People are voting emotionally.

Crappy film

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Blistering performances.

This film is based on the mysterious disappearance of IX Legio Hispana, one of the Roman legions. We know that it remained a long time in Britain but it's disappearance from the records without any mention has elicited several speculations. This is precisely what this film does, creating a story where it takes advantage of the best known hypothesis for this disappearance: the massacre of this legion in combat. Many classicists disagree with this theory and you can find enough specialized literature on the subject by the hand of the most notable historians, but the fact is that the story created for this film is plausible, which helps to create a pleasant sense of historical accuracy, with some understandable yields when dramatic effect or pragmatic issues prevailed. One of the things that caught my attention was the crystalline similarity between the battle represented in the film and the disastrous Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where General Varo lost his life and his legions in the time of Augustus. It was, in fact, a good action sequence, with touches of realism that only sinned by the exaggeration, of fake blood used.The cast was very good. Michael Fassbender was very convincing in the role of a centurion, who survives the carnage and tries to return. Less happy was the idea of making each of the surviving soldiers come from a region of the empire. We have already seen this cliché previously, I believe it was used in the 2004 movie "King Arthur" but I may be wrong (I'm speaking from my fallible memory). Anyway, the idea sounded false. Dominic West, Ulrich Thomsen and Imogen Poots also did a good job but it was the sweeping performance of Olga Kurylenko who dominated the film. She played an extremely cruel and malicious Pictish woman who decided to dedicate her life to avenge herself on the Romans. This barbarian killing machine was an intense enemy and contrasts with the humanity of Poots character, a woman with a past of pain, but kind and of whom we instinctively like.The production vallues and technical issues also seemed very good to me. In contrary to the current trend, the film virtually waived the green screen and filmed on location, which is a plus point. Action sequences and fights are good, realistic enough and only harmed, as I said, by exaggeration in false blood. It reminded me of the movie "300", where I criticized the emphasis on blood. Of course a battle needs blood but we cannot go into exaggerations, by excess or by defect. I really enjoyed the cinematography. She was able to convey the feel of the period as well as the intense cold that was felt. The color tones were excellent and the contrast adequate. The only negative note is the movie soundtrack. It fulfills its role but ends up being forgettable.To summarize, this film is very good and considerably better than other films ("Braveheart", "King Arthur" etc.) in the same style, but that ended up becoming more famous and having greater visibility. Historically realistic, it doesn't depict any historical fact but a theory, under discussion, so don't fully believe in the story the film tells, remember this is not a documentary. Entertaining, is a good movie for those who enjoy history and the Roman period, or simply for those who enjoy a good adventure or action film.

Despite Neil Marshall at the helm and a quality cast, Centurion was quite poor. There was no character development, quality dialogue, heart, story, you name it. Basically it's lots of fighting and blood and not much else. A group of men I didn't care about, on the run through the mountains chased by a savage mute woman.

I have to say that I agree with "westenicho" and that users comments about user "Russ-was-here" comments. I do not see anywhere in the film makers write ups where it states this is a factual presentation, maybe based on historical events which means they could take one battle form one area and supplant it in another. So if you want a 100% factual representation of the time, this is not for you, what it is, is a great entertaining movie and factual enough to believe the characters and their trials and tribulations. I think the acting was superb and as much as it is not a movie for the Oscars, it is an entertaining movie for family, Sc-Fi, Historical, Roman, History, and Ancient U.K. and surrounds history. Not enough gore so as your 8 year old could not watch but enough so this 53 year old male could enjoy. So watch it for what it is, a tale of long ago and the way things where as seen by the writers and directors whom I thank for bring this film to my lounge room. The scenery is great as well as costumes (even if they are not 100% factual), just a great entertaining movie, worth watching. I have seen it 3 times now and think it is worth a good 8+ or in the movies an A- for acting, direction, filming and particularly Set and Costumes

There are many reasons for liking. this movie. I loved the cinematography and the casting. And the action scenes were done very well. A lot of violence and gore, but done with a surprisingly good taste. But it seriously lacked believable plot and character development. I know that making this kind of films are expensive and hard but they could have paid a few pounds more to the scriptwriter to make a true epic. Men are just meat here and the women...a little more... The talented cast could have made more of their roles. Obviously the Hollywood credo of action and entertainment makes money corrupted this film like so many others. Still highly recommended despite its faults.