Good Historical Movies (period and otherwise)

[Justinian II]

I'm looking for stuff to add to my netflix que, or acquire via various websites (amazon.com, etc) that are actually DECENT historical movies.

It occurred to me that one of them would be that rumored Romanian film SOMEONE mentioned here about one of the Dacian Kings... does anyone know what it is called?

(For that matter, I've heard rumors of one about the Bulgarian Khan Krum and his wars against Byzantium which would be terribly interesting for me, as a Byzantinist...)


Anyway, I fear I don't know of any good ones to suggest in return

[Ibrahim]

try Gettysburg (1993) for uniforms-but that's civil war...all the movies on the ancient world suck-more on special effects and storyline, which tends to by anything but reality.

[Emperor Burakuku]

I think the one about the dacian king it's called "Dacii". It's a romanian movie from '66. Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmmkns7Ty7E no subtitles though. IMHO there aren't many decent historical movies... but that's just my opinion.

[antisocialmunky]

The fight scenes from Alexander weren't too bad if you can ignore the whole unwashed horde portrayl of all those brown people.

[Sir Edward]

try Gettysburg (1993) for uniforms-but that's civil war...all the movies on the ancient world suck-more on special effects and storyline, which tends to by anything but reality.

I would have to second gettysburg, but also add Gods and Gererals and Ken Burn's The Civil War if you wanted good netflix picks about the American Civil War. Sorry to say I haven't any suggestions closer to EB time period.

[Dhampir]

also add Gods and Gererals and Ken Burn's The Civil War if you wanted good netflix picks about the American Civil War.

Ken Burns got his history from Shelby Foote, the most famously discredited scholar of the Civil War, so it's a good idea to avoid it at all costs.

Gods and Generals is on the list of all time worst overall movies. Watching it was the only time I ever got up and left a movie and shouted at the screen on my way out.

The best historical movies are generally those made outside the United States and about esoteric subjects. Like "Chronicle of the Burning Years", despite being a propaganda piece of the Algerian government, presents a fairly good picture of the time and is damn entertaining to boot.

[Irishmafia2020]

Yeah, in "Gods and Generals" every single character and soldier speaks dialougue that might be written by Shakespeare, - constantly. Having served in the American military, I have found that the environment is considerably more course and profane than is portrayed in movies. Plus, The Am civil war happened 150 years ago, and most men were semi - literate at best, and even the most well educated would be unlikely to have conversations that sound like well rehearsed public speechs. I only got through the first hour, although I might have enjoyed the movie more if I had muted it.... It seemed more like a fantasy for someone who wants war to be more noble than it is...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Ken Burns got his history from Shelby Foote, the most famously discredited scholar of the Civil War, so it's a good idea to avoid it at all costs.

Avoid it at all costs? Surely you are smoking something. Probably the most watched documentary ever, it remains at the top of my personal "best uses of the medium of (programmed) television". It's popular history, sure, and doesn't even really fit the general category the initial poster is asking about, but c'mon, it is one of the crowning achievements of the genre in my opinion as an historian.

[Dhampir]

Avoid it at all costs? Surely you are smoking something. Probably the most watched documentary ever, it remains at the top of my personal "best uses of the medium of (programmed) television". It's popular history, sure, and doesn't even really fit the general category the initial poster is asking about, but c'mon, it is one of the crowning achievements of the genre in my opinion as an historian.

"Most watched" does not mean it's good history. He got his information primarily from Shelby Foote's Narrative, which is possibly the most under-researched and ill founded work of lost cause mythology; and that's saying a lot because he is competing with the likes of Douglas Southall Freeman and Edward A. Pollard.

I don't care how artful your presentation is- if Foote is your main source of information, I have no respect for you.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

That's too bad. Educating millions of people like that series did is a terrific thing as I see it (and it really did). Because you don't like one of the main consultants and totally write off the series and all the good it did is revealing. Sort of like someone writing off all the potential educating EB does because they don't like one or a few specific things we've done. What are the things you think the series was wrong about anyway (11 hours should give plenty to complain about )?

[Metalstrm]

How about...


...wait for it...


300!


For tonight, we dine, in hell!

Ok, sorry about that, just couldn't help it. Honestly I don't know any great ancient era movie. WWII no problem.

[Hax]

Asterix and Obelix and the Mysterix of the Missing Loricix Segmentatix


Alexander is not that great. It isn't that historically accurate, and did I mention neither Lysimachos nor Seleukos are in the movie. Anyways, I don't recommend that movie. I hated it.

[Metalstrm]

There was a fuss about Kingdom of heaven when it came out. I really disliked it in the end. Soppy bullshit.

[konny]

Gettysburg is excellent. Fine shots, good music, decent actors, a good script (given the complex topic of a three days battle). Gods and Generals is boring. Endless monolouges, plain characters, no music I am able to remember, a confusing script (I doubt that anyone who is not in the topic would have been able to learn anything from the movie, save that people during the Civil War were praying all day )

Another good Civil War movie is "Glory" with Matthew Broderick.

[Gaivs]

For TV series, go no further than HBO's ROME. Dont care what people say about it not being dead on accurate. They said themselves they did a fictional story in a historically passable environment. I think they outdid themselves.
I, Claudius, hell this series is it. It is epic, well worth the cost to buy. There is also a really good docudrama on Hannibal, i think its called Hannibal the scourge of Rome or something, i enjoyed it.

Movies, well, il put a list up in no order or anything. Just period films i know off my head.

Gladiator, Spartacus, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, The 300 Spartans (Old version lol), and well i cant think of much more at the moment.

Oh, try Dances with Wolves. Not strictly a historical movie per say, but imo its the best film ever made. Set in the American Civil War. I rate it number one, and i have seen hundreds if not thousands of quality movies.

[leonqc]

The original Pathfinder - Hard to find but I know theres sub version on amazon.de, in other languages it is called Ofelaš and in Norwegian - Veiviseren

nothing to do with vikings =d

[Xurr]

How about...


...wait for it...


300!


For tonight, we dine, in hell!

Ok, sorry about that, just couldn't help it. Honestly I don't know any great ancient era movie. WWII no problem.

Yeah there aren't a lot, Hollywood always screws up historical accuracy. It may not be the most historically accurate film but I always get a kick out of watching Ben Hur. Also try the 1960 Spartacus with Kirk Douglas.

[Long lost Caesar]

Gladiator has to be one of the best. I know it's not accurate, but it's still a great film. I have to admit that when my brother and I watched it recently I couldn't help laughing to myself. When my brother asked why I said
"They're wearing LS!" Noob director

[alatar]

Wouldn't LS in that time frame be more acceptable?

I'd say Zulu. It is fairly acurate to to history (not exact but very close, only iritating thing is the uniform) plus it is a great film.
100 British soldiers against 4000-6000 Zulu's, and a good cast.

[konny]

The original Pathfinder - Hard to find but I know theres sub version on amazon.de, in other languages it is called Ofelaš and in Norwegian - Veiviseren

Is that the movie about the boy who got caught by a raiding party somewhere in Norway?

[Dhampir]

I'd say Zulu. It is fairly acurate to to history (not exact but very close, only iritating thing is the uniform) plus it is a great film.
100 British soldiers against 4000-6000 Zulu's, and a good cast.

Zulu and Zulu Dawn are two of my favorite movies.

Zulu has pretty good history.

Zulu Dawn is more historical, though. And it's presentation is along the same lines as movies like The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far--essentially everything straight out of a textbook with A-list stars.

[Gaivs]

Gladiator has to be one of the best. I know it's not accurate, but it's still a great film. I have to admit that when my brother and I watched it recently I couldn't help laughing to myself. When my brother asked why I said
"They're wearing LS!" Noob director

They did wear LS at this stage. Marcus Aurelius was emperor from 161-180.

[cmacq]

Black Robe

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101465/...lay-E16111-310

Pathfinder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSxQEmaRy_g

The Thirteenth Warrior

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4lY...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av8F...eature=related

good except they should have placed it in late bronze age and tossed in some horse carts.
Never bring a dog to war. And...
now that I think of it...
thats were I've heard that name before...

Bovi

...from the Latin no doubt?

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, or 'Whats good for the god, s'not so good for the cattle.'

...or was that Buliwyf???

[DefenderofFuture]

Thing is, most movie directors/studios, especially in the US, think that having a superior story is more important than keeping things historically accurate. The problem with this is that it often results in a movie with a WORSE story than what actually happened (in my opinion).

I think the main reason for this is that most directors come to a project with severe creative prejudices toward the subject, so regardless of how accurate a SCRIPT is, they want to take something here and add something there, resulting in a completely different film.

I will say that there are some films that, in COMPARISON, are fairly historically accurate.

I re-watched Kingdom of Heaven after doing a report on Saladin's conquests, and I found that the greater plot of the movie and some interactions (for example, the death of Raynald of Chatillion happened similarly to the scene in the film, details are mixed up). The film does a good job of taking INSPIRATION from history, but sort of collapses because it's trying to preach a virtue that is irrelevant to the 12th century world: equality. That and the final battle is sort of an embarrassment, a cheap knock-off of Return of the King that collapses the image of the Muslim's civility that had prevailed up to that point in the film.

Alexander failed because it trod the middle path: that is, it tried to be historically accurate to a point, more than most films, but then compromised at seemingly arbitrary points. I don't know the EXACT details of the Battle of Gaugamela, but the film seemed to at least take CUES from ancient sources, regardless of how inaccurate the actual portrayal is.

In summary, the English Language films that are "accurate" are only so to a certain point, and only relative to other films. I would say that any film that makes an EFFORT to be at least a little historically accurate deserves some cred, considering a full reconstruction is, needless to say, impossible.

Oh, and F*ck Braveheart. Great movie. Horrible historically. Probably on the level of 300 for inaccuracy.

[cmacq]

kingdom of Heaven; i've one little problem. Salahuddin. They depicted him as an Arab?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQE...eature=related

This was the significant substory.

As in the film he says, 'what did you Arabs do before I came, I mean before god sent me?'

Alexander failed because of two little words; Oliver Stone. If you want a hoot play the directors comments. He's quite mad you know?

[Chris1959]

Gettysburg is very visually impressive. I believe that using Civil war re-enactors the part with Picketts charge is 1 to 1, 14,000+ Confederate soldiers.
I was amazed at the speed they emerged from the woods and formed up for a divisional assault.
A good scene in an old film is one with Gary Cooper set in Pancho Villas raid on the US. An early scene shows a US cavalry regiment deploying from column of march to a single line in about 2 mins, it's wonderful to see it done on an accurate scale and how quickly and well organised, I think the film is called "Hero", turns up on TCM now and then.

[Dhampir]

The Thirteenth Warrior

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4lY...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av8F...eature=related

good except they should have placed it in late bronze age and tossed in some horse carts.
Never bring a dog to war. And...
now that I think of it...
thats were I've heard that name before...

Micheal Crichton's adaptation of Beowulf is a good historical movie?

[cmacq]

Micheal Crichton's adaptation of Beowulf is a good historical movie?

Good point.

But what about Gladiator other than several random names and events was historical.

So, 13th warrior was Beowulf; how so?

[Olaf The Great]

If any EB member -ever- becomes a millionaire.

Please make an EB movie.

And ddaaaammnn Dacii looks awesome, especially for that period.

Thousands of real actors...oh my,.


They did an extremely good job at making the movie historically accurate, especially since back then they didn't know that much about the period.

[Dhampir]

Good point.

But what about Gladiator other than several random names and events was historical.

I'm not knowledgeable about the time period to make judgment. But it is a good movie.

So, 13th warrior was Beowulf; how so?

Crichton took a bet that he could make Beowulf interesting. The result is his novel "Eaters of the Dead". He makes Grendel into a barbarian horde and Grendel's mother a voodooish lady and cuts out Beowulf growing old and dieing in a fight with the dragon out of foolish pride, having him die as a result of his fight with Grendel's mother. The lessons in Beowulf--kinship, kingship--are lost, yes; but the kernel of the story is fairly untouched.

The narrator in Beowulf refers to the people as heathens because he's a Saxon Christian in Britain writing about fictional events in the past in pagan Denmark, even though the character of the narrator is an eyewitness to the events--so Crichton makes the narrator an Arab dispelling the disconnect between witness and account.