KLAssurbanipal 22:53 31/01/12
There are some gems you're missing such as:
I, Claudius (BBC, 1976) — looks very dated in production values, but a stellar script and wonderful cast make up for the visual shortfalls. Derek Jacobi as Claudius? Yes, please! John Hurt as a whiny Caligula? Yes please!
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Starz, 2010) — Unbelievably trashy and gory, but surprisingly faithful to history. Best depiction of the master/slave relationship that I've yet seen onscreen, not to mention getting an awful lot of things right about gladiators and their weird status as slaves and rock stars. A few episodes of this will leave you far better-educated than that hulking, stinking, lumbering monstrosity called Gladiator.
Rome (HBO, 2005) — A little bit compressed, and I found a laconic Caesar kinda hard to take, but this show made a real effort to get things right.
I wondered the same thing, Lemur, but then noticed the period restriction 1951-64 in the OP. It's a rather short period and I am curious as to why those particular years, rather than any others, but King Louise can't be said to have missed films outside it.
One question to King Louise or anyone else, though: are those 12 films good, do you think? I really like Spartacus, if more for a depiction of the world as I would like it be rather than as it actually was, and think it is a great movie, as well as a great historical movie. Some of the others, I can take or leave - they are made with a certain grandeur, but I am not sure they stand up in contemporary times as good drama or history. Others I am unfamiliar with. Are there particular ones people would recommend?
Spartacus is an entertaining film, but I always feel like it has to have an asterisk next to it whenever it is referred to as a Kubrick film. Kubrick had almost no creative control over the film, and the final result was a typical Hollywood blockbuster style, without most of the depth and artistry that is found in the rest of the Kubrick library.
Of the rest, the ones that I have seen (Cleopatra, Ben-Hur, and The Fall of the Roman Empire) are entertaining enough for what they are, but I don't really think they hold up very well. Sword-and-sandals films tend to be very formulaic and a bit dull, and I feel like that genre in particular suffered from a lack of imagination in the traditional Hollywood epic style. In all honesty, I feel like the only excellent media I have ever seen set in ancient times is the first season of HBO/BBC's Rome. Everything else has been trite Hollywood bombast.
Originally Posted by
Lemur:
There are some gems you're missing such as:
I, Claudius (BBC, 1976) — looks very dated in production values, but a stellar script and wonderful cast make up for the visual shortfalls. Derek Jacobi as Claudius? Yes, please! John Hurt as a whiny Caligula? Yes please!
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Starz, 2010) — Unbelievably trashy and gory, but surprisingly faithful to history. Best depiction of the master/slave relationship that I've yet seen onscreen, not to mention getting an awful lot of things right about gladiators and their weird status as slaves and rock stars. A few episodes of this will leave you far better-educated than that hulking, stinking, lumbering monstrosity called Gladiator.
Rome (HBO, 2005) — A little bit compressed, and I found a laconic Caesar kinda hard to take, but this show made a real effort to get things right.
Does Spartacus get better after the first episode? My friend (who's taste in media I seriously question) recommended it to me. I couldn't take the 300-ripoff special effects and ludicrous style decisions (the Thracians as extremely stereotypical barbarians and the Getae as... mutants?) when it was combined with the whole "our village was just massacred and everyone we know is dead... so lets bone!" scene. I mean, really? Talk about not putting your best foot forward...
The Stranger 18:52 04/02/12
Spartacus is entertaining and does better than most shows that have aired recently in that aspect.
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good:
Does Spartacus get better after the first episode? My friend (who's taste in media I seriously question) recommended it to me. I couldn't take the 300-ripoff special effects and ludicrous style decisions (the Thracians as extremely stereotypical barbarians and the Getae as... mutants?) when it was combined with the whole "our village was just massacred and everyone we know is dead... so lets bone!" scene. I mean, really? Talk about not putting your best foot forward...
Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Some of my friends tried to get me into the series as well, but the gratuitous sex & violence (which seemed to serve no purpose other than to stimulate the physical senses) was a bit too over-the-top for me.
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good:
Does Spartacus get better after the first episode?
I would say that the first episode or two are the low point of the series. Yes, the portrait of the Getae is all wrong, and the Tracians are carrying the wrong gear, and so on and so forth. Things improve vastly when the action centers on Capua.
There's one other massively ahistorical plotline, but I forgive them. They get enough right for me to be generous.
And as
Martok indicates, if you are put off by truly gratuitous sex and violence, you'll have a hard time appreciating the rest of what they have to offer.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
I would say that the first episode or two are the low point of the series. Yes, the portrait of the Getae is all wrong, and the Tracians are carrying the wrong gear, and so on and so forth. Things improve vastly when the action centers on Capua.
There's one other massively ahistorical plotline, but I forgive them. They get enough right for me to be generous.
And as Martok indicates, if you are put off by truly gratuitous sex and violence, you'll have a hard time appreciating the rest of what they have to offer.
I guess I'll give it another shot eventually. Any of those elements (gratuitous historical inaccuracy, gratuitous sex, and gratuitous violence) don't really bother me, just the combination in the first episode was off-putting.
KLAssurbanipal 19:15 15/03/12
Arranging this list I was guided by a certain type, genre films. In the years 1951 to 1965 formed the specific historical movies about Ancient period, based on a diagram. Movies of 1950-65 were a great spectacle, epic super productions with great characterization. TM were close to each other technically, directing. After 1965 they started making movies differently. These movies had a completely different climate.
Yes, I like these movies and a style of this period. These aren't consistent with history. But I love this epic style. I treat them as enjoyable time, not a history lesson. :)
Not a big fan of sword and sandal epics from this time period because they're way too melodramatic and like a play. The main draw seems to have been the spectacle of thousands of extras, as the writing and acting is usually, while adequate, stiff and frankly boring.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO