribesman who knows where the Eagle is, and does a fine enough job with it. And French actor Tahar Rahim puts forth a very convincing portrayal as another tribe's prince and the film's main antagonist. His performance is possibly the most consistent in the whole movie, with the only exception being Bell's.

Apparently gift horses come in all shapes and sizes

As I stated before, I didn't have high hopes for The Eagle going in. I hate to keep comparing it to Centurion, but when Neil Marshall takes the same topic and runs with it, it just comes out BETTER on all counts. The Eagle barely stands on its own feet however, and while you can plainly see Macdonald trying to make this scrap heap of broken parts into a piece of art, it too often reverts to overly-simplistic storytelling, marginally average acting, and a poorly-written story that doesn't make you care one whit about what's happening on the screen. And don't get me started on the positively stupid ending. I'm sure I'll see worse before year's end, but since I've only seen three 2011 films, The Eagle coming in at #4 just doesn't seem to do justice to how poor I though it turned out. With March looking like a packed house of interesting titles, I'm sure this film will be out of the Top 10 before too long, I'm just not sure how long I can wait for that.