Worst "historical" movie ever

Rating: 3/10 (14 July 2012)

I remember watching this film when I was maybe 12, and I loved it. Now, 8 years later, I rewatched it (extended edition) and realised how awful this movie really is. I hope I'm not nitpicking, because it felt to me that the points I am going to make were there just to insult the viewers intelligence. -First major battle scene. Romans have siege weapons just lying around, on the front line of Germania? They are obviously hard to transport, and there is no reason for them to be there. -Crowe says later that there were roughly 10,000 roman soldiers on the battlefield, with 2,000 dead. Thats funny because I could probably count the number of roman soldiers who were shown to have died on 1 hand, whereas the number of barbarians killed was massive. -Crowe says the casualties sustained by the cavalry by the siege weapons were necessary, then does nothing but complain about how many of his men died. -Russell Crowe sneaks out of the fort with his cavalry and somehow manages to encircle thousands of barbarians, without them ever noticing. Also, the barbarians just stand there and allow this to happen. -The choice of softly spoken British accents for the romans was awful. I'm not saying they should of spoken in full Latin, but that is no reason for them to speak in those annoying accents. -After the battle, the emperor, the emperors son and his daughter are all within maybe a days ride of the Germanian front line? That makes no sense, why would such important figures be there at all? -Crowe is described as Rome's best general by Caesar, yet he is Spanish, lives on a farm and has no involvement in politics. -Caesar says he is close to death, yet he journeyed from Rome presumably to the front line of Germania. Why didn't he stay in Rome? -Caesar bestows Crowe with the title of Protector of Rome, a man who is Spanish, has little interest or skill in politics and wants nothing more than to go home. Good choice Caesar. -Crowe's slave(he's never called a slave) has a Scottish accent. Is this a nod to the Eagle of the Ninth? Simple stealing of idea because they thought it would work in the Roman context? Or just bad historical accuracy? Also, they are in Germania, so why would there be a Scottish slave there? There isn't any mention of Crowe serving in Britannia. -I can understand Crowe being depicted as an indestructible badass, but seriously, the dude can throw swords that accurately? -Crowe somehow manages to ride from the front line in Germania(which kind of suggests deep in Germania), to Spain, just in time to just miss his wife and son's murderers? Impossible. The farm was still smoking when he got there for god's sake. -After that funny scene where he's covered in snot after finding his wife and son, he's picked up by apparently African slave traders (Carthaginians?). A roman citizen, in a roman province, abducted by slave traders? I don't think I need to explain myself anymore. -So Crowe apparently has an SPQR tattoo, something never practised by Romans at all. The only people who would tattoo themselves were barbarians. So I got 45 minutes in than I gave up. I'll probably get a lot of stick for this review, but I really don't care. If you are looking for a good historically accurate movie with a plot that makes sense I cannot stress enough how frustrated you will be watching this movie. If you have no knowledge of the Roman civilization at all and you are willing to look past all the glaring plot holes and bad accents, there is a lot you will enjoy about this movie. It is full of action and Crowe is a badass. The reason I didn't give this 1 out of 10 is because there were a few enjoyable battle/fight scenes where you could forget about all the stupidness that had occurred for a few minutes. Other than that, there is nothing stopping this from being one of the worst movies I have ever seen.