Wow, what a great movie!  I was very, very impressed and entertained throughout.

Neil Marshall is quickly becoming one of my favorite film makers.  He just seems to get it, and continually presents solid films on a modest budget that look like much bigger movies.

The film is violent, with graphic depictions of battle and death.  The FX are rock solid.

Strong, intriguing characters, all well acted and "real".  Standouts were the 3 women, IMO, with Olga Kurylenko turning in the strongest performance.

Story is well done, and well thought out and moves at a nice pace.  And you just have to love the "happy ending".  Usually, this type of stuff doesn't work, but it does here, and that says alot for all involved.

Why didn't this get the distribution it so deserved?  No clue.  I can't see any reason why this wouldn't have been a theatrical success.

Great movie all the way around.  Check it out!

Thanks for the rec, dude. Didn't know Marshall already made a new film. After Doomsday, that is. I didn't see Doomsday but I've caught parts of it and it definitely didn't seem as bad as it was made out to be. Dude's a solid director and I'm actually glad he decided to branch out from horror movies.

Also, I love the consistent use of terms like "modest" and "mere" to describe 10-30 million dollar budgets. As an aspiring director, I feel like I wouldn't need more than 10 million at the most to shoot the majority of my scripts. I can think of two exceptions. Maybe the average action flick not directed by a big name still costs 85 million but I just can't lose sight of exactly how much money that is, even if it's a regular figure for the industry.

I think the budget was $12 Million.  It's a fairly big movie and a period piece, so that size of budget is pretty small. for this kind of flick  The movie sure doesn't look small, though.  Right off the bat, i could tell the look was great and the FX were awesome.

It's available on Netflix streaming, so do yourself a favor and check it out.

BTW, I hated Doomsday.  I was very disappointed.  Maybe I should give it another view, but it just struck me as extremely cliche, pedestrian, and been there, seen it too many times.

Quoted from Dreamscale BTW, I hated Doomsday.  I was very disappointed.  Maybe I should give it another view, but it just struck me as extremely cliche, pedestrian, and been there, seen it too many times.

I saw maybe ten minutes of it. I can't really say if it was good. But it was supposed to be to be awful and it seemed at least adequate. But for all I know about it, I might as well have just seen the trailer.

I'm going to be Siskel to Jeff's Ebert on this one.
I thought Centurion was overwhelmingly adequate.
The look, choreography and direction are top notch, no argument there.

I really wanted to like this film more, I am a fan of Marshall's earlier films.
Dog Soldiers and The Descent were two of the better horror entries this decade.
At least Centurion isn't as self indulgent and sloppy as Doomsday was.
Doomsday was supposed to be a big love letter to Escape from New York.
But it had none of the Reagan era anti hero charm of that superior film.

Efficient, slick, fast paced, these things are all true about Centurion.
However, I never cared what was going on, I was just along for the ride.
That's okay in an action film, if you have an engaging plot and some nice set ups.
And that's where I felt Centurion stepped on its own sandal.
Marshall stripped down the script to the point where its barely present.

Yes, this does look for very for the budget they had, no doubt.
But the cheapest way to entertain is with dialog and characters.
Everyone brought their A game to the set, but they forgot about the script.
I can barely tell anyone apart, which is a no no for a chase picture.
I should know something about the prey if you want me to care.
Centurion isn't interested in that, it just wants to be efficient entertainment.

So, with regret, I think the film is only a modest success.
Not quite enough action to bring in the Friday night crowd.
Not enough drama to bring in the Gladiator crowd.
Not enough character development to entertain beyond its effective design.

I think with some more care, they would have had something special here.
Instead, its a decent way to spend 90 minutes, but ultimately forgettable.
I hope Marshall's next film will swing for the bleachers instead of laying down a bunt.

E.D.

Hey Brett (ED, that is your name, right?), I do have to agree with you to a certain extent about the characters and script.

I too had trouble telling everyone apart, and in no way could I give you any detail as to who was who, why they were doing what they were doing, etc.  I can see where some may take issue with this.

The females all stood out though.  Olga was mute and I doubt the blond said more than a handful of words, but they didn't need to, IMO.  This wasn't a movie that was meant to be anything more than exactly what it was...a kickass, fun ride, loaded with epic battles and graphic violence.

Now, take Poots' character...the outcast witch.  A total cliche?  Probably. Seen it before?  Sure.  But she worked...very well, actually.  IMO, it was a wonderful ending that actually seemed believable.

So, although I definitely hear what you're saying, IMO movies like this don't need to do anything more.  Actually, all that any movie needs to do is be entertaining, look good, and offer 90+ minutes of escapism.  Neil Marshall has proven he can do this over and over, and I for one, hope he sticks to his roots and tells stories the way he wants to.

Quoted from Dreamscale Why didn't this get the distribution it so deserved?  No clue.  I can't see any reason why this wouldn't have been a theatrical success. Great movie all the way around.  Check it out!

Yes, in spite of the few (intentional) anachronisms, the film was well done. But, Dreamscale, do you really want to know the answer?

Here's a hint: check out the U.S. distributor. The same fate awaits the upcoming US release of "Black Death".  and what happened to Jennifer Lynch's "Surveillance" a few years ago. And  James Gray's"Two Lovers".

Magnolia Pictures and their sub-genre arm of Magnet releasing... Now, most of the films they pickup are docs, low budget indies, or films that were made (and in some cases already released theatrically) overseas.

In any case, the release platform goes like this:

1- Pickup for distribution.
2- VOD / HDNet cable viewing the day before theatrical release.
3- Limited theatrical run (2-3 weeks) *only* in Lakeview Cinema chains.
4- Video release a month to four months later.

2 and 3 are related; because of VOD, most theater chains will not book the film, as is not considered "first run". Also, the cable/VOD eliminates most awards requirements. (Lakeview is owned by 2929 Entertainment, which also owns Magnolia/Magnet and HDNet)

Because of the platform, advertisement and promotion is light ar best.

In the view of a North American box office, it would be looked at as a bomb, even if ot might make most of its money overseas or on a video release. This is not to say the filmmakers are getting screwed. Some of them actually embrace VOD.

I understand all that, Darren.  I thought Surveillance was a great flick as well.

But, here's my question...they spent $12 Million on this film.  They won't make that through the distribution you're mentioning...right?

Would this movie gross $12 Million WW with a proper release?  Sure it would.  Why wouldn't it?  How couldn't it?

Why spend $12 Million and not give it a shot, especially when the finished product is strong, well done, with a great look, a big theatrical kind of flick, a following for Neil marshall...What am I missing here again and again?

Another movie comes to mind as well...Horsemen with Dennis Quaid...not a great movie, but a big budget for an unknown DTV.

If you know the answer, I'm all ears, as I constantly ponder shit like this.

Centurion was released first in the UK. Likewise, Black Death had a recent UK run.
Centurion has, to date, made up only half the budget.

But, hey, it's better fate than what happened to Dog Soldiers, which kicked all kinds of butt and even had an American producer on board (Dave Allen, nice fellow) and where did it go in the US? Right to the Sci-Fi channel~! (SyFy)



I was not a big Doomsday fan- Neil Marshall's biggest film as far as budget and theatrical exposure is concerned. But everything else -especially Dog Soldiers and Decsent- are horror gold. But I'm also becoming a James Gray fan too- another director who is underrated.

I was not a big fan of Horsemen.

But here's the thing: sometimes, some studios don't think there is a market for a given movie, and they will blow it off to video. Sometimes the films are crap, sometimes not. Personally, I'm shocked a bit at the HDNet/VOD platform, and I have frowned on it in recent years because of quality. I usually have to catch the films on video.

Centurion didn't disappoint me, although I wasn't crazy about the opening titles.

Quoted from Dreamscale But, here's my question...they spent $12 Million on this film.  They won't make that through the distribution you're mentioning...right? Would this movie gross $12 Million WW with a proper release?  Sure it would.  Why wouldn't it?  How couldn't it? Why spend $12 Million and not give it a shot, especially when the finished product is strong, well done, with a great look, a big theatrical kind of flick, a following for Neil marshall...What am I missing here again and again? Another movie comes to mind as well...Horsemen with Dennis Quaid...not a great movie, but a big budget for an unknown DTV. If you know the answer, I'm all ears, as I constantly ponder shit like this.

Jeff,

I'm with you on Centurion being efficient entertainment.
I just wish Marshall traded some of that efficiency for some distinctiveness.
And I think its that lack of distinction that doomed Centurion's domestic distribution.
The movie has no hook. Decent action, decent gore, decent look, nothing stands out.
It's a competent and effective production, but who cares without a hook?
It's not personal, there's no far reaching consequences for their actions.
Centurion is basically a 90 minute chase picture, with low to middling stakes.
That's a tough nut to market to get people to plunk down $25 on date night to see it.
And so it goes the VoD route. I was fortunate to see it in theaters.
Marshall shoots with an anamorphic lens and has a good eye.
I only wish he had given Centurion a chance to be more than efficient fun.

As to Horseman, if memory serves, there were massive financial issues.
Along the lines of production being halted for over a year.
There are some inconsistencies with Quaid's look and that's why.
I believe it was a French Canadian financier that had legal trouble.
Money finally got cobbled together so they push it through the pipe with bad buzz.
I think there's more to the story, but I've had vodka, its all I can recall right now. =p

Regards,
E.D. (yes, its Brett)

Yeah, Brett, you're right about Horsemen.  I actually posted a thread on it back in August.  $20 Million budget, and a year of problems, and then reshoots where a key role had to wear a ridiculous wig and mustache that was quite obvious.

This whole thing still doesn't make sense to me.  I understadn what you're saying about Centurion not having a distinct hook, or even being a rather generic period chase movie.  But, they knew all that going in.  They knew that when someone ponied up $12 Million.  I can't imagine that the film turned out worse than anyone anticipated...I bet it turned out better even.

So, up front, was the expectation to release it the way they did, knowing damn well that it would not be a money making situation?  How and why would that be?

Again, I just don't get it...and I can't blame it on the vodka, cause it's morning here and 7 hours away from Opening Hour.

Take care.

Quoted from Dreamscale This whole thing still doesn't make sense to me.  I understadn what you're saying about Centurion not having a distinct hook, or even being a rather generic period chase movie.  But, they knew all that going in.  They knew that when someone ponied up $12 Million.  I can't imagine that the film turned out worse than anyone anticipated...I bet it turned out better even. So, up front, was the expectation to release it the way they did, knowing damn well that it would not be a money making situation?  How and why would that be? Again, I just don't get it...and I can't blame it on the vodka, cause it's morning here and 7 hours away from Opening Hour. Take care.

Magnet/Magnolia maybe fulfilling some VoD contract or something.
My gut says its some contractual thing.
Magnet could be scoffing up properties to build a reputation, who can be sure.
I am bummed to hear about their most recent acquisition today...
Hobo with a Shotgun
Little to no chance of that getting a theatrical now.
It stings thinking that one won't get a decent theatrical release.

Regards,
E.D.

Apparently, I didn't like this as much as you did, Jeff. I thought it was good. Just nothing special.

But I'll stick to what I thought was good about it. Right off the bat, the film shows us its intentions. To be a Roman period flick with as many gross out moments as possible and maybe a few one liners just for fun. And while I had a fair share of nitpicks, it seems pointless to cut down on a film with such modest aspirations.

Except CG blood always looks bad. If Scorsese can't pull it off, you probably shouldn't try.

That said, the film does have plenty of gore. More so than most swords and sandals flicks. The big battle scene looked like practically every shot was a money shot. Even in Gladiator, you have maybe two or three really gory shots per scene. And then you have a guy piss into a barrel full of water Fassbender's head is getting dunked in. I mean they really aren't shooting for prestige here. But it's fun for the most part. These films could do with more giant flaming balls... okay, that sounded wrong but you know what I mean.

I think we're all on the same page that the characters are pretty meh but I thought they actually got better as they went along. And honestly, most of these epics take themselves so seriously that anytime Russell Crowe or whoever tries to make some character development, you might as well take a double shot of NyQuil. I also appreciated that the dialogue wasn't period specific. Not great in terms of accuracy but it helps get you into the movie and some of the one liners weren't too bad.

I suppose it doesn't help that I just came out of watching The Last Temptation of Christ for the first time. A mini-epic like this just can't follow something like that (although ironically the two might've been around the same budget). But whatever. I suppose it was some decent disposable entertainment and I do in fact agree that the ending was pretty sweet. I felt satisfied, more or less.

Good to hear, James.  I think I do agree with everything you're saying here.

As I say over and over, for me, it's really just about the film working or not working, and this film worked.  It's also about ending on a high note, and this ending really succeeded for me in that regard.

The CG blood wasn't great, but it was better than most, IMO.

It succeeded in what it set out to do, and for me, that spells success.

Good call Jeff!!!  I thought this was a pretty cool movie, not great, but its a fun 2 hrs spent, this is what I would call a "bang for your buck" movie, you get what you expect. It's a very good looking movie that made it look like it cost more than it did, and it pulls through to the end, it won't be remembered in history, but it doesn't bore and it's a lot of fun, plus i'm a sucker for these kinds of films as well, i loved gladiator, braveheart, and this goes on that list, even my mom liked it and she's mostly into the meg ryan/tom hanks rom/com films...that's gotta say something!