Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Best move for an sequal for 300 would be to turn thing around, to show the Persians as the victims and the Greeks as the monsters. Too bad thats probably not going to happen.

---

Looks like you getting lucky:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/...requel_xerxes/

ZACK SNYDER PUSHING FORWARD ON THE 300 SEQUEL XERXES

Following the box office success of 300, another movie seemed like a sure thing, but one minor detail was that Frank Miller, the creator of the graphic novel source material, hadn't written and drawn one yet. Earlier this year, Dark Horse Comics confirmed plans to publish a prequel written and drawn by Frank Miller called Xerxes, named after the Persian king leading the invading forces in 300. This week, Zack Snyder announced that he and his 300 writing partner Kurt Johnstad started work last week on adapting Xerxes. However, Snyder does not officially have a deal to direct Xerxes... yet. Snyder also provides us with the three part premise of Xerxes, which seems to make it both a prequel and a movie that takes place during the same days as the Battle of Thermopylae. Included in Xerxes will be the Battle of Marathon (the bulk of the prequel part), the back story of Xerxes and the story of Athenian politican/general Themistocles and the Battle of Artemsium (the concurrent part). So, while 300 was mostly about the Spartans, Xerxes appears to be more about the Athenians and the Persian invading forces. Xerxes is also certainly good news for Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro (presuming he will be returning) who around the release of 300 in 2007 had recently found himself unemployed when his Paulo character was killed off on LOST. In the meantime, Zack Snyder is also continuing work on his next two movies: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (9/24/10) and Sucker Punch (3/25/11).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.

---

Reminder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/...8293240020.jpg
http://dynamicforces.com/images/TN300poster01.jpg
http://www.comicus.it/images/special...300comic_3.jpg

that is all.

---

Yepp 300 was VERY faithful/accurate to it's source: the comic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nause[a]m. Let's discuss the good films.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Reminder.

---

I agree. This would be a fantastic thread if people would cut the crap about 300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

I agree. This would be a fantastic thread if people would cut the crap about 300.

---

Or if people posted a thread about movies that have nothing to do with EB in the Tavern

Just caught 2 trailers the other day.

One was for a movie called Valhalla Rising and the other was for a movie called Centurion.

Can't really say what Valhalla is supposed to be about except its about Norse dudes and a guy named One-Eye,looks bloody.It's out on cable the same time as theaters so i think i'll rent it.

Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.

Quote:

---

Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.

---

-ahem-

Agora?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

-ahem-

Agora?

---

No i don't need a sweater its a little warm.

Thanks for offering though.

I think there are two problems with 'historical' films/TV series and even documentaries. The first is the need to 'sex up' the story(300, HBO/BBC's Rome come to mind...), the second is that the makers usually have an agenda, or a 'take' on the sides involved - so that one side must be villainous, the other righteous, leading to (in the docu-drama Rome by the BBC) an almost cackling, seditious Caesar and Mark Antony played off against the civilised, loyal Labienus...

One of the best historical movies I've seen (still) is Tora, Tora, Tora....which, to my mind, is one of the few examples whereby the story is told from a perspective of both sides, neither made out - gratuitously - to be the 'baddy'. The thing is, the 'sexed up' bit really isn't needed, I think; this just underestimates the paying viewer. I know of families that were looking forward to watching Rome (HBO/BBC) as a 'historical' insight, but were put off within the first episode by the stupendously crass rape (filmed with a disturbing humerous irreverence) of the shepherd girl by Mark Antony.... Just unnecessary titilation for its own sake, not to ention the many storylines of Julia (Octavian's mother).

I don't actually know of any good films/TV series of this era....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SillySirius

Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..

---

Worse, a warrior chick with an axe :rolleyes: Apparently the obvious choice of weapon for a slim woman, according to Hollywood... :wall:

Quote:

---

It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.

---

By wallflower type, you mean disturbed minds with an (auto-)aggression complex and a psychotic drive to kill other people?

My tongue was one with the cheek with the wallflower comment.

One movie that i haven't seen mentioned in this thread,and i'm really not even sure if it would fall into the category of historical film,is A quest for fire.

I love that movie.Don't know how accurate it is but its entertaining and it also has Hellboy/Fallout narrator dude in it.What is his name?He was also in an aliens movie and some weird French movie about kidnapped orphans.

Edit:

Heres a link describing the movie and the dude is Ron Perlman..Doh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_(film)

I thought I remembered someone mentioning The 13th Warrior way back in this thread somewhere, but it didn't show up in my search, so maybe not. Anyway, I just recently watched it for the first time, about a month ago. My overall opinion of the movie should probably be taken with a heaping lump of salt, as I was in an altered state of mind at the time, but I remember being quite impressed with the historical realism of it. I realize the plot itself is purely fictional, but it seemed to portray the people and culture quite accurately. I have no idea if the Norse-style language spoken was realistic, but it was certainly making an effort. Was anybody else impressed with that aspect of it (if nothing else)?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
http://www.cartridgecomics.com/archi...php?comicID=97

Actually I never saw any movie set in the antics, which seemed remotly accurate to me and this is beside the overdramatisation, which all Hollywood style movies have, the fact that all characters think and act just to pleasure the demands of the audience, which want to see characters they can relate to.
I really appreciated the movie Alexander for its bold decision to make Alexander an unlikeable bisexual drunkard (Which probably resembles the real alexander at least a little bit), still most other characters were flat and the macedonian seemed way to patriotic for the timeframe.

Anyway, movies, which seem to be at least a little bit accurate you can find in Japan. Also most movie about the sengoku jidai are crap there are some exceptionally historical accurate ones too. Off course making a movie about something happened 300 years ago is easier than one about Alexander and co. butt still. The costumes of many movies are great, some qoutes characters say, where actually spoken and some of them are nearly unwatchable for their characters that dont play with the audience, just sitting there quietly or acting strange and distant. Off course homosexuality is left out of most of them, but still at least the costumes, places and some talk are very accurate.
For starters and not Japanese speakers(Most movies are horribly subtitled or dubbed) I would recommend Shogun, because its an american production, but still very good. They actually did some research and I even had a seminar in univerity about it.^^ Still the american perception of Japan of the 60s,70s plays a really strong part in the movie. esspecially the whole woman stories. Good Japanese movies are off course everything from Kurosawa Akira (Allthough most of his stories are inspired by shakespeare or Japanese writers) they tend to have great costumes (Even with the hideous woman makeup of that time^^) and dialogue and focus on the aspects of Samurai thinking. Also really good one are Sansho the Bailiff and ugetsu (Based on a book from the edo jidai).

Regarding Japanese movies, there are some good ones by Yoji Yamada, set in the nineteenth century I think. Namely "The Twilight Samurai" and two others that are more or less variations on the same theme.

I must agree with most of the users here... - indeed HBO's "Rome" is the most accurate film.Recently historical based movies are chasing massive and epical battle scenes, but not historically accurate play and story.The movie producers relly on epic fight with lots of dead bodies and blood... - massacre... or that's what cathes the eye in first place.I think that we should pay attention to the latest historically roman based film - "Centurion"... - the first 15 - 20 mins are exiting but are they historically accurate!?I mean if really 9-th Legion Hispana was massacered!?:inquisitive: After all I did short research of my own and in most of the sites I could find any info about the fate of the 9-th Legion and I found a historical disagreement betwen the major history specialists.Most of them agree that 9-th Legion was not destroyed, but after being unable to take the iniciative on the Pictish tribes wich rose in rebbelion to the north, the legion was transfered in nova days Antverpen in Holland for winter quarters and replaced by another frontier legion.Officially that's the opinion of most of the specialists after discovernig series of documents that are telling about several of high ranking officers of the legion, being still alive and taking official governing positions in other parts of the empire like Africa, Syria, Judea etc.Or at least the child-tale movie "The last legion" wich was total dissaster is telling the same thing - 9th legion was the last roman legion when Rome fell.I think that some of you would also have something to say so lets hear it :book:

Ha, "the last legion" was recently shown on TV here. what a hillaroisly silly movie, and I thought "king arthur" was far fetched^^

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SillySirius

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

---

Tattoos? News to me.

Clans? Well, they placed alot of importance in their family connections. As I understand it, clans work in much the same ways. Though he should have been asked who his father was.

Slaves fighting? News to me.

Crusading? They did. A Norwegian King even got the nickname Jorsalfar, meaning Jerusalem-farer.

Armour? Well, it was expensive. And I'm assuming (not having seen the movie) the characters were just free men doing their thing, not employed officials. I'm not sure how common armour was among people in those days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SillySirius

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

---

They are supposed to be naturalised Norsemen, ie they have been settled in scotland for so long that they are hardly distiguishable from the natives. The Norsemen were a integral part of the formation of the Clans, many very large ones such as my own (MacDonald) have their roots in Norse settlers.

Quote:

---

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

---

Most likely not, I know the clansmen duels were fairly common so you could veiw it as a very early form of that.

Quote:

---

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

---

While tattoos undoubtably existed I imagine thats just a bit of artists licence there.

Quote:

---

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

---

Not AFAIK in large organised groups, but individually they would have, the guy in charge in the film is a essentailly a feudal christian lord so he would see it as his religious duty to do so. (Edit: Talking about the Scots here)

Quote:

---

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

---

Again probably poetic licence, although I have to say it was rather refreshing for the film's characters to lack armour, it is a change from the unrealistic armoured to the hilt soldiers most films portray.

I agree, and it only makes it worse that the armour doesn't seem to protect them from even the most half-assed and awkward stabs and throws.
That's okay, though. The hero will just jerk the missile out and forget about it soon enough.

Thanks for the answers.

The part about the armor didn't bother me.It looked like his son was wearing some type of heavy leather though.

Hey all,

Has anyone seen or heard of the 1997 series I Caesar? I tried to search the thread for any mentions of it but unfortunately I had no luck finding that exact phrase. It's surprising how often the letter "I" comes up in coversation...

Apologies if it was mentioned earlier, if anyone could link me or tell me the page number that'd be great. Otherwise if it hasn't been mentioned, has anyone heard of it before? I saw it at my local library and I am keen to borrow it if it is accurate.

Thanks

Centurion was a dissapointment from the point of view of historical accuracy, but I found something that makes Centurion seem perfect. I rank The Davinci Code series as equal to Spartacus Blood and Sand, which is very low.

Another low ranker in my opinion is Tristan and Isolde, not so much for historical accuracy (it is based on mythology, plate mail lorica segmentata and the pope being able to call on arcane magic would have been acceptable). I just think the version passed down from the dark ages is superior in every single conceivable way, it is the single best Arthurian Romance and it was butchered to the point where it really should have brought up new names, new settings and not pretended to be based on something Arthurian.

Robin Hood is a low ranker for the same reason, why do people feel the best of our myths need to desperately have their heads chopped off and get rewritten from scratch as nationalist thrillers with a lot of blood and guts?

Rant over, it just had to be said that all the great cherished myths and legends deserve attention with the historicals, change is ok and sometimes good it's only when the change is the Tristan/Robin Hood level that it really deserves mention here.

Fair points, but the OT is to discuss the films that got it (mostly) right.

I just reread through the thread,even the parts i skipped before because everyone was talking about 300/DW and now realize Valhalla Rising was mentioned,and i was suprised to see nobody once mentioned Ken Burns the Civil War as a prime example of a great documentary.

I keep hoping PBS reshows it at some point.Either that or i could quit being cheap and buy it.

Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...

I learnt about Valhalla Rising from this thread. I can't really comment on its historical accuracy (or its lack of it) since my knowledge of this era is sketchy, although I seems that the poverty, the brutality of the warriors and the muddy photography are closer to the truth than the usual Vikings with horned helmets and huge war axes.

About its meaning, it is deliberately left blurry and undefined; I got the impression that the historical background was just coincidental, that the same themes could be explored in, say, a science fiction movie. At some points the movie becomes rather psychedelic and the landscapes are just breathtaking. I have come to a personal interpretation of the scenario: that One-Eye is a manifestation of Odin and the journey to America is actually a journey to hell. This fits with the end when the sole survivor is a boy. It seems compatible with Nordic eschatology: the Gods perish in the Ragnarok and the only survivors are a man and a woman (in the film One-Eye actually sacrifices himself so that the boy will live).
Other interpretations are possible: the Crusaders represent the will of man to control nature (Christianity here could be conceived as a product of the urbanised Roman Empire and in definite contrast to the more naturalistic Nordic Paganism). It is notable that the expedition leader planned to colonise against all odds the new land. In this context One-Eye and the muddy Indians can be seen as forces of nature, ferocious and uncontrollable.
Or one would argue that the journey brought into the light the inner motivations of each character: the silent (that is unsociable) One-Eye, the man who was consumed by his hatred, found true meaning in sacrifice for the others, a Pagan Jesus of sorts, where as the pious Crusaders when faced with insurmountable difficulties exhibited suspicion, treachery and lust for power.

In any case the movie left a deep impression on me and I would like to thank the guy who brought it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...

---

The thing about Henry V (both versions) is that while they are true to the play and have good technical accuracy (but for a couple glaring flaws), as Tancred the Norman pointed out earlier, it's overly idealized and sanitized, detracting from its historical accuracy.

I know, but I think that an objective movie will be appreciated by a small community, so it won't be produced by anyone (unfortunately)...