Ancient warfare movies

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

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:

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

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

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

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.

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.

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

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.....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

+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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

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 <.<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

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."