Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 390

Thread: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

  1. #31
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.
    Well for all we know some Dravidians migrated to central asia and porked some Afghan royalty a few generations ago. After all, the genetic history of the Pashtun people is actually a rather controversial topic - I mean people are studying how cloesly related to Jews they are and they exhibit pretty much every single genetic trait from Eurasia...
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  2. #32
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Interesting - I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, although I suppose I probably should now - who knows, it might make me like Medieval II more.

    I dunno, I can't put my finger on it, but something about the look of Gladiator has always struck me as wrong...it's a fun movie, no denying that, and one of the great modern sword-and-sandals flicks, but I guess it just didn't feel like a real society. There were aristocrats and then there were slaves. They didn't really delve into anyone in between, like Rome did. -M
    Last edited by Mulceber; 04-09-2010 at 01:07.
    My Balloons:

  3. #33

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    B]Kingdom of Heaven[/B] is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality


    The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.


    Oh and
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons
    That is a bad reason though, the concern should be for quality, note that the HBO Rome series that everyone here universally liked never concerned itself with who would be offended, who wouldn't like this etc etc, although I agree that nudity and Crusades aren't the same thing.

    Furthermore Guy de Lusignan was not a villainous jerk, I don't know what you have read but Ridley Scott butchered the love story, which actually was the Leper King allowed his daughter to pick a husband of her free will who she loved, and she chose Guy while the nobility and clergy was pressuring him, and her to pick Balien because his abilities were well known and respected. Muslims and Christians also did get along very well in the Crusader states, there are some very good books about it I could recommend. Saladin just letting everyone go was another change to avoid giving offense, I just don't understand things like that, the middle ages actually happened, and people who go to see movies set in it should be treated to it. It's one thing if it is one of the medieval idealist myths like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but there is no good reason to white wash the Crusades (except where popular perception sees it as worse then it was).


    Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

    Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
    I agree, what he changed he did in order to make his movie more acceptable to the audience, it is clear that while he didn't depict it that he knew who Guy de Lusignan (very well portrayed, he really was a bumbling idiot who lost controll of a vassal)was, and he knew who Saladin was and he does a great job with these things.

    It is ironic that Commodus couldn't be depicted as bad as he actually was, compared to Cassius Dio and other historians Ridley Scott gives Commodus a white wash. Respectable historians from the Roman Empire actually did suspect Marcus Aurelius was setting up someone else to rule, although they had no proof for it apart from comparing the reign of Commodus to Marcus Aurelius.

    Ridley Scott deserves two thumbs up though, white washing and hesitation to depict slavery and massacres are minor compared to trash like Blood and Sand, 300, and other recently done idiocy

  4. #34
    Vagrant Member Madoushi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    181

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
    Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.

    Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.



  5. #35
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom, but the supporting cast was really great. I loved Saladin.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  6. #36

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??

  7. #37

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by Madoushi View Post
    A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
    Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.

    Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.

    A White Wash compared to Cassius Dio, one of the prominent historians of the time, the idea that Commodus killed his father because he learned he wouldn't get the throne otherwise dates back to him.

    Some modern historians tend to de-emphasize Italy's part in the Empire, and the Senate, and so Commodus comes across better, others to an example the book Marcus Aurelius a Life by Frank McLynn take a more traditional view of him. Frank Mclynn I think does a good job at arguing in favor of Cassius Dio's work and credibility, not about the death of Marcus Aurelius though which he thinks was a natural one.
    Last edited by TancredTheNorman; 04-09-2010 at 04:07.

  8. #38
    Satalextos Basileus Seron Member satalexton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,180

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJohn View Post
    How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??
    I'm reading his books at the moment. That man is a natural Rhomaioktonoi.




    "ΜΗΔΕΝ ΕΩΡΑΚΕΝΑΙ ΦΟΒΕΡΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΙΝΟΤΕΡΟΝ ΦΑΛΑΓΓΟΣ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΗΣ" -Lucius Aemilius Paullus

  9. #39
    πολέμαρχος Member Apázlinemjó's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sopianae
    Posts
    683

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Memphis Belle - I've not seen it for a long time, but it seemed ok then, except the attacking messers.
    The man from Earth - It's a good movie with an interesting story, though it's not a classic "historical" movie.
    Indegious brigantyk - It's totally inaccurate story wise, but the accessories looked ok enough. I don't really like the movie.
    Attila - Watched it a few years ago, yet I don't remember to it. Anyone?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Finished essays: The Italian Wars (1494-1559), The siege of Buda (1686), The history of Boius tribe in the Carpathian Basin, Hungarian regiments' participation in the Austro-Prussian-Italian War in 1866, The Mithridatic Wars, Xenophon's Anabasis, The Carthagian colonization
    Skipped essays: Serbian migration into the Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th century, The Order of Saint John in the Kingdom of Hungary

  10. #40
    Legatvs Member SwissBarbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Helvetia
    Posts
    1,905

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?
    It is NOT accurate, but "don't see, beyond evil, your eyes will fall out, if you watch it"? Come on.
    Balloon-Count: x 15


    Many thanks to Hooahguy for this great sig.

  11. #41
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing.
    One of the biggest misunderstandings about the crusading era is that Muslims and Christians hated eachother all the time. It's simply not true. The Copts were respected, as were the Armenian and Greek eastern churches. Before the Ayyubids took over control of Egypt, the Fatimids and Byzantine Empire were BFF. ;)

    I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?
    Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zack Snyder
    300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."
    "world-class historians", yeah right.
    Last edited by Hax; 04-09-2010 at 11:07.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  12. #42

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It also depended on the individual. Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.

  13. #43
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    On the Germanic peoples:

    Battle of Arminius
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBv...layer_embedded

    Pretty interesting as they are showing the weapons, especially the club which is cut in such an way to cause more damage. The black dyed guys as well, seem more accurate then how EBI is portraying them. Perhaps some inspiration for EB II.

    The Germanic Tribes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55sR...layer_embedded

    Going past the warriors, taking several people from different Germanic times and showing how they could have lived and more information. Seems pretty accurate. Also nice is them showing the Germanics attacking the Romans in several wedges/boarsnouts.



    Is also going to be an German series called Humanimal from BBC focussing on the Ulfhednar(Germanic/Viking Wolf Warriors) and showing their live.

    For more information go to this site: http://www.ulfhednar.org/frame.htm then go to film/tv and then go to Run in with wolfs and see those nice pictures.

    http://www.ulfhednar.org/Humanimal/7.jpg (Gaesatae are scary but seeing this...)
    Last edited by Phalanx300; 04-09-2010 at 19:13.

  14. #44
    Member Member NikosMaximilian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Short review of this: (Spoilers, if anyone is willing to waste almost two hours of his life)


    - Apparently, it seems that in 460 Rome (actually something vaguely resembling the Forum and not much else) was still the Capital of the Western Roman Empire and that the Emperor lived there.

    - Something resembling a druid was still around during this time. Roman upper classes were keen on importing them to educate their sons.

    - Looks like the Romans were a monarchy because all the Emperors are the descendents of Julius Caesar, even five centuries after his death. Nero, eat your heart out.

    - When the Viking-Goths attack Rome, the depleted Roman Army wears lorica segmentata and fights with the gladius. Naturally, fighting with equipment abandoned for more than a century, they get pwned. The Legions are composed by Romans, Numidians, Celts, Jews... damn, they had plenty of manpower, why did they need the Goths fighting for them?

    - Somehow a Roman commander saves the heir to the Roman throne. Then they are betrayed by the Sassanids Byzantines, except from an Indian-Keralite female ninja who chooses to fight for them and carries a sword from the future.

    - They manage to rescue the kid from Tiberius' Villa Jovis, which was actually an impregnable fortress. The kid finds Caesar's medieval sword there, and they manage to flee all the way from the Bay of Naples to Great Britain. Wise choice, specially when no one in the group is aware that the last Roman troops left the island 48 years ago.

    - Amazing! In Hadrian's Wall they find a legion that vanished from history 340 years ago. They were disguised as local farmers and kept their lorica segmentatas bright and shinny waiting for this day.

    - Things get complicated when a Saxon warlord-magician allies with the Goths and they all march into Hadrian's Wall to retrieve the boy and his sword.

    - Luckily our heroes win the battle heavily outnumbered. The kid throws Caesar's sword into a stone. Roman commander and Indian ninja lady fell in love and adopt the kid, who turns out to be Pendragon. So, Arthur is descended from Julius Caesar, and is informed of all of the previous facts by 700-years old Druid Merlin.

    EDIT: Ohhh, and I forgot, it seems that the spread of Christianity never happened, that most of the people living in the WRE and its former lands are either pagans or atheists.
    Last edited by NikosMaximilian; 04-11-2010 at 00:11.

    Completed campaigns:


    Ongoing campaigns:

  15. #45
    πολέμαρχος Member Apázlinemjó's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sopianae
    Posts
    683

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian View Post
    Short review of this: (Spoilers, if anyone is willing to waste almost two hours of his life)


    - Apparently, it seems that in 460 Rome (actually something vaguely resembling the Forum and not much else) was still the Capital of the Western Roman Empire and that the Emperor lived there.

    - Something resembling a druid was still around during this time. Roman upper classes were keen on importing them to educate their sons.

    - Looks like the Romans were a monarchy because all the Emperors are the descendents of Julius Caesar, even five centuries after his death. Nero, eat your heart out.

    - When the Viking-Goths attack Rome, the depleted Roman Army wears lorica segmentata and fights with the gladius. Naturally, fighting with equipment abandoned for more than a century, they get pwned. The Legions are composed by Romans, Numidians, Celts, Jews... damn, they had plenty of manpower, why did they need the Goths fighting for them?

    - Somehow a Roman commander saves the heir to the Roman throne. Then they are betrayed by the Sassanids Byzantines, except from an Indian-Keralite female ninja who chooses to fight for them and carries a sword from the future.

    - They manage to rescue the kid from Tiberius' Villa Jovis, which was actually an impregnable fortress. The kid finds Caesar's medieval sword there, and they manage to flee all the way from the Bay of Naples to Great Britain. Wise choice, specially when no one in the group is aware that the last Roman troops left the island 48 years ago.

    - Amazing! In Hadrian's Wall they find a legion that vanished from history 340 years ago. They were disguised as local farmers and kept their lorica segmentatas bright and shinny waiting for this day.

    - Things get complicated when a Saxon warlord-magician allies with the Goths and they all march into Hadrian's Wall to retrieve the boy and his sword.

    - Luckily our heroes win the battle heavily outnumbered. The kid throws Caesar's sword into a stone. Roman commander and Indian ninja lady fell in love and adopt the kid, who turns out to be Pendragon. So, Arthur is descended from Julius Caesar, and is informed of all of the previous facts by 700-years old Druid Merlin.


    So that's the movie I won't watch on the Movie fanatics' night.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Finished essays: The Italian Wars (1494-1559), The siege of Buda (1686), The history of Boius tribe in the Carpathian Basin, Hungarian regiments' participation in the Austro-Prussian-Italian War in 1866, The Mithridatic Wars, Xenophon's Anabasis, The Carthagian colonization
    Skipped essays: Serbian migration into the Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th century, The Order of Saint John in the Kingdom of Hungary

  16. #46
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJohn View Post
    How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??
    He's done his research, but it is very biased against the Romans. As it says on the cover: this is history from a different point of view. Presumably he wanted to write about the Romans in the same way as the Romans wrote about everybody else.

    @ NikosMaximilian
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  17. #47
    Member Member Andronikos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    small European country
    Posts
    363

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    My opinion on Kingdom of Heaven:
    There are many historical inaccuracies, the wikipedia page has them summarised quite well, e.g. Templars who were sent to kill Balian wear Teutonic uniforms, Balian probably never visited France, Guy wears a Templar uniform despite he shouldn't, Balduin was more of a warrior king than a peace loving visionary...
    BUT I didn't care, I really liked that movie, it was probably the best of all that Hollywood blockbusters I have seen for many reasons. My favourite character was Balduin, he very well played.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebrous
    Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.
    ROFL



    my balloons

  18. #48
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
    It also depends on where you are looking. Al Farabi was taught astronomy by a Nestorian Christian in the House of Wisdom. Of course, this was 200 years earlier and in Baghdad, but still.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  19. #49
    Vagrant Member Madoushi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    181

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Also, I think there's a wide gap between inconsistencies historians and history enthusiasts would notice, and those laypeople would notice.

    I didn't know hardly anything about Alexander before I saw the movie, so I didn't know any better, whereas Gladiator 'felt' very wrong to me, despite that fact that while I'm enthused about the Roman era, I'm certainly no historian, and honestly, not even the most perceptive or intelligent of people.



  20. #50
    Not at all like my Avatar Member gamerdude873's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    89

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
    I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

    1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

    2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

    3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

    4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

    5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

    The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)
    Last edited by gamerdude873; 04-11-2010 at 19:21. Reason: more info
    Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain

    I may be drunk Miss, but you're ugly. In the morning I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly. -Winston Churchill

  21. #51
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerdude873 View Post
    I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

    1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

    2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

    3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

    4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

    5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

    The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)
    Thanks for the points, Gamerdude. Good to get someone who knows his stuff to review it. -M
    My Balloons:

  22. #52
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    You know we should have a historic review thread if this turns into one great, if not we need one with reliable reviews from people who know what they are talking about :)
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  23. #53
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Great idea, ASM - it could kind of serve as a guide for people going into the movie so that they should know how seriously they should take it. -M
    My Balloons:

  24. #54
    Member Member Cyclops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    I think Hollywood spin docvtors say "oh and we did heaps of research and its 100% accurate" for any historical film they make.

    SPR is a case in point, it was an excellent looking WW2 drama, but they left out details like the British army, (although the criticism of Monty was realistic, the Yanks definitely thought he was overrated) and they cast a bunch of 40 and 50-year old actors like Sammy from Cheers and that lame comedian from Big when the average age in that army was around 25 (IIRC it was a largely green army mostly raised in the States and shipped direct to the fighting). From what I saw Band of Bros was closer, they looked pretty young, even the officers.

    AFAIK there was some nice costume design in Gladiator but the storyline was hokum. Marcus Aurelius was a secret republican? Commodus was a nervous self-doubter with a harelip? This is fantasy. The opening batlle scene is a delight and if an historian assures me its a good re-enactment I'll believe them but don't tell me Gladiator was history. Commodus was an overconfident nutjob who bashed animals with a club in the arena (dressed as Hercules) and was strangled in his bath. Once again excellent research on the setting but the story fell into the hands of a writer, for whom hiistory has little value.

    Alexander was AFAIK a better stab at it, left stuff out but didn't stray from the accepted storyline, even left a few controversial things deliberately vague. Eg was Al big gay Al? All you see is a bit of a kiss and Bagoas putting out the lights...maybe they were just good friends, its up to the viewer to decide. I especially like the bit where old narrating Ptolemy says something like "Alexander was poisoned we all knew it...no wauit change that, he died of fever" which sort of bundles together the main theories and once again, make up your own mind.

    That recent King Arthur was rubbish, Nazi Saxons? Sarmatians using 2-handed axes and weird fist-knives? Roman forces in Britian amojunted to slightly more than half-a-dozen randy Sarmatians. Some vague guesswork about the end-game of Roman rule in Britain is not history, it was wildly speculative.

    Kingdom of heavebn is another Galdiator, some nice costumes, a few real names and a real war but the narrative is a fantasty and major lies told for the purpose of the story. EG the last King of Jerusalem was dwarfed and seruiously deformed by his leprosy, it wasn't just a little hole in one cheek, nor did he wear a silver mask. Also he was only about 24 when he died, the actor was a much older man.

    The siege was a very bloody affair, and did not end with a peaceful line of pilgrims trudging home. Salah-ud-Din was a very noble and gentle ruler by the standards of the times (and compared to the Christians), but he slaughtered all the templars and Hospitallars IIRC.
    From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan

    Jatte lambasts Calico Rat

  25. #55
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    If you watched the extended edition, he had no face when his mask was taken off.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  26. #56

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky View Post
    Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom
    I've seen planks act better. He dragged the film down a notch on his own.

    Fight like a meatgrinder

  27. #57
    mostly harmless Member B-Wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    on the Streets of Rage!
    Posts
    1,070

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Yeah, I don't really care for Orlando Bloom in any movie, but most especially in Kingdom of Heaven. Though to be fair, I'm not so sure it if it was him or the script. It didn't seem like there was much to his character in the first place. I'd say that out of all the characters in the movie, his was easily the least interesting and most closed. I kept wishing someone else was the protagonist.

  28. #58

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    @Cyclops I agree with most of your points but in one aspect I have to take position for Kingdom of heavan: they did mention very often that the king is a young man.as they never show anything un changed of him a older man workes quite as wwell
    "Who fights can lose, who doesn't fight has already lost."
    - Pyrrhus of Epirus

    "Durch diese hohle Gasse muss er kommen..."
    - Leonidas of Sparta

    "People called Romanes they go the House"
    - Alaric the Visigoth

  29. #59

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    He's done his research, but it is very biased against the Romans. As it says on the cover: this is history from a different point of view. Presumably he wanted to write about the Romans in the same way as the Romans wrote about everybody else.

    @ NikosMaximilian
    That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade. His documentaries also have a very high tendency towards exaggeration, and he also does a lot of conclusions without evidence.

  30. #60
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

    That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade.
    Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Frankfurter Schüle?
    This space intentionally left blank.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO