View Full Version : Ancient warfare movies
Celtic_Punk
10-09-2008, 09:36
Which was your favourite?
What was your most hated?
excessive 300 bashing will not be tolerated... seriously, you guys bash it so much that you forget it was not meant to be historically accurate. It was based off the comic, which took the story of Thermoplyae with poetic license. seriously read the comic, most of you would like it.
I'll start- My favourite would be Gladiator, The acting was absolutely superb, and the way mixed the historical characters with their own spin was done very well. You get very attached to Maximus, and really begin to LOATHE Commodus(this movie is probably the reason for Commodus being my number 1 hated emperor), something only superb acting can do with a baddy. Joaquin did an exeptional job. My only qualm was that they didn't have enough fights in the arena, I would have liked to have seen much more. The extended version is the best viewing of the movie, the added bits add so much depth to the story, it is really like watching a Shakespearean play (I do believe they should adapt the movie to a play, it would be quite good)
My most hated would have to be hmmm, Troy... or Aurthur. Probably Aurthur. I got to when Ajax got killed in Troy (which is total bullshit and a slander to his name) which is alot further than I got through Aurthur... I mean cmon circa 14AD legionaires in Britain? And aparently Britain's most favourite superhero(of sorts) is actually Sarmatian?! Plus all the crappy camera angles, and the arrow shots flying all over the place you never could why someone fell off their horse... you just assumed they were wounded from the arrow you just followed to nowhere... The cinematography gave me a massive headache... I couldn't reach for the aspirin in time.
Then again in Troy you get Ajax being slain in battle (he took his own life after slaughtering a herd of sheep) and Aegmenmon being killed by the queen of Troy? I am very surprised that they bothered to actually have Achilles be killed by an arrowshot to the heel! They might aswell have had him conquer Troy singlehandedly armed only with a sling. That wouldn't have butchered the Odyssey anymore than they already did. I wouldn't have THAT big a problem with it if they went about it like Gladiator, and didn't go for historical accuracy, but amazing acting, and superb story. But when fail to achieve either, you just make a terrible movie. The action wasn't even that good.
I expect better from Wolfgang Petersen.. THE MAN WHO DIRECTED THE AMAZING FLICK, DAS BOOT!
Homer, Achilles, Ajax, and Agemenmon are rolling in their respective graves. Thank you Brad Pitt and company, for taking a gigantic shit on ancient history!
Your takes?
Actually, I think Miller is a pretty terrible writer and perhaps clinically insane, but that is a whole other thread.
That being said, I don't know if there is an historical warfare movie that I like - in that I keep going back to over and over again. Kind of depressing, really.
Actually, I think Miller is a pretty terrible writer and perhaps clinically insane, but that is a whole other thread.
That being said, I don't know if there is an historical warfare movie that I like.
I totally agree.
However, 300 and the gladiator are great fun :laugh:
Celtic_Punk
10-09-2008, 11:03
thats what ive been saying. 300 was meant to be fun, not historically accurate... Troy was supposed to be a tribute to Homer's work. and we know how that turned out. Did anyone like Spartacus? I've never gotten around to watching it... I've heard it was one of the greats. Same with Henry V... "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers! For he today that sheds his blood with me shall forever be my brother! Be he ne'er so vile!" Kenneth Branagh is my freakin hero! lol he not only made a good king... He made an amazing Iago in Othello! such a convincing sociopath... I wonder if that's really a good thing... hmmm
Maion Maroneios
10-09-2008, 11:08
I won't make any critics on movies, but I feel the need to add something about the Troy movie. Not only did Ajax not die (he jumped on his own blade after slaying sheep he mistook, with a little help of Athena, for Trojans), but Menelaos the king of Sparta also didn't. Apart from that, Achilles originaly died before Troy was captured and not during that night.
Maion
Dutchhoplite
10-09-2008, 11:18
King Arthur was awfull. By the way, he wasn't Sarmatian but his knights were ;)
When I still was a small Dutchhoplite i thought "Fall of the Roman empire" was very impressive. I still think it's an excellent movie! Commodus was a much better character than that boring Livius ;)
Celtic_Punk
10-09-2008, 11:28
I won't make any critics on movies, but I feel the need to add something about the Troy movie. Not only did Ajax not die (he jumped on his own blade after slaying sheep he mistook, with a little help of Athena, for Trojans), but Menelaos the king of Sparta also didn't. Apart from that, Achilles originaly died before Troy was captured and not during that night.
Maion
total slander to Ajax's fighting prowess... Didn't they make him wield a battle hammer or something equally stupid and inaccurate?
like I said, Homer is rolling! Sometimes I wish that people who make movies has as much zeal about the subject matter as I do.
oudysseos
10-09-2008, 11:31
Probably a minority opinion, but I liked Kingdom of Heaven. I agree that Arthur and Troy were serious let downs, and 300 just silly, tho good fun in its way. I wish someone would make Kataphract Rhinos for RTW.
I thought that the battles in Spartacus and Cleopatra were good, and although I wasn't a big fan of Alexander, some of the smaller touches were cool (the pezzies shaking their sarissas to make a weird noise). The battle scenes in Rome from TV were good, better than Gladiator IMHO, which though not terrible was seriously over-rated.
Celtic_Punk
10-09-2008, 11:50
I liked KoH too, It was underrated. It portrayed Muslims and Christians quite fairly. Even though it was filmed from a Christian point of view they showed the brutality of them, Which is not done enough I find, Christendom has been notoriously brutal to its enemies. Though to be honest it was far from historical accuracy... However pure historical accuracy does not make a good movie. Excellent writing, and it had well done action scenes. I liked the music too.
Monty Python and the Holy grail... Their portrayal of a Knightly duel was quite interesting... Wouldnt you agree?:chinese:
+1 on Kingdom of Heaven
However, you have to watch the directors cut. The studio cut out almost 45 minutes of footage that IMO, is critical to the story. Eva Green (omg how hot is she?!) refused to promote the movie after most of her characters story was cut.
Also, the guy that warhammers the knight in the head at the beginning of the movie is Vorenus from Rome on HBO
Titus Marcellus Scato
10-09-2008, 13:37
Personally I love 300. Great movie.
300, for me, is a great mythic story. It doesn't accurately portray the real Battle of Thermopylae, but that's not the point for Frank Miller.
Homer's Iliad didn't accurately portray the real Trojan war, either. That wasn't the point for Homer.
What Homer wanted to create was an inspiring myth, based on the historical Trojan War, but with lots of embellishments to make it exciting and memorable for his audience. Homer was a poet and a storyteller, not a historian. There weren't really 'a thousand ships' in the actual Greek fleet - more like a hundred - at the most.
Frank Miller is also a storyteller, not a historian.
300 is, IMO, a bit like the story that a Greek storyteller would have told about Thermopylae at the time. It's embellished and 'mythified' to make it exciting and inspiring. The ancient Greeks would have loved it.
Historically the Persian army at Thermopylae was actually only 200,000 strong. But 2 million is a much more 'exciting' number. Many ancient peoples used to exaggerate their stories this way - the Celts, the Vikings, many others. A warrior might kill 3 enemies in a battle, but then go home and boast that he killed 30! It makes the story of a real victory feel much more impressive if you multiply the number of the enemy by 10.....
Dutchhoplite
10-09-2008, 13:51
KoH could have have been better but suffered from an overdose of political correctness.
My friend actually appeared in one of the endings for KoH, though I think it found its way to the cutting room floor rather than the DVD release. His dad worked on the props for the film.
Foot
Yes, but I enjoyed KoH for the battle scenes, which weren't terribly done even if they were fairly unrealistic.
+1 on Kingdom of Heaven
However, you have to watch the directors cut. The studio cut out almost 45 minutes of footage that IMO, is critical to the story. Eva Green (omg how hot is she?!) refused to promote the movie after most of her characters story was cut.
Also, the guy that warhammers the knight in the head at the beginning of the movie is Vorenus from Rome on HBO
yeah, those 45 minutes were..sickening. especially her killing her child.
she also strikes me as more deliberate in that movie version, than the cinema version.
but yeah, kingdom of heavan FTW. Same for Gettysburg-good action, realistic combat, and attention to detail (allbeit not in the conversations):juggle2:
as for what I hate: I practically despise most historical movies: they often make the mistake of applying modern concepts on ancient poeples (even KoH is guilty of that), and also tend to impose their respective "ideas" about what the ancient world was like. It kind of ruins it for me not to see those characters as they would have seen themselves...reading Arrian is more fun than watching Alexander, for that reason.
@dutchpolite: it wasn't that politically correct: the way templars were depicted was insulting to them, to say the least(thoughtless cattle essentially, at least to me). and both sides had their fanatics and "fire eaters", if you look carefully. Its just that in the opposite of today's situation, the muslim side kept control over them.(like the guy at the begining of the Muslim assault preaching to the boys about revenge.)
The historical movie I hate most is The Last Legion. I mean, c'mon:
The prophecy of Julius Caesar?
Romulus Augustus is the father of King Arthur, aka. Arthur Pendragon??
Indians in Britannia?
Yeesh.
300 is, IMO, a bit like the story that a Greek storyteller would have told about Thermopylae at the time. It's embellished and 'mythified' to make it exciting and inspiring.
Actually it's exactly like that. In both the movie and the comic it's "revealed" at the end that the whole story is nothing more than that, a story told by Dilios to the greek soldiers before the battle of Plataea. Although in the comic it's a little more obvious since it's mentioned several times how Dilios "spins his stories".
Celtic_Punk
10-09-2008, 20:44
makes you want to take a hammer to your head doesn't it?
Greatest Ancient war movie = Life of Brian.
I agree that 300 gets flamed too much. Like it's been said, it was made not for historical accuracy but to tell the story of Thermopylae but to make it seem glorious, most likely how Greeks of the time recited it.
As for kingodm of heaven i think it was a great movie. Personally Orlando Bloom was completely miscast as he's not really believable, to me at least, as the defender of Jerusalem. Seems too much like a pretty-boy.
Maion Maroneios
10-09-2008, 21:38
Eva Green (omg how hot is she?!)
Wow mate, you actually like that woman? Are you serious???
Maion
P.S.: Just kidding there, though I really don't like her :-P
IMO, 300 is only good for Internet memes. As a movie, it isn't really something you can watch more than once.
+1 to KoH hehehe I have the extended also
but its quite hem... unrealistic (queen goes to france? :smash:)
and I don't bealive that all the templars were that barbarian <.<
Personally I love 300. Great movie.
300, for me, is a great mythic story. It doesn't accurately portray the real Battle of Thermopylae, but that's not the point for Frank Miller.
Homer's Iliad didn't accurately portray the real Trojan war, either. That wasn't the point for Homer.
Man, you read my mind!!! :laugh4:
Seriously, I thought at Homer when I saw that film like you! I thought I was the only one..:laugh4:
Politically seen, the film is a true horror.
Western guys fighting for democracy, freedom, science, etc, while the evil Middle-Eastern Arabian semi-Persian lunatics try to subject those lands. <_<
To be honest, I loved Kingdom of Heaven. It was pretty historically accurate (though you can't write a history book when making a movie). It portrayed Salah ad-Din pretty accurately as well as Reynald de Chatillon. One of the best historical movies, in my opinion. Shame about the Director's Cut.
Artorius Maximus
10-09-2008, 23:36
For me, the best, and first [ancient] historical epic I've seen, was Gladiator (2000). Even to this day I still enjoy seeing it. If it's playing on a TV, I'll just sit and watch through the whole film. From the moment the battle between the Roman legion (of Maximus' control) and the German Marcomanni tribe began, I was instantly hooked. The tension really built up by the time of Maximus' exile from the legion, to be executed. The ending of Gladiator also could have left many viewers with a feeling of pity for Maximus. He had died, but tried to live through Commodus' tyranny to reform Rome to the way Marcus Aurelius would have wanted.
The King Arthur movie I also enjoyed seeing, though it left a lot to be desired. For those reasons, it's not on par with Gladiator, but the main redeeming quality of King Arthur was the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer. I'm annoyed they had a few obvious historical goofs, like the Western Roman Empire still occupying Britannia in the 470s or 480s (even by that time, it was disintegrated). Also, why are the Sarmatian AUXILIARIES referred to as "knights?" The knights of the Romans were the Equites, which were citizens, and descendants of wealthy patricians I think. The Sarmatian cavalrymen in King Arthur did not fit the criteria of Roman knights. Maybe if Arthur had rebelled from the Western Roman Empire, and formed his own Romano-British kingdom, he could have appointed his loyal Sarmatians in a knightly rank, but by the Western Roman standards, that would have not happened.
Basically, King Arthur's greatest mistakes were the historical inaccuracies for me. But otherwise, I quite enjoyed it for what it was.
Wow mate, you actually like that woman? Are you serious???
Maion
P.S.: Just kidding there, though I really don't like her :-P
watch The Dreamers then tell me if you still think that...
I liked KoH too, It was underrated. It portrayed Muslims and Christians quite fairly. Even though it was filmed from a Christian point of view they showed the brutality of them, Which is not done enough I find, Christendom has been notoriously brutal to its enemies. Though to be honest it was far from historical accuracy... However pure historical accuracy does not make a good movie. Excellent writing, and it had well done action scenes. I liked the music too.
Several Significant 'Points of Order'
...portrayed Muslims and Christians quite fairly.
First Point of Order: I don't really see why fairness would be an important issue here, unless it were to highlight ones personal preference and ideological leanings? One may have noticed that the film portrayed no monolithic theocracy, rather deep factionalism where members of the same warring party were more likely to fight each other than the enemy. I believe the film would have demonstrated this even more if Mr. Ripley had saw fit to correctly portray Yūsuf Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn ibn Ayyūb as a Kurd, instead of an Arab. Thus, during an argument with his Arab captains whom insisted employment of their strategy, the Kurd says in anger about the locals inability to remove the various European kingdoms, ‘What did you [Arabs] do before I came!!! ... I mean, before god, sent me?
Of course, said director is more than infamous for inserting his personal views into his movies. With that said, game-changing subtleties be damned, as Ripley still makes entertaining films. Personally, I did not perceive that this film depicted the two warring parties either fairly or unfairly. In simpler words, it portrayed each in turn pious individuals on both sides, adrift in a sea of brutality, opportunism, and desperation. Although I will concede, it has long been said that the understand of each, falls well within the realms of comprehension and ablity to recall.
...filmed from a Christian point of view.
Second Point of Order: If one followed the story line, 'Kingdom of Heaven' was filmed from a Frankish blacksmith's (Balian of Ibelin) and bastard son of an Italian/Frankish Baron point of view, who's religious faith had just been shook to it's core.
...Christendom has been notoriously brutal to its enemies.
Third Point of Order: Due to the subject and setting, I'm not sure where this careless judgment came from, or why it was offered? Despite our current surroundings, one may not have noticed, but war is inherently a brutal sport, so please desist, and do not belabor by attempts at justification.
CmacQ
fenix3279
10-10-2008, 02:21
watch The Dreamers then tell me if you still think that...
She's completely naked in that movie half the time. That being said, check it out anyway :mellow:
Several Significant 'Points of Order'
...portrayed Muslims and Christians quite fairly.
First Point of Order: I don't really see why fairness would be an important issue here, unless it were to highlight ones personal preference and ideological leanings? One may have noticed that the film portrayed no monolithic theocracy, rather deep factionalism where members of the same warring party were more likely to fight each other than the enemy. I believe the film would have demonstrated this even more if Mr. Ripley had saw fit to correctly portray Yūsuf Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn ibn Ayyūb as a Kurd, instead of an Arab. Thus, during an argument with his Arab captains whom insisted employment of their strategy, the Kurd says in anger about the locals inability to remove the various European kingdoms, ‘What did you [Arabs] do before I came!!! ... I mean, before god, sent me?
Of course, said director is more than infamous for inserting his personal views into his movies. With that said, game-changing subtleties be damned, as Ripley still makes entertaining films. Personally, I did not perceive that this film depicted the two warring parties either fairly or unfairly. In simpler words, it portrayed each in turn pious individuals on both sides, adrift in a sea of brutality, opportunism, and desperation. Although I will concede, it has long been said that the understand of each, falls well within the realms of comprehension and ablity to recall.
...filmed from a Christian point of view.
Second Point of Order: If one followed the story line, 'Kingdom of Heaven' was filmed from a Frankish blacksmith's (Balian of Ibelin) and bastard son of an Italian Baron point of view, who's religious faith had just been shook to it's core.
...Christendom has been notoriously brutal to its enemies.
Third Point of Order: Due to the subject and setting, I'm not sure where this careless judgment came from, or why it was offered? Despite our current surroundings, one may not have noticed, but war is inherently a brutal sport, so please desist, and do not belabor by attempts at justification.
CmacQ
just to clarify...in the KoH the actual line was, "How many battles did God win for the Muslims before I came? That is, before God determined that I should come."
Indeed, thanks for the correction. Within the historic setting, you may understand why I may have remembered that line as I did. I'm not sure if Ripley actually understood its potential significance, yet I noted this as central to the theme of individual and factional bonding or conflict, within the larger context.
CmacQ
Gleemonex
10-10-2008, 07:19
First, some responses:
When I still was a small Dutchhoplite i thought "Fall of the Roman empire" was very impressive.
Hear hear. I haven't seen it since I was a barely a Gleemonex in my father's eye, though. [1]
However pure historical accuracy does not make a good movie.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't consider that an absolute. Consider "Tora Tora Tora", for instance. Phenomenal movie, then and now. Beyond the pacing and tension, it was one of the landmark movies for special effects (right up there with Star Wars, Tron and Jurassic Park IMO).
300 is, IMO, a bit like the story that a Greek storyteller would have told about Thermopylae at the time. It's embellished and 'mythified' to make it exciting and inspiring. The ancient Greeks would have loved it.
Actually it's exactly like that. In both the movie and the comic it's "revealed" at the end that the whole story is nothing more than that, a story told by Dilios to the greek soldiers before the battle of Plataea. Although in the comic it's a little more obvious since it's mentioned several times how Dilios "spins his stories".
You beat me to it, guys. I was going to point out that within the first ten minutes of the film we see Dilios literally walking around a campfire telling the story. What more to we need? A "<blink>Warning: Campfire Story!</blink>" text across Dilios' face?! Honestly, I have to wonder of the detractors [2] of 300 if they were taught to hate fun as children.
That being said, I wouldn't have any complaints with a movie adaptation of something more verisimilar like "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield [3][4]. I've never seen "The 300 Spartans", incidentally, although if it were called "The 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians" I'd be more impressed.
Anyhow, here are some more ancient warfare films that I enjoyed, in no particular order:
Kingdom of Heaven (albeit medieval, not ancient)
Gladiator
The Last Samurai. Yes yes, I know. But besides the bullhockey "White man out-samurais the samurais" plot device and the inaccuracies, (and the fact that it's technically not "Ancient Warfare", thus OT, but I had to mention it) I found the pacing of the film, the changes of mood and the action scenes were great. And A-ru-gu-ren's genuine appreciation for the culture that adopts him tempered my objections a bit [5].
Alexander. Yes yes, I know. And I share many of the criticisms stated here and in other threads. But I have to say, as a straight guy, that the portrayal of his relationship with Hephaistion was rather sweet and touching. I was cringing through the whole movie, waiting for some nauseating "The Crying Game" moment, but it never came. And, as an animal lover, the scene with Bucephalus dying was very powerful and symbolic. They also did a great job of showing the chariot-beating U formation -- I wish they'd done the same for the companion cavalry leaping over the battle line.
You know, I'm trying to think of more movies set in Classical Antiquity, but they escape me. And all my interest in King Arthur evaporated when I saw that politically-correct feminist-pandering poster of Guinevere as an archer(ess).
Well, that was longer-winded than I'd hoped.
-Glee
[1] Sorry, it was stronger than me.
[2] Objecting to 300's inaccuracy is fine, but claiming that the movie is objectively bad because of it is just pompous intellectual masturbation.
[3] Going on second-hand accounts. All the references to 'chow' and the modern-military-style bitching and moaning (see [4]) in the samples turned me right off.
[4] although if he would cut out all the suspension-of-disbelief-raping US Marine slang from 2500 years in the future I wouldn't be too saddened. Yes Steven, you were in the Marines. We get it. Congratulations.
[5] I'm still waiting for "The Last N***a On Earth" starring Tom Hanks
Dutchhoplite
10-10-2008, 08:41
And all my interest in King Arthur evaporated when I saw that politically-correct feminist-pandering poster of Guinevere as an archer(ess).[/I]
Keira Knightley dressed in leather....
:sweatdrop:
Celtic_Punk
10-10-2008, 08:53
Tora Tora Tora was absolutely FREAAAKING amazing.... Actually, I will go rent it this afternoon, You've got me itching to watch it again... Its long... but id rather have a GOOD long movie... than have a 4 Titanic *pukes*
see "Pearl Habour" if you wish to claw your eyes out.
Alexander was nice aswell. I would have liked it to have focused more on the conquest than his relationship with hephastion. I have no problem with homosexuality, but there's no REAL concrete evidence of a relationship with him (though I do believe it's true) and it wasn't the only thing about him. His homosexual relationship was not the centre stage of Alexandros' life. His exploits were.
I did like the ending scene with Ptolemy though, how it shows that it was the Successors who wrote the history. I am a firm believer that Alexander was assassinated. Which was probably for the better... Who knows what would have happened if he didn't die. He certainly would have conquered the West. Rome would have been no match for him. Interesting speculation.
I liked that scene where Ptolemy and Alexander stood on the Himalayas contemplating the world as well. Alexander was one of those movies where when the music cued just so that your hair would stand up on end, and you certainly get caught up in the moment. It wasn't the best movie, but it was pretty damn good.
by the way, you know what makes me more sick than watching Troy?
The fact that at the american premier of Das Boot, before the titles it states "40 000 german submariners were put out to sea between 1939 and 1945... less than 10 000 returned" The audience clapped. Thats just f***king disgusting. like thats REALLY bad.
I'd also like to note that Jerry sunk over 100 000 tons of shipping alone in Feb. 1940 for the loss of 1 boat. considering your average ship holds about anywhere between 2000tns-12000. thats alot of merchant vessels.
Anyone seen Henry V?
I see where you're coming from, but I don't consider that an absolute. Consider "Tora Tora Tora", for instance. Phenomenal movie, then and now. Beyond the pacing and tension, it was one of the landmark movies for special effects (right up there with Star Wars, Tron and Jurassic Park IMO).
I can't believe I have missed this one. Just checked it at imdb and wiki. Seems to be a bit more accurate than Pearl Harbour. I have to get this ASAP.
Alexander. Yes yes, I know. And I share many of the criticisms stated here and in other threads. But I have to say, as a straight guy, that the portrayal of his relationship with Hephaistion was rather sweet and touching. I was cringing through the whole movie, waiting for some nauseating "The Crying Game" moment, but it never came. And, as an animal lover, the scene with Bucephalus dying was very powerful and symbolic. They also did a great job of showing the chariot-beating U formation -- I wish they'd done the same for the companion cavalry leaping over the battle line.
It could've used another "big battle" scene, though.
Codyos Vladimiros
10-10-2008, 11:47
+1 on Kingdom of Heaven
However, you have to watch the directors cut. The studio cut out almost 45 minutes of footage that IMO, is critical to the story. Eva Green (omg how hot is she?!) refused to promote the movie after most of her characters story was cut.
Also, the guy that warhammers the knight in the head at the beginning of the movie is Vorenus from Rome on HBO
What he said, BIG TIME. Do not see the theatrical version. The theatrical version is crap.
As for myself, I am fond of the Battle of Gaugemela scene in Alexander, which is, IMO, about the only redeeming part of that film. I think it gives a better view of pike warfare than anything else out there.
Skandinav
10-10-2008, 13:01
I must agree with some of you that Fall of the Roman Empire from Hollywoods golden period was a great movie when I saw it when I was younger, haven´t seen it for many, many years though but I still believe it is far better than what I´ve seen since, for example in the other movies mentioned in this thread.
Gleemonex
10-10-2008, 14:51
Keira Knightley dressed in leather....
:sweatdrop:
True. But even she objected to her digitally enhanced bust in the poster in question -- which I find quite admirable.
Titanic *pukes*
see "Pearl Habour" if you wish to claw your eyes out.
No thanks, on both counts. I make a point of inanely declaring "It sinks at the end" (or alternately "Maybe he'll miss the iceberg this time") every time I catch someone watching Titanic. And I wouldn't trust Michael Bay to follow the historical timeline of a fart, let alone such an emotionally-charged (for Americans anyways) event as Pearl Harbo(u)r.
Alexander was nice aswell. I would have liked it to have focused more on the conquest than his relationship with hephastion. I have no problem with homosexuality, but there's no REAL concrete evidence of a relationship with him (though I do believe it's true) and it wasn't the only thing about him. His homosexual relationship was not the centre stage of Alexandros' life. His exploits were.
It could've used another "big battle" scene, though.
True -- but it was a large part of his character development (plus his crazy dysfunctional relationship with his parents). Ideally, I would have liked to see the relationship with Hephaistion stay, and have another battle as Poppis says, to water down the 'romance' in a longer bloodier movie. Oh, and perhaps a bit more Plato.
by the way, you know what makes me more sick than watching Troy?
The fact that at the american premier of Das Boot, before the titles it states "40 000 german submariners were put out to sea between 1939 and 1945... less than 10 000 returned" The audience clapped. Thats just f***king disgusting. like thats REALLY bad.
I'd also like to note that Jerry sunk over 100 000 tons of shipping alone in Feb. 1940 for the loss of 1 boat. considering your average ship holds about anywhere between 2000tns-12000. thats alot of merchant vessels.
Yeah, that is sad. I hope they started to turn around by the "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" scene -- Das Boot is one of my very favourite movies, due in no small part to the character development and pathos. Also, it was the first movie to actively portray the German soldiers (well, sailors) as fully-realised characters with deep motivations.
I can't believe I have missed this one. Just checked it at imdb and wiki. Seems to be a bit more accurate than Pearl Harbour. I have to get this ASAP.
Absolutely do. While you're visiting WWII, you might also check out another stealth classic, "The Guns of Navarone" (and in the unlikely event that you've yet to see it, the aforementionned "Das Boot").
Oh, and thanks to mcantu and Codyos Vladimiros for recommending the director's cut of KoH. I'm a big fan of directors' cuts (yes, even the 209-minute Das Boot behemoth). I've heard that the extended release of Gladiator is quite better too (perhaps in this very thread; sorry, too lazy to scroll back). Incidentally, do Alexander and Troy have directors' cuts?
-Glee
oudysseos
10-10-2008, 15:48
Let me pre-empt this by saying that I didn't hate 300, but...
This is an incredible article, called 300: Separating Fact from Fiction, from an Iranian/Persian perspective, which I think is great as 99% of the posts here and elsewhere that I've read have focused on the historical inaccuracies in depicting the Greeks. Well worth a read.
http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/image014.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm&h=240&w=240&sz=13&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__NVsN8WmwLw4kHYccxJmiZJakDWw=&tbnid=Lad5xyqcdzAIzM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dancient%2Barmored%2Bface%2Bmasks%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG
tapanojum
10-10-2008, 21:09
Gladiator is my all time favorite movie in general.
Centurion Crastinus
10-10-2008, 21:53
+1 on Kingdom of Heaven
However, you have to watch the directors cut. The studio cut out almost 45 minutes of footage that IMO, is critical to the story. Eva Green (omg how hot is she?!) refused to promote the movie after most of her characters story was cut.
Also, the guy that warhammers the knight in the head at the beginning of the movie is Vorenus from Rome on HBO
I agree. The uncut version is a totally different movie.
Gleemonex
10-11-2008, 03:04
Let me pre-empt this by saying that I didn't hate 300, but...
hahaha.. I hope I didn't come off as THAT bitter. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like a given movie. The problem I've encountered (rarely, mind you) with 300 is that I find people telling me what movies to like.
This is an incredible article, called 300: Separating Fact from Fiction, from an Iranian/Persian perspective, which I think is great as 99% of the posts here and elsewhere that I've read have focused on the historical inaccuracies in depicting the Greeks. Well worth a read.
http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/image014.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm&h=240&w=240&sz=13&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__NVsN8WmwLw4kHYccxJmiZJakDWw=&tbnid=Lad5xyqcdzAIzM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dancient%2Barmored%2Bface%2Bmasks%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG
There. THAT'S how to criticise 300. Although it speaks more to modern jingoism and xenophobia than it does the movie itself. Indeed, the author says so plainly at the beginning. Sadly, it'll take more than an essay to fix modern jingoism and xenophobia.
Thanks for the link!
-Glee
Celtic_Punk
10-11-2008, 04:43
anyone thinking of seeing titanic, please see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuSdU8tbcHY
i just saved you 4 boring hours, in which you only get to see one pair of boobs. and they werent even that nice...
oudysseos
10-11-2008, 06:28
Now now, there's no call to demean anyone's boobs.
Nice 1 Celtic Punk, that clip started my weekend with a laugh:yes:
Celtic_Punk
10-11-2008, 09:08
lol im not demeaning, im just saying theres better out there rofl. :chinese:
The best: Asterix and Obelix vs Caesar (Wy has nobody mentioned this film?)
The worst: Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra :egypt: :thumbsdown:
Spartan198
10-11-2008, 14:17
My take on ancient warfare movies is two-fold: (A) I focus on the aspects of a movie I enjoy, rather than dwelling on the things I don't like about it (e.g., I'm not going to condemn King Arthur simply because the Saxons are using crossbows instead of bows), and (B) I seem to be one of the very few people in the world who actually realize that Hollywood is the entertainment capitol of the world, not the academic capitol of the world.
With that said, my favorite is 300 (which I saw in theaters at least seven times) and my least favorite is a tie between Braveheart (I don't know why, I just can't really get into it) and Kingdom of Heaven (I hate Orlando Bloom).
KoH actually had one of the most confusing stories I ever saw. I put it up with the film of Alexander. Totally disconnected.
There's a guy in a random European country (Was it England? France?), suddenly comes out a noble from nowhere and says, the guy is his son. Then the priest says the decapitaded his dead wife and he kills the priest because of it and flees.
In 5 minutes, he catches up with his father and immediatly starts learning swordsplay and consequently appear random soldiers to get our poor guy.
Another 5 minutes later, he's already in Venice or somewhere around Italy, and his father dies from the previous fight, making him his heir. (The guy who, in films time, 10 minutes back was just a normal peasent or whatever).
10 minutes later he is already in the Holy Land, survivor of a shipwreck and stumbles off into the desert and kills a Muslim (I don't remember what for) that comes across his way. Another 10 minutes later, he meats with the major nobles already in Jerusalem, and he is given a fief in a village somewhere in the middle of the desert, and to the great surprise, he decides that there is little water around, and to solve that little problem, he just snaps his fingers and the village soon enough has great fountains of water. >_>
20 minutes later, Saladin is attacking one of the villain (film-wise) noble's possessions for something he did to the Muslims to get the throne or something. After the King comes to the rescue everyone is put back in their place.
10 minutes later, the King dies and the villain takes the throne and starts attacking the Muslims in the desert and are wiped out, making Saladin attack Jerusalem defended by our guy who one hour ago was a simple peasent, and then was now crushing every Muslim attempt to take the city.
20 minutes later, he surrenders the city so he can leave the city with his people.
THE END.
That's pretty much what I understood from the film.
Alexander was very much the same thing:
First 30 minutes: Alexander's youth under Philip
Second 30 minutes: Battle of Gaugamela
Third 30 minutes: Banquet, Arriving in India, Battle of the river Hydaspes, Mutiny, Massive Weddings, Alexander's death.
That was why I was very disapointed with both movies. >_>
machinor
10-11-2008, 16:46
You guys hate "King Arthur"? Go and watch "The Last Legion"! Seriously, I haven't seen such a silly movie in years. I mean yeah, 300 is silly but deliberately silly. "The Last Legion" is silly without noticing. Examples needed? Well how about a bodyguard corps employed by a Eastern Roman ambassador consisting of hooded, Kung-Fu-fighting, female Indians?! I had much fun, watching it with some friends of mine and a vast amount of beer, though. :D
Absolutely do. While you're visiting WWII, you might also check out another stealth classic, "The Guns of Navarone" (and in the unlikely event that you've yet to see it, the aforementionned "Das Boot").
Yea, I've seen them both(although it's been a while since I last saw Navarone). Das Boot sure is a masterpiece. I got the The original uncut version, almost 5 hours of sweating men stuck in a tin can. What's there not to like?
Incidentally, do Alexander and Troy have directors' cuts?
They do. Troy got 30 minutes more in the directors cut; extended battle scenes(most significantly at the sacking of Troy which was barely shown in the theatrical version) and extended sex scenes.:inquisitive:
Alexanders directors cut removed 17 minutes of footage and added nine back, so it's actually shorter than the theatrical version.
There's also another version: Alexander Revisited: The Final Unrated Cut or Alexander: Revisited which is a 3 hours and 34 minutes long. Aparently it takes a more in-depth look at Alexander's life and his relationships with Olympias, Philip, Hephaestion, Roxanne and Ptolemy.
I haven't seen any of these, but I dare say that no amount of revising will make Troy any better. And without a new battle scene in Alexander, I wouldn't stay awake beyond the battle of Gaugamela.
Oh and Jolt, I don't know whether you were speaking about the theatrical version of KoH or not, but everybody who has seen the directors cut have said to me that it's like a whole other movie compared to the theatrical version.
Conradus
10-11-2008, 21:01
You guys sure are hard on most of these movies.
I liked pratically all of them.
King Arthur is great, a badass Owen, badass knights, decent figths, a stunning Keira, who cares then that it's about as historical as lorica segmentata in EB?
300 never claims to be historical. It's based on a graphic novel and the style is nicely transported. The Spartans are just cool to watch, and their phalanx actually looked right at one moment.
Kingdom of Heaven I rather disliked (can't stand Bloom) and I never got aroud to see the director's cut.
Troy was another fairly good blockbuster. Sure it's about as close to Homer's Illiad as Schwarzenegger ever came to being an actor but Brad Pitt was a cool, badass, arrogant Achilles. Like he should be. Eric Bana did a good portrayal of Hector too. And their fight was just fantastic.
Alexander was another movie I kinda liked. The battle was stunning, some aspects of his life were enlarged, but all in all it was a fair view of the man. His relation with Hephaestion, the troubles with succession, even Roxanne (though the wedding night probably wasn't so :))
Ramistrov
10-11-2008, 21:20
I cannot believe nobody has mentioned Spartacus yet! SHAME ON YOU!!! :oops:
My favourite is probably KOH for Medieval fun and Gladiator for the Ancient!
Honourable mentions goto: El Cid, Braveheart (Tragic but fun), Troy, Alexander and Rise & Fall.
Eduorius
10-11-2008, 21:51
My favorite ancient warfare movie would be Alexander. I liked a lot the documentary Becoming Alexander were it showed how Colin Farrell prepared for the role training with the kopis and all that.
Since many people are mentioning KoH, I think I can also say Alatriste. Both are great warfare movies.
There are plenty of good Vietnam/WWII/WWI movies.
Not so many Medieval ones & sweet FA Ancient.
On the off chance, does 'A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...' count? :clown:
On the Medieval side of things:
Pretty much anything Akira Kurosawa is awesome. Particularly 'Ran' in terms of scale of battles.
But the best ever has to be Monty Python and the Holy Grail :beam:
I'll give another (serious) vote to Spartacus in the Ancient period :yes:
I've only seen the directors cut of Alexander & I like it. Will have to see if I can find that 'revisited' version.
300: People like to defend it as 'its unhistorical because its based on the comic which is unhistorical because its fun' or something.
The reality would have been much more interesting/fun than that bollocks.
Nice camera work & effects though.
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2008, 00:13
My favorite ancient warfare movie would be Alexander.
I would like it a lot more if they didn't focus so much on Alexander's sexuality. They really have to stop inserting political correctness into every movie. Plus, having erotic love for young men was common among the Hellenes of that time. Most of the men had pederastic and homosexual experiences aplenty, although most of them liked women as well, something that not all of the sources mention (such as Hollywood! - I mean they practically turned the movie into one long romance between two gay guys - definitely not what Alexander's life was!)
Codyos Vladimiros
10-12-2008, 01:33
Pretty much anything Akira Kurosawa is awesome. Particularly 'Ran' in terms of scale of battles.
But the best ever has to be Monty Python and the Holy Grail :beam:
My medieval history professor said, flat out to his class, that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was probably the most accurate general medieval movie relating to western europe, just for providing a view of important things, and arthurian legend, etc. :laugh4:
I'm inclined to agree.
The recent HBO series ROME begins with a brief battle between a cohort and some Gauls. The legionaries are formed and the Gauls are to the front jeering and screaming before widely charging. The Romans had apparently already used their pila. As the fight progressed the centurion would occasionally blow a whistle to order the front rank to retire. It was the most convincing portrayal of legion combat I have ever seen.
The production values of this series are splendid though to be honest I have never read of whistles being used by the Romans.
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2008, 02:48
The recent HBO series ROME begins with a brief battle between a cohort and some Gauls. The legionaries are formed and the Gauls are to the front jeering and screaming before widely charging. The Romans had apparently already used their pila. As the fight progressed the centurion would occasionally blow a whistle to order the front rank to retire. It was the most convincing portrayal of legion combat I have ever seen.
Yeah, that was the only Hollywood production that I have seen up to date and that was historically accurate. I absolutely loved it!
My favorite ancient warfare movie would be Alexander. I liked a lot the documentary Becoming Alexander were it showed how Colin Farrell prepared for the role training with the kopis and all that.
Since many people are mentioning KoH, I think I can also say Alatriste. Both are great warfare movies.
you saw that too? that was good indeed.
but I was dissapointed at the location-Gaugamela was a plain, not a desert:shame:
and the depiction of the persians sucked-persians got discipline and look like europeans, not a rabble made of Berbers :furious3:
yeah, I read Farrokh/ inspected parthians in EB yesterday. good writer and historian Farrokh was. I think I'm turning TPC:clown:
-Praetor-
10-12-2008, 03:26
Yeah, that was the only Hollywood production that I have seen up to date and that was historically accurate. I absolutely loved it!
Got bad news for you, it wasn`t a hollywood production, but a joint BBC, RAI and HBO production, and it was filmed mainly in Italy. :grin:
So no, Holywood remains true to it`s principles. :dozey:
I agree that the Kingdom of Heaven full cut version was like a totally different film than the theatrical one, and MUCH better. That version is one of my favorite movies, and so is Gladiator.
Alexander just about put me to sleep. Watching the phalanx move was cool, other than that, it was something like 2 hours about one of the most interesting men who ever lived, and the whole theme of the movie was basically "Look how gay he was!". Of course, since this is the USA we're talking about, absolutely NO male on male love/kissing was allowed, so it always just kept having these ambiguously gay moments between Alexander and his "best friend" Hephaistion- multiple times, right at the point where you think they're going to just start ravaging each other like rabbits on PCP, they quickly hug and walk away.
Oh, and seeing Rosario Dawson naked was a nice touch as well. So the Phalanx was cool, and so were Rosario Dawson's luscious breasts. Other than that, I wanted those 2 hrs of my life back afterward.
Gleemonex
10-12-2008, 03:55
I mean they practically turned the movie into one long romance between two gay guys - definitely not what Alexander's life was!)
Watch Priscilla: Queen of the Desert then get back to me :7jester:
Seriously though, I would have considered it much more PC if it had been MORE gay (Look, gay people can be good at stuff!) or much more Idiocracy if it were LESS gay (Alexander never slept with boys! He was straight as a Spartan[1]. Also, drink Budweiser(tm)). The level of gayness (gayitude?) was nearly on par with the historical record AFAIK.
But that's a matter of opinion of course, and I can see where you're coming from. As I noted earlier, Poppis' suggestion of another battle scene would definitely improve the movie.
The reason I can accept it is that (IMO) Hollywood has been doing alright in portraying the human side of military leaders lately. The best examples that come to mind now are We Were Soldiers and A Few Good Men. Also, I'm told that Hitler: The Rise of Evil is really good, and I'm a big Robert Carlyle fan.
Rosario Dawsons luscious breasts
Don't forget that you see a silhouette of some bush too :rtwyes:
-Glee
[1] Yes, that's on purpose.
Oh and Jolt, I don't know whether you were speaking about the theatrical version of KoH or not, but everybody who has seen the directors cut have said to me that it's like a whole other movie compared to the theatrical version.
I'm speaking about the normal version (The one which passed in the movie theaters)
The story is so confusing I just went like "Who? Where? What? How? Why?" the whole movie.
Same thing would apply to Alexander, had I not studied his history thoroughly enough to know what was happening in the movie and what had happened which the movie did not show.
penguinking
10-12-2008, 05:33
I despised 300, and I realize is wasn't meant to be historical. I watched it with an Iranian friend, and he was extremely offended at the depiction of the Persian Empire as a nation of slaves.
I'm speaking about the normal version (The one which passed in the movie theaters)
The story is so confusing I just went like "Who? Where? What? How? Why?" the whole movie.
Same thing would apply to Alexander, had I not studied his history thoroughly enough to know what was happening in the movie and what had happened which the movie did not show.
It's because they cut a giant chunk of the movie out to fit it into the confusing theatrical version. It all makes much more sense in the director's cut, *possible very light spoilers* everything from why Sybilla chose her bastard husband to be king when she hated him to begin with (yet in the theatrical cut, she appears to just hate him and stupidly choose him anyway, no actual reason is ever given), how Balian (Bloom's character) knew how to fight well beforehand, instead of just receiving one crappy lesson from Liam Neeson and then magically becoming a medieval terminator with a sword, and much more. I really recommend checking it out, I didn't like the theater cut much either.
I despised 300, and I realize is wasn't meant to be historical. I watched it with an Iranian friend, and he was extremely offended at the depiction of the Persian Empire as a nation of slaves.
The thing I hated most about 300 is how it just proved how ignorant and stupid toward history most of my fellow US citizens are. The flood of "Spartan Mania" across the country, and forum posts all over the net of 'OMG dood spartanz were like buff defenders of FREEDOM!" (probably a bunch of the same people who also claim gays in the military should just keep their mouths shut or be thrown out), and other such BS to cope with for history nerds like us just destroys all of the entertainment value. Everything about that movie was just stupid IMO, a big mockery of the actual event and story behind it. Imagine Saving Private Ryan as a rap musical starring a buffed up Ben Stiller (one actor I like even less than Vin Diesel, who's best moment in that movie was getting shot and not being included in the rest of it), and it begins to give an idea of a WWII version of the farce that 300 was IMO.
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2008, 07:36
I really loved Star Wars, unless we are just talking warfare a long time ago in this galaxy, then Gladiator would be my favorite.
Gleemonex
10-12-2008, 07:37
I despised 300, and I realize is wasn't meant to be historical. I watched it with an Iranian friend, and he was extremely offended at the depiction of the Persian Empire as a nation of slaves.
It would have been a whole lot more insulting if they were believably portrayed as a nation of slaves (and don't forget disfigured monsters and transsexual S&M perverts). Personally, as someone who is regularly mistaken for middle-eastern, I was relieved that they exaggerated enough for the caricature to be obvious.
The thing I hated most about 300 is how it just proved how ignorant and stupid toward history most of my fellow US citizens are.
Don't look now, but the 2004 presidential election already proved that ~D
-Glee
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2008, 07:48
Don't look now, but the 2004 presidential election already proved that ~D
-Glee
Cue Foot telling us to take this into the backroom.
Ramistrov
10-12-2008, 09:19
Oh another film I quite liked was Last of the Mohicans, not really Medieval or ancient but a good adventure movie! :2thumbsup:
You guys sure are hard on most of these movies.
I don't know about others, but I for one watch these movies because I like history, which means I want the movies to be historically accurate(especially concerning battles), or at least not so obviously ahistorical as some of these movies are.
This is why movies like Troy or King Arthur didn't really do it for me.
The reason I can accept it is that (IMO) Hollywood has been doing alright in portraying the human side of military leaders lately. The best examples that come to mind now are We Were Soldiers and A Few Good Men. Also, I'm told that Hitler: The Rise of Evil is really good, and I'm a big Robert Carlyle fan.
Der Untergang also springs to mind.
The thing I hated most about 300 is how it just proved how ignorant and stupid toward history most of my fellow US citizens are.
And that's the movies fault?
I despised 300, and I realize is wasn't meant to be historical. I watched it with an Iranian friend, and he was extremely offended at the depiction of the Persian Empire as a nation of slaves.
Again, that was only Dilios' opinion/observation of the opposing army.
And I agree that a historically accurate movie of the battle of Thermopylae would be awesome, but in the meanwhile people shouldn't try to squeeze 300 into that role.
Conradus
10-12-2008, 10:57
I don't know about others, but I for one watch these movies because I like history, which means I want the movies to be historically accurate(especially concerning battles), or at least not so obviously ahistorical as some of these movies are.
This is why movies like Troy or King Arthur didn't really do it for me.
You watch a movie like Troy, based on one of the first fiction novels in history and you expect it to be historically accurate? I mean, be glad they didn't include gods in the fighting or Achilles fighting against an entire river.
Though I wouldn't mind if they'd stay closer to the Illiad. But that would be unfilmable.
Ok maybe Troy wasn't the greatest example. I did actually enjoy the movie the first time I saw it in theater, as did most of my friends.
The fighting choreography was truly breathtaking(though how historically accurate it would be, I can't say), but after seeing it a couple of times, it's inefficiencies(spelling?) popped up like actors, CGI armies, heroes turned into action movie clichés... you know, all the things I liked in 300.:beam:
polluxlm
10-12-2008, 16:08
In my opinion all historical movies are lacking in one way or the other. There is no Godfather in that genre.
There are some really good ones though.
Alexander
The movie with the most highlights. Stone captures Alexanders larger than life persona effectively with heroic and uncompromising portrails at the battle of Gaugamela and Hydaspes. To engage the superior army of Darius with supreme confidence immediately gives you the feeling of greatness. Zeus be with us! gives me chills every time. Farrell gives a strong performance at the key points, although he falls short on a few instances. All in all you are left with the feeling of a force of nature that shamelessly dies way too early, possibly (probably in my mind) by assassinaton. We must kill the dreamers before they exhaust us all. Great line, and very symptomatic of how historical greats are often perceived and treated by the less great ones.
Some gripes of course. Alexander is way too good and humanitarian. All his fould deeds are given justification to the extreme, and the pragmatic side of him is completely ignored. The gay aspect is given too much importance. There is nothing special about royalty in Greece having boy lovers in that time, so don't try and make it so. Especially the scene with Aristotle feels extremely forced. And the kid Alexander is a weak actor with often weak lines.
The Revisited version is far superior to the other cuts.
Kingdom Of Heaven
I'm of course talking about the DC version. Great actors for the most part. Even Bloom does a decent job. Accurate and objective in the portrails. The honor aspect works great and carries a timeless relevance. You could in a way use this film as a manual to how to lead a good life. The philosophy is very mature, one of several things making this a serious movie. Being Ridley Scott the cinematography and sets are exquisit (sp?). Beautiful and detailed all around.
Gripes: Some artistic freedom taken to portray some of the characters as either better or worse than they actually were. Guy's decision to attack Saladin is a bit too simplified. Nobody is that stupid unless somehow forced into it. Makes you feel a little cheated. The relationship with Sybylla, although possible, takes way too much freedom in establishing the mandatory love story and ignoring some of the very strict rules royalty had to follow. Going back to France with him is totally ridiculous and uncessesary.
Others in the same category, what I perceive to be serious movies:
Spartacus, Gladiator, HBO's Rome, Braveheart.
Fun movies: 300, Troy.
Stay away from: King Arthur (absolutely terrible, an insult to watch)
umm wouldn't KoH be medieval , not ancient times? :inquisitive:
there aren't many historical films out there... one of the best that I can remember is "the fall" but I uess that isn't ancient hehe.
and troy was... damn I couldn't finish it :P
GodEmperorLeto
10-13-2008, 07:07
List includes non-ancient/classical movies, too. And a few non-war but still classical-related.
FAVORITE
Alexander Director's Cut: Say what you will about Oliver Stone, and about this film, I still like it a great deal. What amazes me is how much of the actual Alexander story they managed to pull in. Although I would rather have seen Gaugamela and Granicus as separate fights, I expected the extremely cinematic events of Granicus to be merged with the ultimately decisive Gaugamela, which is precisely what occurred. The Hydaspes was a slight let-down when he was wounded. His homosexuality with Hephaistion was not over-played or under-played, in my opinion. Rosario Dawson... yeah. And I get to see Babylon recreated in all its glory.
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut: Much better movie than the theatrical release. A superb work by Scott. Superior in all ways to Gladiator (see below). As for those of you who mentioned the brutality of the Christians against their enemies, I'd like to remind you that this was a time when everyone was generally brutal to everyone else, and that religion was just a convenient excuse to justify said brutality. As for Saladin, he was done amazingly well in this film, and the fact that he was actually not ruthless is reflected well (and one of the reasons he was such a fantastic ruler).
Spartacus: Kubrick's least Kubricky film. The checkerboard formation is displayed during the climactic battle-scene. Much better representation of actual gladitorial training and combat than Gladiator.
Ben-Hur: The chariot-race is interesting for how much it got right. But there were one or two things they messed up. Wait a second, this isn't a war movie....
The Ten Commandments: For the chariots alone. And Yul Brynner. The chariots are really good representations of actual Egyptian fighting vehicles. Though there's no real battle scene, it's nevertheless interesting to watch fifty chariots onscreen, get an idea of their mass and volume, and then realize that thousands of those things were deployed at Qadesh against the Hittites.
Titus: More Shakespeare than war, but it's still a pretty cool flick. I like the whole modern vs. ancient thing. Added to the fact that this was Shakespeare's "over-the-top" slaughterfest and you get a pretty interesting flick.
Monty Python & the Holy Grail: One of the best depictions of siege warfare I've ever seen. And of Lancelot singlehandedly storming a castle.
Flesh and Blood: With Rutger Hauer. Various and sundry sex-scenes notwithstanding, this is a pretty good movie about how a small group of ticked-off mercs with a fortress can ruin your whole week during the Renaissance. Lots of neat-o siege weapons and tactics, and, of course, dead people all over the place.
NEUTRAL
Gladiator: Essentially an action movie set in ancient Rome. Haven't seen the Director's Cut. Those scenes left on the cutting-room floor would have added something of merit to the movie, but regardless, we never see accurate representations of gladiators or the sort of matched pairs they had. We see different types, but we never actually see the match-ups. That and the legionaries break ranks during the opening battle, and don't throw their pila. The plot was a rip-off of The Fall of the Roman Empire although the execution was far superior.
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc: The gore was overdone. Which is wierd for a medieval movie, but... it just was.
300: Whatever, man, I liked it, but it isn't my favorite. They catch the Laconic sense of humor pretty well, though. More fantasy than fact, but a lot of the dialogue is accurate. Well, more accurate than other movies I've seen.
Julius Caesar: The one with Marlon Brando. It's inaccurate, but that's Shakespeare's doing. Brando's an awesome Antony.
The 300 Spartans: The one with Richard Egan as Leonidas. It's been too long since I've seen it to give it an accurate review, but I remember liking it.
King Arthur: I was entertained. ... That's about it. Didn't expect much. Has a lot of the same problems Troy does, although Troy ticked me off more.
Cleopatra: Agrippa is the big inaccuracy here. Nevertheless, it's worth it to see the movie that nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Liz Taylor pulls off the role, though. At least, I think she does.
Braveheart: Brilliant depiction of medieval war. Highly inaccurate depiction of 13th century Britain and the Scottish Wars of Independence.
El Cid: Heston's overacting keeps this from being A-#1 awesome.
HATED
The Fall of the Roman Empire: Except for Sophia Loren, this movie has little of merit. It's more of a comedy of historical errors. Alec Guinness (Obi-wan Kenobi to you) as Marcus Aurelius couldn't even save this movie.
Troy: The real Troy looked more impressive, Sparta wasn't on a cliff, and Mycenae was what, 25 miles(?) from the coast. The costumes were cool, but inaccurate. We have enough archeological findings to recreate accurate Mycenaean and Wilusan soldiers from the late 14th/early 13th century BC. If they weren't so busy fence-sitting over the whole realism vs. fantasy elements thing, it'd be okay. Nevertheless, I liked what Brad Pitt did with Achilles, and I liked the vase-painting-inspired combat choreography, but other than that, the movie was more of an insult my intelligence.
Attila: Just God-awful.
HONORABLE MENTION
HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.
Ran, Kagemusha, and Heaven and Earth: Movies set during the Japanese Sengoku Jidai, rife with war, betrayal, and epic battles.
Conan the Barbarian: It's awesome, okay, that's why I listed it. And the raiders at the beginning. Whatever, it's a stretch, but the movie rocks.
The 13th Warrior: Yeah, yeah, yeah, inaccuracies, Beowulf, etc. I know. But, like Conan, this film is full of awesome. Every time I watch it, I fire up some Sweboz on EB and go sack the civilized world.
SwissBarbar
10-13-2008, 07:45
300 is interesting, because the narrator - who is the only one surviver - tells the story from his point of view. I think if an ancient Laconian sees (and fights) an elephant for the first time, he might describe it quite bigger to the audience :beam: and maybe invents some crazy creatures *G* of course he wants to underline the heroism of the 300 men
HONORABLE MENTION
HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.
yep, that's also my opinion
Celtic_Punk
10-13-2008, 12:44
there were two survivors IRL! 299 Spartans died at Thermoplyae,(it was Leonidas and 300 spartans, not just 300 spartans) here is what their fates were according to my book "Greeks at war" by phillip de souza, waldemar heckel, and lloyd llewellyn-jones "Aristodemos and another Spartan called Eurytos had picked up eye infections which became so acute that they were told by the king to remove themselves from the ranks of the 300 as they were incapable of fighting. They were taken to the nearby village of Alpenos by their helot attendants to recuperate." (paraphrasing now) as the rest of the greek army retreated and told them what was happening, the two spartans argued what they should do - return and fight to the death - or follow orders. Eurytos forced his helot to guide him to back, and was slain in the battle. Aristomdemos obeyed. "One other Spartan, called Pantites, also survived because he had been sent off to Thessaly as a messenger before the battle started and by the time he got back it was over." (again paraphrasing) both of them were labelled as cowards. they were labelled tremblers (which means they refused to fight alongside their comrades, and they had to wear a patch on their cloaks to distinguish them as tremblers, nobody would speak to you, youd be refused justice in court, and barred from holding office. also nobody would marry you or your kids.) Pantites hanged himself, Aristodemos bore the shame.(aristodemos is the narrator in 300.. he would not be sitting around a campfire telling the story. hed be laughed at and nobody would talk to him) He wanted an opportunity to restore his honour! this opportunity came during the battle of Palataia the Strategos Pausanias kept getting bad omens from sacrifices, so the spartans would not charge. the Spartans (especially Aristodemos) became increasinly impatient. Aristodemos eventually broke ranks and charged, urging the men on the Teagans on the left flank seeing this rushed onwards. Pausinias (i believe to avoid a disaster) chose this moment to order the spartans on, as apparently the omens were good. Aristodemos killed a number of persians before being cut down. The Spartans and Teagans butchered the persians and killed the commander Mardonios. Herodotus says he was the bravest on that day (as well as I) but the spartans did not feel the same, though courageous he did not meet standards for discipline and obedience.
hope you guys found that a bit interesting.
Read my book, its extremely good "The Greeks at war" it goes from the origins of the greco persian wars to Alexander... the book also mentions the movie by the same name (ONLY) for its accurate depiction of the Makedonian Phalangites
the book is written by actual uni profs. and De souza and Llewellyn-jones are both doctors.
300 spartans plus 400 thebians, and 700 Thespaiai hoplites stayed back with the spartans to glory. Though the Spartans definately bore the brunt initially. All fought to the death for their country. still Persians got rocked, more than 20 000 casualties, for probably around 2000... thats a ratio of 10:1... PWNT!
MOLON LABE!!!!
The Celtic Viking
10-13-2008, 16:41
300 was just awful. I say that because it's only selling point was "well, it LOOKS good", to which I disagree. It looked bad, it had no story, it was really boring and it deserves all the bad criticism it can get. That would be the one I hate the most.
The one I like the most would be Rome if counting series, and Spartacus if not. I don't need to give any motivation, it should be obvious already.
machinor
10-13-2008, 21:00
you saw that too? that was good indeed.
but I was dissapointed at the location-Gaugamela was a plain, not a desert:shame:
and the depiction of the persians sucked-persians got discipline and look like europeans, not a rabble made of Berbers :furious3:
That's true. If you think about it, the Persians in Alexander should have looked more like the Greek and the Greek more like the Persians. I mean, come on... Alexander as a pale, blond guy. Doesn't really look convincing.
I think the best parts of Alexander were the battle at Gaugamela, Val Kilmer as King Philipp (Kilmer is one of the greatest actors around, shame he doesn't get many good roles...) and one bacchanal scene where Alexander is posing as Herakles (with a lion's head etc.) and drinking large quantities of wine. He drinks from this bowl of some sort and in the shot his face is covered by that bowl and you only see the lion's head on his head, so it looks like a lion would drink. That scene was absolutly fantastic with that symbolism of Alexander becoming an animal in his alcoholism. Another good thing was Angelina Jolie in her toga (or whatever you might call that dress), she's just pure sex. Although her strange accent and the fact that she's supposed to be Colin Farrell's mother but is only 2 or 3 years older than him was a bit silly.
Apart from those three and a half things there wasn't really anything good in Alexander in my opinion. I especially dislike the huge leap from young Alexander directly to the battle of Gaugamela. I was totally confused by that. That's not cool fast-cut cinema that's just plain bad filmmaking.
One Alexander movie I liked was the one from the 50s with Richard Burton I think. The battle scenes were a bit silly from a historical point of view (as in most historical movies from that time) but the plot and the characters were far more intriguing and better developed than in Alexander.
Someone mentioned "Alatriste". Great historical movie, although not a warfare movie per se. The fencing scenes are absolutly awesome. Very stylish and quite accurate at the same time. Great dialogue too. The plot can be a bit confusing at times because sometimes it gets a bit difficult to keep all those different characters apart. But great movie nonetheless.
I loved HBO's Rome as well, easily my favorite of all listed here, though it definitely isn't an "ancient warfare movie" (although neither was KoH). The portrayal of real friendship between Pullo and Vorenus is just brilliant IMO. Two guys who (several episodes in) genuinely love one another and would walk through hell together- yet half of the time they just want to beat the sh*t out of each other as well. Sounds like my friends and I sometimes.
I actually liked King Arthur as well, so shoot me :P Sure it was silly. I find Braveheart entertaining also, though it was practically just one huge mockery of William Wallace for the most part.
machinor
10-14-2008, 01:57
Yeah, Rome was definetly an absolute highlight in recent TV history.
Btw, regarding Braveheart, there is one thing that always comes to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybQCNb4AuW4 (especially from 3:50 on).
Gotta love Stewart Lee for doing that kind of stand-up in Glasgow. :D
I liked 300, and here is why.
It wasn't a war film, it was a propaganda film, and a damn cool one at that. Think "Triumph of the Will" only less Hitler, more ridiculously defined abs.
Just to head this one off now, I appriciate Triumph of the Will on an artistic basis, and think Hitler was evil.
I liked 300, and here is why.
It wasn't a war film, it was a propaganda film, and a damn cool one at that. Think "Triumph of the Will" only less Hitler, more ridiculously defined abs.
Just to head this one off now, I appriciate Triumph of the Will on an artistic basis, and think Hitler was evil.
I agree with it being a propaganda film. Sadly, 99% of the population here (in the USA) with their 5 minute attention spans were too busy running back home to watch American Idol or some other such serves only as a distraction bullshite to ever think long enough (hopefully, a few seconds would suffice) to realize that what they were seeing was blatant propaganda.
"OMG dood, thoze buff freedom loving completely heterosexually masculine spartanz TOTALLY kicked those muslim persians' asses!"
This country is certainly doomed within the next 50 years, if that, given that the generation just after mine (I'm 26) may as well have come from Mars for all I can tell. I'm not supposed to be talking about the "damn kids" like this until I'm 50 or so...
300 - I found it hard to believe that Diver Dan could grow a six-pack...
teh1337tim
10-14-2008, 06:04
i thought they made them all look perfect with computer graphics
:D
bash the movie but dont bash the people mate...
you dont c us bashing u.. on this forum :D
about the HBO Rome- it was a great serries but unfortunatly it ran out of events to run on
(death of ceaser to octavian but idk)
I bet you all
Ceasers campaign in gual and assasination by senators then civil war and octavian then cleopatra is like the most recognizable historic fact about the roman republic/pre empire by anyone who has went to school
i gurantee u that :D
machinor
10-14-2008, 11:30
HBO's Rome was not intended to go for more than 2 seasons and I think that is quite good this way. I prefer a short series with stable high niveau instead of a long series that grows stupid or boring with time. Quality over quantity should be the maxime of TV stations!
Apart from those three and a half things there wasn't really anything good in Alexander in my opinion. I especially dislike the huge leap from young Alexander directly to the battle of Gaugamela. I was totally confused by that. That's not cool fast-cut cinema that's just plain bad filmmaking.
It is my opinion that a good portrait of the life of Alexander would only come if it was made in a trilogy.
there were two survivors IRL! ...both of them were labelled as cowards. they were labelled tremblers Pantites hanged himself.... opportunity came during the battle of Palataia ... Aristodemos eventually broke ranks and charged, urging the men on....Aristodemos killed a number of persians before being cut down.
wow, valerio massimo manfredi based one of his books, "Spartan," on the Persian invasion of Greece and this exact part was in it. The main characters brother is the mad spartan, although his name is slighlty different IIRC. Anyone read that book?
machinor
10-14-2008, 23:51
It is my opinion that a good portrait of the life of Alexander would only come if it was made in a trilogy.
I absolutely disagree. I hate this obsession with movie trilogies. Usually that's just totally unnecessary.
As I mentioned before: Take a look at "Alexander The Great" from 1956 with Richard Burton. The battle scenes aren't really that good, but the plot and characters are absolutly fantastic. A true epic. And I think Alexander's life definately does not provide enough plot for a movie trilogy. If you don't fill up time with battle scenes like the one of Gaugamela in "Alexander" (which definetly was great) then there would not be enough to provide a constant level of interest without turning to "Rome"-series-options like introducing lots of sideplots and -characters (do not get me wrong, I liked that a lot about HBO's Rome, but it would be a bit silly to do that in a movie to that extend).
Heck, if Alexander's life and career can't provide interest for 6 hours, I don't know how the hell did LoTR got such a huge success.
Heck, if Alexander's life and career can't provide interest for 6 hours, I don't know how the hell did LoTR got such a huge success.
think on it man: alexander is just a guy who conquesr the world to most poeple. Poeple hwever find entertainment value in rings. Its kind of sickenening when you think about it, but mann does lean towards shiny and the near, not the "drab" and far (don't get me wrong, Alexander never was drab, but you get my point). The viewer can relate to the quest for power, the romance, and the monsters in the story, since its flat out there for all to see. But most do not see such allegories in history, at least the weasy ones most viewers look for.
alternatively, the Author proposes a deep psychological atachment to rings of any type, real or otherwise:clown: (I hate the books and movies for LoTR)
machinor
10-15-2008, 21:25
I was quite bored with the LotR-movies. The first one was kind of cool for the most part, but the other two were just "blablabla... I get it, you're all totally important 'n stuff... get to the action, damit!!"
;)
10,000 B.C. anyone?:laugh4:
PS: I'm going to pretend you didn't say that, machinor.:knight::skull:
I was quite bored with the LotR-movies. The first one was kind of cool for the most part, but the other two were just "blablabla... I get it, you're all totally important 'n stuff... get to the action, damit!!"
;)
I would avoid the books then.
Sarathos
10-15-2008, 23:36
I will also support KoH, 300, Gladiator as great movies. Arthur, I shall remain neutral as it was a good movie, actor's were great but the storyline, not so much.
I have seen all of Troy, but what I did see did not impress me.
machinor
10-16-2008, 00:41
I would avoid the books then.
I actually read the books, because a friend of mine was a huge fan of the books back when the first movie came out. As I mentioned I did like the first one, so I read all three books. Well, let's just say it reminded me why I like the Dune novels more (as the Dune- and LotR-franchises are always hyped to be direct "rivals"... I never got on what basis, but still... I like Dune more... except the new ones, they're terrible).
I quite liked The Silmarillion, though.
Gleemonex
10-16-2008, 02:12
10,000 B.C. anyone?:laugh4:
Technically that's a pre-historic warfare movie, but since there is a grand total of two-and-a-half of those ever made (Quest for Fire, The Scorpion King and 10 000 B.C.) that I'm aware of, I think it's okay to discuss it here ;)
Anyhow, 10 000 B.C. was pretty enjoyable, and I enjoyed his trek (which I imagine as going from the Urals to the Nile). They also managed to work some of the modern mysteries of archaeology into the storyline, which I was sure they were going to totally miss. And it wasn't quite as ahistorical as I thought it was going to be. But the end totally ruined it for me.
Spoiler alert!
I thought it was total Hollywood bullsh*t that he clearly and unambiguously "accepted" the compromise with the bad guy, then rescinded after asking about the fates of the slaves. It was a failed attempt at pathos, to me. It would have been just as sophisticated, and much quicker, if he'd just said "I accept... NOT!". It was also trite, anachronistic slavery-bad-democracy-good neo-American Hollywood drivel.
-Glee
Celtic_Punk
10-16-2008, 02:27
never ever ever speak of 10 000 BC again. ever :hanged:
Gleemonex
10-16-2008, 05:21
Oh get over yourselves. It wasn't that bad, if you set your expectations appropriately low and shut your brain off when the lights dim.
-Glee
Celtic_Punk
10-16-2008, 05:22
SSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! never... if we all just ignore it... itll be like the movie never happened.
(as the Dune- and LotR-franchises are always hyped to be direct "rivals"... I never got on what basis, but still... I like Dune more... except the new ones, they're terrible).
I love them both. I'm a huge Tolkien fan and I have to say that, like many of my friends, I think Silmarillion was amazing, even more so than LotR.
From Herbert I've only read the first Dune "trilogy" and I have to say that it was(and is) the best science-fiction story I've ever read.
think on it man: alexander is just a guy who conquesr the world to most poeple. Poeple hwever find entertainment value in rings. Its kind of sickenening when you think about it, but mann does lean towards shiny and the near, not the "drab" and far (don't get me wrong, Alexander never was drab, but you get my point). The viewer can relate to the quest for power, the romance, and the monsters in the story, since its flat out there for all to see. But most do not see such allegories in history, at least the weasy ones most viewers look for.
alternatively, the Author proposes a deep psychological atachment to rings of any type, real or otherwise:clown: (I hate the books and movies for LoTR)
A trilogy about Alexander would certainly bring much of his history to life, more than to what most people think about him. It isn't just about conquering the world.
It's about fighting a gigantic empire, being constantly in the danger of being completely defeated, having to slowly explore the ancient lands and peoples that Alexander passed through (I was absolutely dazzled by the beauty of their entry into Babylon in Alexander's movie. It is one of those things which shows what he and his men lived through, and I would be equally delighted with his passing through Egypt, with stay in Persepolis, and a view upon the royal treasury of Persepolis, etc.).
Being in touch with his deeds (Like the famous untying of the knot, the almost tragic voyage to Ammonion), and his progressing megalomania, having him to cheer up his soldiers forward, mediate all the conflicts in the army (The fights between Macedonians and Greeks, etc.) and later towards himself (The torrent of protests towards his increasing Iranian influence), sharing the conquest of the lands with his men, trying to bring the conquered people into his fold, his brutality and folly (The burning of Persepolis, the massacres in Bactria and India, his return through the Iranian desert, etc).
A view upon the procession of foreign states from the West (Carthage, the Italian States, Rome, etc.) coming to pay tribute to, then the greatest ruler of the world (A particular scene I'd want to see would be the encounter between the Roman delegation and Alexander. :D). His megalomaniac plans for the future, and finally, a more detailed view on his death. (Not just "drink a huge vase of wine and be sick." version.)
It would make for an awesome trilogy, me thinks.
Celtic_Punk
10-16-2008, 19:34
I think a movie exploring what might have happened if he hadn't been assassinated. (logic dictates he was, though he was a massive alcoholic like myself, I and probably the liver of an 80 yearold, his death was too well timed. your welcome to your own opinions... but just know that they are wrong! :chinese:)
This could include a number of interesting battles and explore a situation most like myself have probably wondered. What would have happened if Alexander went to war with Rome and Carthage? maybe Rome and Carthage would have stuck together to fight such a powerful eastern threat.probably wouldnt be the greatest movie of all time, id still be wicked though. and thought provoking (unless its written in hollywood)
Dutchhoplite
10-16-2008, 19:58
A Roman historian actually wrote about this :)
The text of Livy and some discussion about it:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=12617&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=alternate&start=0
I think a movie exploring what might have happened if he hadn't been assassinated. (logic dictates he was, though he was a massive alcoholic like myself, I and probably the liver of an 80 yearold, his death was too well timed. your welcome to your own opinions... but just know that they are wrong! :chinese:)
The man just back from the pub says- Why go into fiction? (actually, Hollywood would say "because we can"). The collapse of Alexander's empire would be a great film if written well. And there are lots of other stories, which might be semi-legendary, but would surely be better than 10000BC (come on, Phorusrachus are from south America. But then so are Llamas, which appear in Troy). The Livy version of Camillus for example, or the Peloponnesian wars (following the fate of Socrates as a scapegoat perhaps).
How about Beowulf? I haven't seen that mentioned. Until he failed to kill Grendel's mother I thought it was great enough to inspire a Sweboz campaign.
Krauthammer91
10-17-2008, 01:14
Thought Conan the Barbarian was really good for the year it was made. Not exactly factual but it's a really good fictional battle movie.
Thought Conan the Barbarian was really good for the year it was made. Not exactly factual but it's a really good fictional battle movie.
I love those Conan movies, I watched them over and over when I was a kid. I doubt there's anything remotely realistic about the fighting techniques in them, but like them for nostalgia's sake.
Cullhwch
10-17-2008, 01:49
It's really a shame that the Diadochi are so neglected by the mainstream. Antigonos, Seleucus I, and Ptolemy I could easily have great movies wound around them.
Speaking of historical warfare movies, I feel that KoH, while visually stunning, was incredibly stupid. Balian's humanistic motivation (and the fictionalized Balian himself) really suffered from the author-avatar effect. In KoH, he was a too-noble-for-his-own-good moron, and I'd say that no knight in his era would rather leave the kingdom to rot instead of eliminating an evil jackass rival. Ridley Scott essentially made all the heroes of the movie subscribe to his secular humanstic ideology, even Baldwin III. He never displayed Baldwin's stunning tactical prowess nor his well-known intolerance toward Islam and Judaism. He, the great hero of Christendom, was just a European version of the Magical Negro. Helpful, inspiring, yet ineffectual on his own.
Scott also tried way too hard to demonize Guy de Lusignan, whose biggest crime was military incompetence. History shows that if Saladin could beat you in the field with less than 2x numerical superiority, leading armies was just beyond your ability.
The original 'The 300 Spartans'.
Best historical movie EVER!! Just ignore the sappy love story. . .
Gleemonex
10-17-2008, 05:09
The original 'The 300 Spartans'.
Aha, someone who has seen it! I'm curious about this film, but I'm worried that it might just be more "swords and sandals" fare. How was the historical accuracy?
Has anyone else seen it?
-Glee
the last legion made me go through many different emotions, first sadness, then anger, and finally disbelief. the director could not have possibly watched that movie before it was released. even with historical accuracy aside, i thought it had some potential for an interesting storying line, but everything turned out just so damn aweful.
I did enjoy kingdom of heaven as well as troy (helen was fucking aych oh tee!!!) although hollywood action bothers me; (i'd like to be able to learn how to let these things go, they shouldn't upset me so much but...) why carry a shield when 3 seconds into every battle you're just gonna drop it and run ahead slaughtering people with ninja moves and a short sword, and why equip your army and kings with armor when even the most remotely solid thrust is gonna go through it as if it were made out of a baby's skin. i mean the greek kings were apparently evil dudes, but they did most assuredly not make their armor by stiching dead babies together!!!
SwissBarbar
10-17-2008, 07:17
maybe out of the skins of the babies they killed at the beginning of 300 :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Phalanx300
10-17-2008, 14:34
The best warfare movies pregunera for me. (in order of favorites:2thumbsup:)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, not really historical warfare but I really liked it, it are my favorite movies, can't wait for the 2 hobbit films!
Kingdom of Heaven, really a great movie and it got this medieval feeling about it.
300, it wasn't historical but neither was it ment to be(like any other movie). I really found it entertaining, and it had some great speeches in it. And being a very big fan of Sparta, that also helps me liking it even more:laugh4:.
Troy, not so historical(never knew it wasn't) but I found it entertaining.
The Gladiator, also a really nice entertaining movie.
King Arthur, also not so historical but still a entertaining movie.
The 300 Spartans, a old and a not so historical movie but not that bad to my suprise, I really liked the last stand part when they protected the body of Leonidas.
Alexander, the battle of Gaugamela really made it good, though I didn't like that Alexander=gay part of the movie.
Narnia:clown:, only for the battle scenes.
There might be alot more which I can't remember but these are the ones I own.:beam:
satalexton
10-17-2008, 18:36
Red cliff, not accurate at all, but at least zhang yi mou actually tried to make it believable. I cant wait for the 2nd part early next year.
Celtic_Punk
10-18-2008, 01:42
13th warrior anyone seen that? looooooool antonio bendares as a iraqi from Baghdad.
russia almighty
10-18-2008, 01:49
The Fall of the Roman Empire.
It's been awhile since I have seen it, but, did it have fully clad kataphraktoi in it?
Ibn-Khaldun
10-18-2008, 08:42
.... a really nice entertaining movie.
All those films(Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Spatacus etc) are good entertaining movies. But that's all.
I can say that there isn't any historically accurate movies made so far! They trick you with some of the battle scenes and that's it. These movies are made to entertain people not to be historically accurate.
Celtic_Punk
10-18-2008, 12:35
this much is true... still, you gotta hate aurthur... it didnt even have good action scenes. A show of a shitty movie is that you cant get all the way through it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.