Org Mobile Site
Thread: Ancient warfare movies
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
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
CmacQ
First, some responses:
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
Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite:
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]When I still was a small Dutchhoplite i thought "Fall of the Roman empire" was very impressive.
Originally Posted by Celtic Punk:
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).However pure historical accuracy does not make a good movie.
Originally Posted by Poppis:
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.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. 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".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.
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
Originally Posted by Gleemonex:
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....And all my interest in King Arthur evaporated when I saw that politically-correct feminist-pandering poster of Guinevere as an archer(ess).[/I]
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?
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?
Originally Posted by Gleemonex:
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.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).
Originally Posted by Gleemonex:
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.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.
Gladiator is my all time favorite movie in general.
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. >_>
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. >_>
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
Originally Posted by Gleemonex:
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?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").
Originally Posted by Gleemonex:
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.Incidentally, do Alexander and Troy have directors' cuts?
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.
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 :))
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 :))
I cannot believe nobody has mentioned Spartacus yet! SHAME ON YOU!!! 
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.
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.
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.
Since many people are mentioning KoH, I think I can also say Alatriste. Both are great warfare movies.
Originally Posted by Poppis:
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)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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by penguinking:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Jolt:
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'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.
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.
I have seen all of Troy, but what I did see did not impress me.
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!!!
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!!!
maybe out of the skins of the babies they killed at the beginning of 300 
The best warfare movies pregunera for me. (in order of favorites
)
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.
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
, only for the battle scenes.
There might be alot more which I can't remember but these are the ones I own.
)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
.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
, only for the battle scenes.There might be alot more which I can't remember but these are the ones I own.
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.
13th warrior anyone seen that? looooooool antonio bendares as a iraqi from Baghdad.
The Fall of the Roman Empire.
It's been awhile since I have seen it, but, did it have fully clad kataphraktoi in it?
It's been awhile since I have seen it, but, did it have fully clad kataphraktoi in it?
Originally Posted by Phalanx300:
.... a really nice entertaining movie.
All those films(Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Spatacus etc) are good entertaining movies. But that's all..... a really nice entertaining movie.
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.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO