Most annoying/stupid or inaccurate films of all time

Post your most annoying/stupid or inaccurate films of all time here folks!

my choice....Jurasssic Park
The book was amazing and the film could have been equally awesome, but (speaking from somebody who could pronounce the word Palaeontologist at five) they got everything wrong about the Dinosaurs wrong! Since when was a T-Rex a loveable hero that jumps in at the last minute to kill the raptors, the raptors would've kiled those idiots before they could move! And the Raptors themselves are about five feet tallier than they should be, the Biggest Velociraptor palaeontologists have found came up to your waist, these dudes were not Velociraptors they were more likely Utahraptor or Deinonychus as they were bigger.

so post what you think was innacturate/stupid or annoying about a film.

p.s Sorry for the Dinosaur talk, i've wanted to be a palaeontologist (fossil digger, Ross from friends) since i was five and innacuracies like that get on my nerve ~D

well at least they corrected the bipedal dinosaurs which was a good insight since even at that time 'pendulum like' warm blood bipedal theropods were a theory... :)

For me : Gladiator...


...just plain annoying and stupid and boring 'good guy - bad guy' story...

...I know 95% of the people dissagree with me on this so I am probably wrong but still I cant enjoy this movie...

yeah i didnt like Gladiator that much, too predicable...
i do agree with you about the bipedal dinos aswell, possibly the one good thing, other than the reason how they could make dinosaurs, it was so realistic that Palaeontologists even thought it would work. But thats hats off to Michael Crichton though, the film still sucked

Windtalkers - the worst war movie ever!

Braveheart.... No wait it would be Pearl Harbour.... No wait perhaps The Patriot.... No wait what about Gladiator.... No wait U-571....

Actually it would be easier to list the films I like....

"Life is beautiful" - Argh!... and to think it is critically aclaimed!

Annoying and stupid? How about Napoleon Dynamite? Dumb and Dumber?

Inaccurate? I don't go to movies for accuracy, so I don't bother. I go to be entertained.

Azi

Most stupid movie, I'd have to go with Napoleon Dynamite or Titanic.

Most inaccurate, Anthony and cleopatra (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) The Roman legionaries had (I kid you not) spikes on their shields. Not on the top or the edge but coming out in a random pattern in the flat part. I nearly had a friggin anyerism when I say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Windtalkers - the worst war movie ever!

---

Imo, Windtalkers was a very good war film but thats just my opinion. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

p.s Sorry for the Dinosaur talk, i've wanted to be a palaeontologist (fossil digger, Ross from friends) since i was five and innacuracies like that get on my nerve ~D

---

What did you think of 'Walking with Dinosaurs' then?

I thought it was totally awesome. What is your view as a paleontologist on the BBC series?

I really liked Gladiator.

But despite being Scottish, I must admitt Braveheart is a joke. William Wallace is Australian, and they didn't even bother putting in a bridge or river for the battle of Stirling Bridge!

The most recent 3 star wars movies. Hitchhiker guide to the galaxy.

Napoleon dynamite was funny.

Lord of the Rings. Did Peter Jackson even read the books???? Its a great movie, but disgustingly inaccurate.

The Patriot.

Windtalkers.

Alexander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

Lord of the Rings. Did Peter Jackson even read the books???? Its a great movie, but disgustingly inaccurate.

---

Yes he did, many times. And he cut the parts that didn't matter a hill of beans to the plot, or he just didn't like.

man you guys hate my favorite movies..

bravehart was beautiful. A lot of inaccuracies but the battles were stunning.

Lord of the Rings was the best! How can you not like them? Gah!

i think people here just like going against the plot

and besides, sw 3 was much better than 1+2 together

i do agree about lotr#3, wtf's with those invunerable ghost soldiers...sigh...read the books...don't exaggerate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

What did you think of 'Walking with Dinosaurs' then?

I thought it was totally awesome. What is your view as a paleontologist on the BBC series?

---

First of all i'm not a palaeontologist, i just spend half my free time reading about dinosaurs, so i know quite alot. Second, Wlaking With Dinosaurs was great, they got everything correct as far as people know, i wathed the making of it and they even went to the lenghts of finding places with no grass (because there was no grass at tht time)

LOTR Was a great trilogy, and i've only read the first two books but they seem alright, only bits that aren't really important were left out.

Kingdom of Heaven and Timeline. The worst historical films I have ever seen. KoH was completely inaccurate had that awful modern crap about tolerance. For God's sake! This is the 12th century in the Crusades, not the bloody U.N today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Kingdom of Heaven and Timeline. The worst historical films I have ever seen. KoH was completely inaccurate had that awful modern crap about tolerance. For God's sake! This is the 12th century in the Crusades, not the bloody U.N today.

---

Add to that the simple blacksmith who becomes Super warrior/Seige analyst/inspirational leader, seemingly overnight...errggh.


The Patriot was equally innacurate...

'Hi, we are the super-friendly patriots, fighting against the tyranical British in a rightious cause. We are so nice and noble, we even love the slaves who fight for us (bet they dont realise we will keep their kinsmen as slaves for the next 100 odd years..hee hee hee)...and they love us too.

Look how we have managed to gloss over the fact that this war is basically about rich, white slave-owners, who dont want to contribute to their own defence.

Then we will get the French to bail us out, because they love Liberty as much as we do...we will then proceed to brag about our military prowess for the next 150 years or so.'

:rolleyes:

PS: Dont take any offence my Yankee breathren- I love ya really ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

But despite being Scottish, I must admitt Braveheart is a joke. William Wallace is Australian, and they didn't even bother putting in a bridge or river for the battle of Stirling Bridge!

---

He said having a river and bridge got in the way to which the interviewer responded "Aye, that's what the English found too"

Braveheart - what an awful film. Those damn English, they murder and rape women, children and chop up prisonners of war.

The Patriot - what an awful film. Those damn English, they murder dogs and women and children and prisonners of war.

I also really like Gladiator and Braveheart, maybe that is because inaccuracy doesn't really matter to me that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

He said having a river and bridge got in the way to which the interviewer responded "Aye, that's what the English found too"

Braveheart - what an awful film. Those damn English, they murder and rape women, children and chop up prisonners of war.

The Patriot - what an awful film. Those damn English, they murder dogs and women and children and prisonners of war.

---

But you English ARE dogs! Just kidding. I don't know enough about the way the Scottish were treated (I do know they raided northern English settlements frequently, so what did they expect?) But the Patriot made me wince, on several occassions. Pandered to the worst stereotypes & myths we Americans have about the War for Independence. In all reality, there were plenty of Col. Tarletons, but they didn't come off the boat... the tory & rebel leaders were both bastards in many cases.

The most annoying/stupid movie I have ever seen would have to be would have to be 'Being John Malkovich". This movie SUCKED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't know enough about the way the Scottish were treated (I do know they raided northern English settlements frequently, so what did they expect?)

---

Both sides were just as bad as each other when it came to raiding.

For me Braveheart, such an awful film :no:

The Patriot was crap too. The Colonel guy was fought to a draw by a kid who had never held a sword ~:handball:

alexander sucked but was accurate. troy sucked to.

but i think it must be the core. it sucked big time

Troy wasn't that good but there are worst films. Alexander was rubbish though

I aint seen Alexander...is it any good? Also trying to say troy is/isnt historically accurate isnt a good thing to do, seeing as it is based on a book.....also what did you guys think of the second Jurassic Park film, The lost world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The most annoying/stupid movie I have ever seen would have to be would have to be 'Being John Malkovich". This movie SUCKED!

---

What? That was a great movie. A little strange, but you at least have to give them credit for originality. Decent acting, weird storyline, Malkovich making fun of himself. What exactly bugged you about it? It's not like "Freddie Got Fingered" or any of the other mainstream pap Hollywood insists on feeding us. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

I aint seen Alexander...is it any good? Also trying to say troy is/isnt historically accurate isnt a good thing to do, seeing as it is based on a book.....also what did you guys think of the second Jurassic Park film, The lost world?

---

alexander sucked, but it was accurate as far as i know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

I aint seen Alexander...is it any good? Also trying to say troy is/isnt historically accurate isnt a good thing to do, seeing as it is based on a book.....also what did you guys think of the second Jurassic Park film, The lost world?

---

well imo I thought the second JP was worse than the first.
The whole idea of the second was rather far fetched if you know what In my opinion

:balloon2:

Yeah, the third was even more worse. The only good thing i like (in the lost world) is that bit where the poachers are running through the field and the super-raptors are stalking them, starting at the back and working their way foreward. also aother crappy film......A series of unfortunate events, absolutly b*****s

Quote:

---

my choice....Jurasssic Park
The book was amazing and the film could have been equally awesome, but (speaking from somebody who could pronounce the word Palaeontologist at five) they got everything wrong about the Dinosaurs wrong! Since when was a T-Rex a loveable hero that jumps in at the last minute to kill the raptors, the raptors would've kiled those idiots before they could move! And the Raptors themselves are about five feet tallier than they should be, the Biggest Velociraptor palaeontologists have found came up to your waist, these dudes were not Velociraptors they were more likely Utahraptor or Deinonychus as they were bigger.

---

The Utah raptor hadn't been discovered but Spielburg asked an expert if it was possible for them to be that big and he said that it was. So they did the film and just after they discovered the utah raptor.

I would have to go with The Patriot, Brave heart and U571

"I know lets have a WW2 story with the Americans saving the day.Lets say they capture the enigma code and therefore help end the war quickly. Although it was only the Royal navy that captured them ~:confused:
It looks really stupid at the end when they mention all the people who captured it and it is all RN

*Braveheart
*Patriot
*the Enigma (fecal matter-BKS)
*The Core
*I saw JP 1 when I was little and I never loved a movie so much, but I was really in to Dino's back then ~:)
*Alexander was boring but accurate.
*Altho nicely made and accurate probably, Black Hawk Down somehow didnt work for me. A movie about the US (screwing-BKS) things up and just shoot down around 1000 africans just doesnt work for me.
*Postman- such crap
*Kingdom of Heaven was ok, but if they had based the plot on the "Arn" books by Jan Guillo it would have ROCKED!... read them! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

I aint seen Alexander...is it any good?

---

If you are going to watch it, get the director's cut. It's much better as a movie than the theatrical release. The movie isn't an action picture as the battles only take up about 20 minutes of the 167 minute running time. It's done in the style of a Greek tragedy rather than a Shakespearian drama. There are some inaccuracies in the two battles shown, but overall the movie is quite accurate. It has quite a few speculative private scenes common in historical movies.

A bad movie I can think of is Luc Besson's "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc". It's a disgrace to the memory of Jeanne d'Arc. The premise is that Joan was motivated by revenge on the English for raping and killing her sister. The problem is that it never happened.

Question about Alexander: Are the Persians showed accurately? I can just imagine them casting people of Arabic or Turkic descent for Iranians...
Then again, if Alex was a bleached blond, I wouldn't be suprised to see Darius an Arab...

Actually the persians looked pretty authentic, for the most part. But I only saw it once, so I couldn't get a frame by frame look.

IIRC they were quite brightly coloured and looked appropriate

I loved both Brave Heart and The Patriot...

They were greatly enjoyable movies set in history and areas I didn't know too much about. Its hollywood you can't expect accuracy. Gibson did a reasonable job on these two.

Though I liked the sword slashing... The Last Samurai.

king arthur

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

king arthur

---

Yeah, it hads some good scenes (with Kiera Knightly in a makeshift shower ~D ) but overall quite inaccurate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zalmoxis

Though I liked the sword slashing... The Last Samurai.

---

I didn't think TLS was that bad , I liked that movie.
Why didn't you like it ?

:balloon2:

Well anything about King Arthur is going to be inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Windtalkers - the worst war movie ever!

---

not a great war movie true....but i think that U-571 takes that particular title as the worst war movie ever ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Question about Alexander: Are the Persians showed accurately? I can just imagine them casting people of Arabic or Turkic descent for Iranians...
Then again, if Alex was a bleached blond, I wouldn't be suprised to see Darius an Arab...

---

Alexander hair was apparently wavy and fair.

GLADIATOR---> the only thing that was historically correct about that movie was in the beggining when Commodus kills his father Marcus Aurelius to become caesar. Everything else was hollywood BS.

ATTILA---> HUNS THAT LOOK LIKE WESTERNERS (including Atilla)????? everyone knows Huns looked oriental. (due to Flavius Aetius's historical encounter)

ALEXANDER---> They could have left the awkward gay scenes out. Just because Hephaistion was Alexander's most trusted childhood friend does not make them fags like in the movie (no disrespect any gay people). + they only filmed 2 battles, his greatest battle at Guagemala and a battle in northwestern india. They could have filmed the battle of Issus or another great one equal to that of Guagamela: Chaeronea. This could have made the movie more interesting, instead I was so bored and disgusted by the movie I had to turn it off and watch the rest the next day.

TROY---> wasn't the Trojan war supposed to last for 10 long years? (not 2 weeks)

ARTHUR---> In the beggining they displayed a map of the Roman empire in 450 AD and they showed Dacia and "Sarmatia" as part of the Roman empire. The Romans abandoned Dacia in 271 AD (Aurelian retreat). At that time the Roman empire was being invaded by huns, visigoth and other barbarians, how the hell are they gonna say that the Roman empire was still expanding????? BTW Sarmatia was never part of the Roman Empire

In conclussion all of these movies are historically inaccurate but I guess you cant really make a movie that pleases all historical facts.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Man, was that movie ever wrong about candy factories!

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

king arthur

---

King Arthur is definatly one of the worst films ever. I hated it.

Quote:

---

king arthur

---

I agree The british celts with Trebuchets? (it could just be plain catapults I havent seen it in a while)

hhahaha, it was inacurate but i liked it. i didnt expected a accurate movie but alot of blood. i expected to see that in alexander to instead i get bleugh scenes. very accurate but it sucked YIHAA. what would people do to me if i nominated Lord of the Rings all the 3 movies.

You asked for crap so i give you crap.Kongo and Anaconda.Hairy super monkeys and intelligent snake.AAAAARRRGHH!! :help:

Actually the dinosaurs portreyed in JP were deinonychus (i ?), but since the name was quite crappy and hard to pronounce, they went with velociraptor.


WindTalker
Pearl Harbor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Actually the dinosaurs portreyed in JP were deinonychus (i ?), but since the name was quite crappy and hard to pronounce, they went with velociraptor.

---

Yeah you spelt it right....a hard name is a crappy reason, they should have just gone with the smaller Velociraptor model. Now every kid (or teenager as they would be now) who watched Jp thinks Velociraptors are as tall as a man, thats a whole generation misdirected!

no i dont think that, but on the other hand i cant remember anything of Jp, i saw it though

I forgot 'Enemy at the gates' What a beauty that movie is.

My main beef/inacuracy with that film is the god-damn accents! No one sounds russian...least of all Bob hoskins playin a general!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTW King

I really liked Gladiator.

But despite being Scottish, I must admitt Braveheart is a joke. William Wallace is Australian, and they didn't even bother putting in a bridge or river for the battle of Stirling Bridge!

---

Yes but the thing is that they tried to perform that battle on Stirling Bridge, the wheather was so bad that they moved to Ireland. The rest is a result of time and budget. So i don't blame them for that. But i do blame them because this is history, it happened to real humans, you don't have to do it a "movie who gives a menssage" (as the productor said). It's one of the best opportunities to portray real evidence so people can know it and entertain themselves, but not almost every hollywood movie based on historical facts that i know was innacurate. If you can't do it right then don't do it.
I think if you let me chose one then it would be "The Last Samurai", it's ok when americans make fantasy of their own history (they know it) but saying that the last samurai was american is :furious3: :furious3:. It's one of that classical movies of reconciliation beetween nations (like "Black Rain")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

But i do blame them because this is history, it happened to real humans, you don't have to do it a "movie who gives a message" (as the productor said).

---

I think movie directors are almost always trying to "give a message", and maybe they feel doing it in a movie based on historical facts gives their message more impact or validity. To me a movie is just a work of art similar to a painting, and that's how I view them. I try to extract my own personal meaning from them while understanding that the person who created it is also trying to convey his/her meaning to the viewer.

King Arthur.

My ancestors could take some skinny Welsh woman wearing hardly anything, no problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

You asked for crap so i give you crap.Kongo and Anaconda.Hairy super monkeys and intelligent snake.AAAAARRRGHH!! :help:

---

Oh man, both of those blow bigtime :furious3: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgfred

Oh man, both of those blow bigtime :furious3: .

---

Tell me about it. ~:cheers:

Enemy at the Gates, Shaving Ryans Priva...I mean Saving Private Ryan (had it's good scenes but on the hole it was horribly unrealistic), and of course, Braveheart.

King Arthur blows, especially the portrayal of Guenivere(sp?) actually the original story line was much better and less cheesy but Disney gave it the ax because they wanted it to be a bit more child friendly and "fantastic", they also more than halved it's original income to spend.

Loved Jurassica Park 1, and still love it

Watched 30 minutes of U-571 and fell asleep

Like Braveheart, despite the historical inaccuracies
Like Gladiator (especially if you keep in mind that it wasn't supposed to be historically accurate)

Absolutely Hated the Patriot.

I thought the Last Samurai was rather inane and false. I did not buy the whole "we must save this way of life (or was it death?)" philosophy, nor the idea that Tom Cruise's character would buy it. The good guy/bad guy characterisation and simplistic politics did not convince either. The combat also seemed silly, both the mechanics - the contrast between one-shot one kill arrows and muskets that seemed to fire airgun pellets - and the A-team style "cunning plan" tactics used in the last battle.

By no means the most annoying or stupid film - the Japanese lead gave a tremendous performance and the cavalry charge in the woods was fun - but annoying and stupid nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wazikashi

Loved Jurassica Park 1, and still love it

.

---

i didnt say i didnt like it, in fact the reason i got into Palaeontology was because of the film, i am just saying it is VERY inaccurate.

Jurassic Park is a science ficttion movie. I think that Spielburg basically thought he could do things differently and since their are dinosaurs in it to start with it doesn't matter. (BTW I missed the original theatrical version. wwhat was so different from it and the fixed version)

Quote:

---

I thought the Last Samurai was rather inane and false. I did not buy the whole "we must save this way of life (or was it death?)" philosophy, nor the idea that Tom Cruise's character would buy it. The good guy/bad guy characterisation and simplistic politics did not convince either. The combat also seemed silly, both the mechanics - the contrast between one-shot one kill arrows and muskets that seemed to fire airgun pellets - and the A-team style "cunning plan" tactics used in the last battle.

---

The incompetence also was very annoying. Like (slight spoiler)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I'm a colonel with years of experience of combat and I will decide to sent my men around a hill with no support, completely waste my artillary and twiddle my thumbs."

I agree with the cunning plan. Could they not see the flags on their backs or the trail?

Just remember he was a colonel in the same regiment as Custer... it would explain a lot...

yes, Custer was an idiot.

And also remember that the colonel was the baddie.....

Says it all about the last samuari:
http://www.mevyou.com/pictures/lastsam_tot2.gif

Also, why couldn't that film just end with him dying in the battlefield, why did it have to go on and on and on and on...

The whole. "Look at me I saved Japan from tyranny. Huzzah! (but they returned for WW2 but are gone now)"

EDIT: Maybe he did fight with custer but I think the Americans would send over someone quite experienced and has a basic clue of what to do to win battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

Post your most annoying/stupid or inaccurate films of all time here folks!

my choice....Jurasssic Park
The book was amazing and the film could have been equally awesome, but (speaking from somebody who could pronounce the word Palaeontologist at five) they got everything wrong about the Dinosaurs wrong! Since when was a T-Rex a loveable hero that jumps in at the last minute to kill the raptors, the raptors would've kiled those idiots before they could move! And the Raptors themselves are about five feet tallier than they should be, the Biggest Velociraptor palaeontologists have found came up to your waist, these dudes were not Velociraptors they were more likely Utahraptor or Deinonychus as they were bigger.

so post what you think was innacturate/stupid or annoying about a film.

p.s Sorry for the Dinosaur talk, i've wanted to be a palaeontologist (fossil digger, Ross from friends) since i was five and innacuracies like that get on my nerve ~D

---

I have to agree with you on that. Not very accurate at all....and btw, i could pronounce Palaeontologist, extinction and engineering when i was three and spell them when i was 5 and a half. Beat that!! ~;)

Anyway: War of the Worlds. Great film all the way through, it's just the ending. How the fook did his son survive being caught in that giant fireball!? And how come, when they finally reach Boston, the part where his wife was staying was practically untouched, while that little farmhouse they stayed at in the middle of nowhere was half destroyed!? You would think alien invaders who killed a billion people would have raised all the major cities and buildings for several miles around to the ground, with nothing left.

Yes that film had alot of plot holes.
Like the video cameras how can they work at all if emp destroys electric components. When the first arrive and the repoerter I mean did they keep the cameras in a lead bunker?

Dunno how he survived at all when the whole ridge was totally destroyed and almost all the people running away.

The bit about Boston was just stupid as well considering how the reporter mentioned all the major cities being destroyed.

And the Stupid bit had to go to the Army taking out one of them I mean did they accidently turn off the shields?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Shaving Ryans Priva...I mean Saving Private Ryan (had it's good scenes but on the hole it was horribly unrealistic), and of course, Braveheart.

---

I allways thought that Saving Private Ryan was a accurate depiction of WW2 combat except the story that was fictional...


Robin Hood prince of thieves is very bad (Kevin Coster!!!) and very ahistorical...
Like the Celts that where attacking Robin's hideout that looked more like cave men to me and they where only 1000 years to late..
A longe time ago i did like this move but I was young and stupid...

But anyway, most Hollywood movies that take place in the past are inacurate and full of cliche's like boy becomes a superknight and drunken US soldier becomes ninja chopping samurai etc...

About Mel Gibson....

I suspect Mel for being anti-british because of the movies like Bravehart and The Patriot(Crap movie).
And I am not the only one with this opinion about Mell ....

About Alexander

I have watched this movie and I have seen far worser movies...
The gay stuff was highly exaggerated by the press and yes Colin Farwell was a bad choice with bad hair and the movie was a bit boring but the battle's where good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I think movie directors are almost always trying to "give a message", and maybe they feel doing it in a movie based on historical facts gives their message more impact or validity. To me a movie is just a work of art similar to a painting, and that's how I view them. I try to extract my own personal meaning from them while understanding that the person who created it is also trying to convey his/her meaning to the viewer.

---

Now i think the same as you, except for this: if they want to do some "artistical" movie then do a fiction, don't base it in historical facts, to me the message can be given with the same power in any fiction if you make the viewers identify them self with the characters and the plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

My main beef/inacuracy with that film is the god-damn accents! No one sounds russian...least of all Bob hoskins playin a general!

---

In Enemy at the Gates, they deliberately gave the Germans American accents, and the Russians English accents in this movie.

I think it worked much better than the B grade vampire impersonations that many other movies portray with the Russian accents...

I am suprised noone has mentioned this:
Dune.

I find it hard to believe that David Lynch took more than a passing glance at the book. He also did a horrendous job of cut-and-pasting the story elements together, as well as throwing in guns, which did not work at all in the book (I don't feel like explaining it to those who do not understand... just read the book). The casting was awful- of all the actors, the only one I liked was Patrick Stewart, and even he was miscast- he should have played the Emperor, or possibly Duke Leto. Add to this cocktail of bad elements the fact that David Lynch is a borderline psychotic, and the final result was a movie that failed to even come close to the book.

Perhaps even more damning is the fact that the movie is surpassed by "Frank Herbert's Dune", a made-for-cable miniseries that was created by the Scifi channel, a network that has made more godawful science fiction movies than any production company in the history of moviemaking. That is just sad. (Still, the miniseries was actually rather decent... I only wish it was made for HBO rather than cable.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTank

Robin Hood prince of thieves is very bad (Kevin Coster!!!) and very ahistorical...
Like the Celts that where attacking Robin's hideout that looked more like cave men to me and they where only 1000 years to late..
A longe time ago i did like this move but I was young and stupid...

---

I always hated Robin Hood : Prince of thieves, the fact they got an AMERICAN to play a ENGLISH hero is complete rubbish
He didnt even make an attempt to hide is Accent either, which infuriated me, i wouldnt have minded the film if he had made a liitle effort in sounding english

I have an idea. Next time an histrical film comes out, don't watch it. We must all boycott these films until the studios get things right. We must campaign for real historical films!

Great idea, we can send letters to film companies saying we wil not watch your films until they are accurate! We then start a Petition, whjen we get over 10000 members we send it to Universal/paramount etc...