Ancient warfare movies

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, that was the only Hollywood production that I have seen up to date and that was historically accurate. I absolutely loved it!

Got bad news for you, it wasn`t a hollywood production, but a joint BBC, RAI and HBO production, and it was filmed mainly in Italy.

So no, Holywood remains true to it`s principles.

I agree that the Kingdom of Heaven full cut version was like a totally different film than the theatrical one, and MUCH better. That version is one of my favorite movies, and so is Gladiator.

Alexander just about put me to sleep. Watching the phalanx move was cool, other than that, it was something like 2 hours about one of the most interesting men who ever lived, and the whole theme of the movie was basically "Look how gay he was!". Of course, since this is the USA we're talking about, absolutely NO male on male love/kissing was allowed, so it always just kept having these ambiguously gay moments between Alexander and his "best friend" Hephaistion- multiple times, right at the point where you think they're going to just start ravaging each other like rabbits on PCP, they quickly hug and walk away.

Oh, and seeing Rosario Dawson naked was a nice touch as well. So the Phalanx was cool, and so were Rosario Dawson's luscious breasts. Other than that, I wanted those 2 hrs of my life back afterward.

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

I mean they practically turned the movie into one long romance between two gay guys - definitely not what Alexander's life was!)

Watch Priscilla: Queen of the Desert then get back to me

Seriously though, I would have considered it much more PC if it had been MORE gay (Look, gay people can be good at stuff!) or much more Idiocracy if it were LESS gay (Alexander never slept with boys! He was straight as a Spartan[1]. Also, drink Budweiser(tm)). The level of gayness (gayitude?) was nearly on par with the historical record AFAIK.

But that's a matter of opinion of course, and I can see where you're coming from. As I noted earlier, Poppis' suggestion of another battle scene would definitely improve the movie.

The reason I can accept it is that (IMO) Hollywood has been doing alright in portraying the human side of military leaders lately. The best examples that come to mind now are We Were Soldiers and A Few Good Men. Also, I'm told that Hitler: The Rise of Evil is really good, and I'm a big Robert Carlyle fan.

Originally Posted by mlc82

Rosario Dawsons luscious breasts

Don't forget that you see a silhouette of some bush too

-Glee

[1] Yes, that's on purpose.

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)

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 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.

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 really loved Star Wars, unless we are just talking warfare a long time ago in this galaxy, then Gladiator would be my favorite.

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.

It would have been a whole lot more insulting if they were believably portrayed as a nation of slaves (and don't forget disfigured monsters and transsexual S&M perverts). Personally, as someone who is regularly mistaken for middle-eastern, I was relieved that they exaggerated enough for the caricature to be obvious.

Originally Posted by mlc82

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.

Don't look now, but the 2004 presidential election already proved that

-Glee

Originally Posted by Gleemonex

Don't look now, but the 2004 presidential election already proved that

-Glee

Cue Foot telling us to take this into the backroom.

Oh another film I quite liked was Last of the Mohicans, not really Medieval or ancient but a good adventure movie!

Originally Posted by Conradus

You guys sure are hard on most of these movies.

I don't know about others, but I for one watch these movies because I like history, which means I want the movies to be historically accurate(especially concerning battles), or at least not so obviously ahistorical as some of these movies are.

This is why movies like Troy or King Arthur didn't really do it for me.

Originally Posted by Gleemonex

The reason I can accept it is that (IMO) Hollywood has been doing alright in portraying the human side of military leaders lately. The best examples that come to mind now are We Were Soldiers and A Few Good Men. Also, I'm told that Hitler: The Rise of Evil is really good, and I'm a big Robert Carlyle fan.

Der Untergang also springs to mind.

Originally Posted by mlc82

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.

And that's the movies fault?

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.

Again, that was only Dilios' opinion/observation of the opposing army.

And I agree that a historically accurate movie of the battle of Thermopylae would be awesome, but in the meanwhile people shouldn't try to squeeze 300 into that role.

Originally Posted by Poppis

I don't know about others, but I for one watch these movies because I like history, which means I want the movies to be historically accurate(especially concerning battles), or at least not so obviously ahistorical as some of these movies are.

This is why movies like Troy or King Arthur didn't really do it for me.

You watch a movie like Troy, based on one of the first fiction novels in history and you expect it to be historically accurate? I mean, be glad they didn't include gods in the fighting or Achilles fighting against an entire river.

Though I wouldn't mind if they'd stay closer to the Illiad. But that would be unfilmable.

Ok maybe Troy wasn't the greatest example. I did actually enjoy the movie the first time I saw it in theater, as did most of my friends.

The fighting choreography was truly breathtaking(though how historically accurate it would be, I can't say), but after seeing it a couple of times, it's inefficiencies(spelling?) popped up like actors, CGI armies, heroes turned into action movie clichés... you know, all the things I liked in 300.

In my opinion all historical movies are lacking in one way or the other. There is no Godfather in that genre.

There are some really good ones though.

Alexander

The movie with the most highlights. Stone captures Alexanders larger than life persona effectively with heroic and uncompromising portrails at the battle of Gaugamela and Hydaspes. To engage the superior army of Darius with supreme confidence immediately gives you the feeling of greatness. Zeus be with us! gives me chills every time. Farrell gives a strong performance at the key points, although he falls short on a few instances. All in all you are left with the feeling of a force of nature that shamelessly dies way too early, possibly (probably in my mind) by assassinaton. We must kill the dreamers before they exhaust us all. Great line, and very symptomatic of how historical greats are often perceived and treated by the less great ones.

Some gripes of course. Alexander is way too good and humanitarian. All his fould deeds are given justification to the extreme, and the pragmatic side of him is completely ignored. The gay aspect is given too much importance. There is nothing special about royalty in Greece having boy lovers in that time, so don't try and make it so. Especially the scene with Aristotle feels extremely forced. And the kid Alexander is a weak actor with often weak lines.

The Revisited version is far superior to the other cuts.

Kingdom Of Heaven

I'm of course talking about the DC version. Great actors for the most part. Even Bloom does a decent job. Accurate and objective in the portrails. The honor aspect works great and carries a timeless relevance. You could in a way use this film as a manual to how to lead a good life. The philosophy is very mature, one of several things making this a serious movie. Being Ridley Scott the cinematography and sets are exquisit (sp?). Beautiful and detailed all around.

Gripes: Some artistic freedom taken to portray some of the characters as either better or worse than they actually were. Guy's decision to attack Saladin is a bit too simplified. Nobody is that stupid unless somehow forced into it. Makes you feel a little cheated. The relationship with Sybylla, although possible, takes way too much freedom in establishing the mandatory love story and ignoring some of the very strict rules royalty had to follow. Going back to France with him is totally ridiculous and uncessesary.

Others in the same category, what I perceive to be serious movies:

Spartacus, Gladiator, HBO's Rome, Braveheart.

Fun movies: 300, Troy.

Stay away from: King Arthur (absolutely terrible, an insult to watch)

umm wouldn't KoH be medieval , not ancient times?


there aren't many historical films out there... one of the best that I can remember is "the fall" but I uess that isn't ancient hehe.

and troy was... damn I couldn't finish it :P

List includes non-ancient/classical movies, too. And a few non-war but still classical-related.


FAVORITE

Alexander Director's Cut: Say what you will about Oliver Stone, and about this film, I still like it a great deal. What amazes me is how much of the actual Alexander story they managed to pull in. Although I would rather have seen Gaugamela and Granicus as separate fights, I expected the extremely cinematic events of Granicus to be merged with the ultimately decisive Gaugamela, which is precisely what occurred. The Hydaspes was a slight let-down when he was wounded. His homosexuality with Hephaistion was not over-played or under-played, in my opinion. Rosario Dawson... yeah. And I get to see Babylon recreated in all its glory.

Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut: Much better movie than the theatrical release. A superb work by Scott. Superior in all ways to Gladiator (see below). As for those of you who mentioned the brutality of the Christians against their enemies, I'd like to remind you that this was a time when everyone was generally brutal to everyone else, and that religion was just a convenient excuse to justify said brutality. As for Saladin, he was done amazingly well in this film, and the fact that he was actually not ruthless is reflected well (and one of the reasons he was such a fantastic ruler).

Spartacus: Kubrick's least Kubricky film. The checkerboard formation is displayed during the climactic battle-scene. Much better representation of actual gladitorial training and combat than Gladiator.

Ben-Hur: The chariot-race is interesting for how much it got right. But there were one or two things they messed up. Wait a second, this isn't a war movie....

The Ten Commandments: For the chariots alone. And Yul Brynner. The chariots are really good representations of actual Egyptian fighting vehicles. Though there's no real battle scene, it's nevertheless interesting to watch fifty chariots onscreen, get an idea of their mass and volume, and then realize that thousands of those things were deployed at Qadesh against the Hittites.

Titus: More Shakespeare than war, but it's still a pretty cool flick. I like the whole modern vs. ancient thing. Added to the fact that this was Shakespeare's "over-the-top" slaughterfest and you get a pretty interesting flick.

Monty Python & the Holy Grail: One of the best depictions of siege warfare I've ever seen. And of Lancelot singlehandedly storming a castle.

Flesh and Blood: With Rutger Hauer. Various and sundry sex-scenes notwithstanding, this is a pretty good movie about how a small group of ticked-off mercs with a fortress can ruin your whole week during the Renaissance. Lots of neat-o siege weapons and tactics, and, of course, dead people all over the place.


NEUTRAL

Gladiator: Essentially an action movie set in ancient Rome. Haven't seen the Director's Cut. Those scenes left on the cutting-room floor would have added something of merit to the movie, but regardless, we never see accurate representations of gladiators or the sort of matched pairs they had. We see different types, but we never actually see the match-ups. That and the legionaries break ranks during the opening battle, and don't throw their pila. The plot was a rip-off of The Fall of the Roman Empire although the execution was far superior.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc: The gore was overdone. Which is wierd for a medieval movie, but... it just was.

300: Whatever, man, I liked it, but it isn't my favorite. They catch the Laconic sense of humor pretty well, though. More fantasy than fact, but a lot of the dialogue is accurate. Well, more accurate than other movies I've seen.

Julius Caesar: The one with Marlon Brando. It's inaccurate, but that's Shakespeare's doing. Brando's an awesome Antony.

The 300 Spartans: The one with Richard Egan as Leonidas. It's been too long since I've seen it to give it an accurate review, but I remember liking it.

King Arthur: I was entertained. ... That's about it. Didn't expect much. Has a lot of the same problems Troy does, although Troy ticked me off more.

Cleopatra: Agrippa is the big inaccuracy here. Nevertheless, it's worth it to see the movie that nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Liz Taylor pulls off the role, though. At least, I think she does.

Braveheart: Brilliant depiction of medieval war. Highly inaccurate depiction of 13th century Britain and the Scottish Wars of Independence.

El Cid: Heston's overacting keeps this from being A-#1 awesome.


HATED

The Fall of the Roman Empire: Except for Sophia Loren, this movie has little of merit. It's more of a comedy of historical errors. Alec Guinness (Obi-wan Kenobi to you) as Marcus Aurelius couldn't even save this movie.

Troy: The real Troy looked more impressive, Sparta wasn't on a cliff, and Mycenae was what, 25 miles(?) from the coast. The costumes were cool, but inaccurate. We have enough archeological findings to recreate accurate Mycenaean and Wilusan soldiers from the late 14th/early 13th century BC. If they weren't so busy fence-sitting over the whole realism vs. fantasy elements thing, it'd be okay. Nevertheless, I liked what Brad Pitt did with Achilles, and I liked the vase-painting-inspired combat choreography, but other than that, the movie was more of an insult my intelligence.

Attila: Just God-awful.


HONORABLE MENTION

HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.

Ran, Kagemusha, and Heaven and Earth: Movies set during the Japanese Sengoku Jidai, rife with war, betrayal, and epic battles.

Conan the Barbarian: It's awesome, okay, that's why I listed it. And the raiders at the beginning. Whatever, it's a stretch, but the movie rocks.

The 13th Warrior: Yeah, yeah, yeah, inaccuracies, Beowulf, etc. I know. But, like Conan, this film is full of awesome. Every time I watch it, I fire up some Sweboz on EB and go sack the civilized world.

300 is interesting, because the narrator - who is the only one surviver - tells the story from his point of view. I think if an ancient Laconian sees (and fights) an elephant for the first time, he might describe it quite bigger to the audience and maybe invents some crazy creatures *G* of course he wants to underline the heroism of the 300 men

Originally Posted by GodEmperorLeto

HONORABLE MENTION

HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.

yep, that's also my opinion

there were two survivors IRL! 299 Spartans died at Thermoplyae,(it was Leonidas and 300 spartans, not just 300 spartans) here is what their fates were according to my book "Greeks at war" by phillip de souza, waldemar heckel, and lloyd llewellyn-jones "Aristodemos and another Spartan called Eurytos had picked up eye infections which became so acute that they were told by the king to remove themselves from the ranks of the 300 as they were incapable of fighting. They were taken to the nearby village of Alpenos by their helot attendants to recuperate." (paraphrasing now) as the rest of the greek army retreated and told them what was happening, the two spartans argued what they should do - return and fight to the death - or follow orders. Eurytos forced his helot to guide him to back, and was slain in the battle. Aristomdemos obeyed. "One other Spartan, called Pantites, also survived because he had been sent off to Thessaly as a messenger before the battle started and by the time he got back it was over." (again paraphrasing) both of them were labelled as cowards. they were labelled tremblers (which means they refused to fight alongside their comrades, and they had to wear a patch on their cloaks to distinguish them as tremblers, nobody would speak to you, youd be refused justice in court, and barred from holding office. also nobody would marry you or your kids.) Pantites hanged himself, Aristodemos bore the shame.(aristodemos is the narrator in 300.. he would not be sitting around a campfire telling the story. hed be laughed at and nobody would talk to him) He wanted an opportunity to restore his honour! this opportunity came during the battle of Palataia the Strategos Pausanias kept getting bad omens from sacrifices, so the spartans would not charge. the Spartans (especially Aristodemos) became increasinly impatient. Aristodemos eventually broke ranks and charged, urging the men on the Teagans on the left flank seeing this rushed onwards. Pausinias (i believe to avoid a disaster) chose this moment to order the spartans on, as apparently the omens were good. Aristodemos killed a number of persians before being cut down. The Spartans and Teagans butchered the persians and killed the commander Mardonios. Herodotus says he was the bravest on that day (as well as I) but the spartans did not feel the same, though courageous he did not meet standards for discipline and obedience.

hope you guys found that a bit interesting.

Read my book, its extremely good "The Greeks at war" it goes from the origins of the greco persian wars to Alexander... the book also mentions the movie by the same name (ONLY) for its accurate depiction of the Makedonian Phalangites

the book is written by actual uni profs. and De souza and Llewellyn-jones are both doctors.


300 spartans plus 400 thebians, and 700 Thespaiai hoplites stayed back with the spartans to glory. Though the Spartans definately bore the brunt initially. All fought to the death for their country. still Persians got rocked, more than 20 000 casualties, for probably around 2000... thats a ratio of 10:1... PWNT!

MOLON LABE!!!!

300 was just awful. I say that because it's only selling point was "well, it LOOKS good", to which I disagree. It looked bad, it had no story, it was really boring and it deserves all the bad criticism it can get. That would be the one I hate the most.

The one I like the most would be Rome if counting series, and Spartacus if not. I don't need to give any motivation, it should be obvious already.

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

you saw that too? that was good indeed.

but I was dissapointed at the location-Gaugamela was a plain, not a desert

and the depiction of the persians sucked-persians got discipline and look like europeans, not a rabble made of Berbers

That's true. If you think about it, the Persians in Alexander should have looked more like the Greek and the Greek more like the Persians. I mean, come on... Alexander as a pale, blond guy. Doesn't really look convincing.
I think the best parts of Alexander were the battle at Gaugamela, Val Kilmer as King Philipp (Kilmer is one of the greatest actors around, shame he doesn't get many good roles...) and one bacchanal scene where Alexander is posing as Herakles (with a lion's head etc.) and drinking large quantities of wine. He drinks from this bowl of some sort and in the shot his face is covered by that bowl and you only see the lion's head on his head, so it looks like a lion would drink. That scene was absolutly fantastic with that symbolism of Alexander becoming an animal in his alcoholism. Another good thing was Angelina Jolie in her toga (or whatever you might call that dress), she's just pure sex. Although her strange accent and the fact that she's supposed to be Colin Farrell's mother but is only 2 or 3 years older than him was a bit silly.
Apart from those three and a half things there wasn't really anything good in Alexander in my opinion. I especially dislike the huge leap from young Alexander directly to the battle of Gaugamela. I was totally confused by that. That's not cool fast-cut cinema that's just plain bad filmmaking.

One Alexander movie I liked was the one from the 50s with Richard Burton I think. The battle scenes were a bit silly from a historical point of view (as in most historical movies from that time) but the plot and the characters were far more intriguing and better developed than in Alexander.


Someone mentioned "Alatriste". Great historical movie, although not a warfare movie per se. The fencing scenes are absolutly awesome. Very stylish and quite accurate at the same time. Great dialogue too. The plot can be a bit confusing at times because sometimes it gets a bit difficult to keep all those different characters apart. But great movie nonetheless.

I loved HBO's Rome as well, easily my favorite of all listed here, though it definitely isn't an "ancient warfare movie" (although neither was KoH). The portrayal of real friendship between Pullo and Vorenus is just brilliant IMO. Two guys who (several episodes in) genuinely love one another and would walk through hell together- yet half of the time they just want to beat the sh*t out of each other as well. Sounds like my friends and I sometimes.

I actually liked King Arthur as well, so shoot me :P Sure it was silly. I find Braveheart entertaining also, though it was practically just one huge mockery of William Wallace for the most part.

Yeah, Rome was definetly an absolute highlight in recent TV history.

Btw, regarding Braveheart, there is one thing that always comes to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybQCNb4AuW4 (especially from 3:50 on).
Gotta love Stewart Lee for doing that kind of stand-up in Glasgow. :D

I liked 300, and here is why.
It wasn't a war film, it was a propaganda film, and a damn cool one at that. Think "Triumph of the Will" only less Hitler, more ridiculously defined abs.

Just to head this one off now, I appriciate Triumph of the Will on an artistic basis, and think Hitler was evil.

Originally Posted by Cbvani

I liked 300, and here is why.
It wasn't a war film, it was a propaganda film, and a damn cool one at that. Think "Triumph of the Will" only less Hitler, more ridiculously defined abs.

Just to head this one off now, I appriciate Triumph of the Will on an artistic basis, and think Hitler was evil.

I agree with it being a propaganda film. Sadly, 99% of the population here (in the USA) with their 5 minute attention spans were too busy running back home to watch American Idol or some other such serves only as a distraction bullshite to ever think long enough (hopefully, a few seconds would suffice) to realize that what they were seeing was blatant propaganda.

"OMG dood, thoze buff freedom loving completely heterosexually masculine spartanz TOTALLY kicked those muslim persians' asses!"

This country is certainly doomed within the next 50 years, if that, given that the generation just after mine (I'm 26) may as well have come from Mars for all I can tell. I'm not supposed to be talking about the "damn kids" like this until I'm 50 or so...

300 - I found it hard to believe that Diver Dan could grow a six-pack...

i thought they made them all look perfect with computer graphics
:D
bash the movie but dont bash the people mate...
you dont c us bashing u.. on this forum :D

about the HBO Rome- it was a great serries but unfortunatly it ran out of events to run on
(death of ceaser to octavian but idk)
I bet you all
Ceasers campaign in gual and assasination by senators then civil war and octavian then cleopatra is like the most recognizable historic fact about the roman republic/pre empire by anyone who has went to school
i gurantee u that :D

HBO's Rome was not intended to go for more than 2 seasons and I think that is quite good this way. I prefer a short series with stable high niveau instead of a long series that grows stupid or boring with time. Quality over quantity should be the maxime of TV stations!

Originally Posted by machinor

Apart from those three and a half things there wasn't really anything good in Alexander in my opinion. I especially dislike the huge leap from young Alexander directly to the battle of Gaugamela. I was totally confused by that. That's not cool fast-cut cinema that's just plain bad filmmaking.

It is my opinion that a good portrait of the life of Alexander would only come if it was made in a trilogy.

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

there were two survivors IRL! ...both of them were labelled as cowards. they were labelled tremblers Pantites hanged himself.... opportunity came during the battle of Palataia ... Aristodemos eventually broke ranks and charged, urging the men on....Aristodemos killed a number of persians before being cut down.

wow, valerio massimo manfredi based one of his books, "Spartan," on the Persian invasion of Greece and this exact part was in it. The main characters brother is the mad spartan, although his name is slighlty different IIRC. Anyone read that book?