I'm aware there are historical inaccuracies (not at all clear the spelling of the titular name is one of them - Boudicca and Boadicea are both recognized alternatives), but when did that become unusual for non-documentary? My impression is the purpose was to engage and entertain, and as far as I'm concerned, it accomplished that. Alex did a superb job with her character and the other Celtic characters also worked for me.
It's hard to know what to think regarding the Roman characterizations, but my impression from history is they may be reasonable, especially Claudius, the proconsul, and General Suetonius. Claudius probably wouldn't even have invaded Britain if he hadn't needed a feather in his cap to offset the negative impression due to his infirmities (installed by the military because they thought he'd be their puppet). Nero was a very dangerous megalomaniac. So, just how far off were the portrayals? Hard to judge, but given the limited screen time available to establish character, I'm not sure how much more could have been done.
If some find the magical elements unacceptable, that's a shame, but then, I'm an Excalibur fan! I don't think the film was trying to present true reality (as demonstrated by the opening and closing), but rather tell-a-story that delivers the essence -- a story that's exciting and at times heart rending, an adventure. I'd say it was largely Alex that pulled the rabbit out-of-the-hat with this, but the actors portraying the daughters, the druid, Dervalloc, and the other main characters all made worthy contributions.
In sum, a very engaging film that I'm adding to my collection. Already watched it several times since first seeing it a few weeks ago. Yes, I like and enjoy it -- led me to look more closely into the history and that's not a bad thing.
Note: Had trouble deciding between a score of 7 or 8, but went with 8 partially due to the excessive criticism I see in some of the reviews, partially in salute to the truly excellent job Alex did in bringing herself fully to her character, and partially because I find the film so unusually engaging -- again a nod to Alex. A definite keeper!
It's hard to know what to think regarding the Roman characterizations, but my impression from history is they may be reasonable, especially Claudius, the proconsul, and General Suetonius. Claudius probably wouldn't even have invaded Britain if he hadn't needed a feather in his cap to offset the negative impression due to his infirmities (installed by the military because they thought he'd be their puppet). Nero was a very dangerous megalomaniac. So, just how far off were the portrayals? Hard to judge, but given the limited screen time available to establish character, I'm not sure how much more could have been done.
If some find the magical elements unacceptable, that's a shame, but then, I'm an Excalibur fan! I don't think the film was trying to present true reality (as demonstrated by the opening and closing), but rather tell-a-story that delivers the essence -- a story that's exciting and at times heart rending, an adventure. I'd say it was largely Alex that pulled the rabbit out-of-the-hat with this, but the actors portraying the daughters, the druid, Dervalloc, and the other main characters all made worthy contributions.
In sum, a very engaging film that I'm adding to my collection. Already watched it several times since first seeing it a few weeks ago. Yes, I like and enjoy it -- led me to look more closely into the history and that's not a bad thing.
Note: Had trouble deciding between a score of 7 or 8, but went with 8 partially due to the excessive criticism I see in some of the reviews, partially in salute to the truly excellent job Alex did in bringing herself fully to her character, and partially because I find the film so unusually engaging -- again a nod to Alex. A definite keeper!