Morally confusing, lots of gaffes

Rating: 5/10 (16 June 2012)

It's a fun movie to watch, but there are lots of little gaffes, some of which are probably because of budgeting. For instance, 3000 Roman soldiers march into enemy territory....with no supplies. Oh, there are two wagons, haha, but a Roman soldier actually carried a lot of gear. Here, they just stomp around with their weapons; the costume budget probably couldn't provide for all the gear etc... The whole fireball thing mystified me....what were the balls? How did they light them? Smaller details that could have been more accurate: Romans primarily stabbed with the gladius, aiming at eyes, throats, hands, etc; here they swing them about like mighty claymores, slicing off heads and limbs. Or again, Roman armor would have provided far more protection against the inferior Pict weaponry that we see in this film. The *idea* of the ambush, however, seems inspired by the actual historical debacle of Teutoberg Forest, so I get that, and think that was a pretty good idea to link a known incident with the mystery of the 9th Legion's disappearance in history.
More seriously and I think fatal to the film, the plot is morally confused as to whom we should sympathize with. Initially, we're supposed to root for the Roman survivors, who were led into ambush by a traitor. But then we see some of the Romans threatening to ditch others, and one of them does sacrifice his comrade to wolves to save his own skin. Meanwhile, Etain turns out to be a victim of horrible Roman atrocities in the past. So, actually, I found myself sympathizing with Etain and the Picts, not the Romans, at which point I was pretty confused. In fact, I think the plot really missed a golden opportunity at the end. It should have been Etain who killed the Roman that killed the king's boy. Furthermore, I think she should have had an opportunity to kill Diaz but display mercy instead; or vice versa (in which she would experience mercy instead of crime at the hands of a Roman). Indeed, it felt wrong to kill Etain at the end, even if it was in self-defense. (Perhaps this results from the film trying to please everyone and offend no one. The film is a bit too PC, anachronistically inserting female "Amazon" Pict warriors going toe-to-toe with professional Roman soldiers, and a multi-racial Roman force surely calculated to appeal to international theater audiences. Are the Picts good? Bad? Are the Romans good? Bad? It's all muddled, which makes the film muddled.) That wolf scene, by the way, was completely laughable. Why would wolves spend precious energy chasing two healthy, armed humans for hours, even days? Other oddities: How can Etain smell the Romans across a valley, but can't smell them when they are underneath the floor she is standing on? Why do the Romans on the wall shoot the approaching Roman survivor, but apparently don't shoot Quintus? And wouldn't the Roman riding towards the wall *clearly see* that the soldier on the wall was aiming a bow and arrow at him? lol The whole Arianne/witch scene really interrupted the flow of a "chase" movie. The film struggled to transition back to the sense of urgency. But at least they don't get too involved with the romance subplot. Mercifully, there is no lusty, passionate sex scene!
On the plus side, the dialogue, though modern, is rough and tumble, like you would expect in an army. And there are several humorous exchanges, my favorite being when Etain punches a Roman in the crotch, and one of his comrades jokes that she must be a great scout if she was able to find his you know what lol