Medieval movies.
- Thread starter Mtemtko
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
CountArtha
Knight at Arms
Braveheart is worth watching once, I guess.
Also, wrong thread.
Also, wrong thread.
EdwardWellcraft
Sergeant Knight
The thing with most Medieval movies is you just need to ignore any historical inaccuracies (unless they are massive and glaring) and just enjoy them for what they are. Braveheart is a fantastic movie in my opinion (though almost too preachy) but consider the fact that the Battle of Stirling Bridge in the movie doesn't even happen at a bridge. Doesn't really detract too much from the movie though.
Kingdom of Heaven is also great, but only bother with the director's cut, the theatrical cut is mediocre at best.
I want to watch Arn: The Knight's Templar, but I can't find English subtitles for it.
Kingdom of Heaven is also great, but only bother with the director's cut, the theatrical cut is mediocre at best.
I want to watch Arn: The Knight's Templar, but I can't find English subtitles for it.
CountArtha
Knight at Arms
The only things I remember about Kingdom of Heaven are that Liam Neeson died in the first act and it was ruined by political correctness.
EDIT: Oh, and they filmed "on location" in the Sahara Desert. I'm sure nobody will notice that.
EDIT: Oh, and they filmed "on location" in the Sahara Desert. I'm sure nobody will notice that.
GraaEminense
Squire
Kingdom of Heaven looked good though, despite Jerusalem's location in the Sahara for some reason.
Braveheart has battles that were cinematically pretty groundbreaking at the time, and few have upstaged them yet.
The Arn movies suffer from too low budget (Sweden, remember) and a fair amount of astounding idiocy. They're still worth watching though, if you can do it cheaply -a fair bit of good kit and nice scenery.
The most convincing "Medieval movie" I've ever seen is "In the name of the Rose", excellent movie but low on epic battles.
I'll heartily recommend the classic "Alexander Nevsky" by Sergei Eisenstein too, but not for its historical correctness. It's actually a pretty fun movie despite (or because of) it's obvious propaganda. It's got Nazi-catholic-stormtrooper Teutonic Knights!
Braveheart has battles that were cinematically pretty groundbreaking at the time, and few have upstaged them yet.
The Arn movies suffer from too low budget (Sweden, remember) and a fair amount of astounding idiocy. They're still worth watching though, if you can do it cheaply -a fair bit of good kit and nice scenery.
The most convincing "Medieval movie" I've ever seen is "In the name of the Rose", excellent movie but low on epic battles.
I'll heartily recommend the classic "Alexander Nevsky" by Sergei Eisenstein too, but not for its historical correctness. It's actually a pretty fun movie despite (or because of) it's obvious propaganda. It's got Nazi-catholic-stormtrooper Teutonic Knights!
Kingdom of Heaven was filmed in Morocco (which is hardly on location), just like Gladiator. However, as Edward said, only bother with the director's cut. The movie is 45 minutes longer and it isn't just random crap added, but whole entire plot lines. What more, the good characters are portrayed less good and the evil less evil....in other words everyone is more gray. It is a shame that the director's cut wasn't the official release (as Ridley Scott wanted it to be).
I saw the Arn movies, they are mediocre. GraaEminense sums them up well.
I saw the Arn movies, they are mediocre. GraaEminense sums them up well.
EdwardWellcraft
Sergeant Knight
Al_Mansur said:
You just have to remember that no movie is about being historically accurate first and foremost. It's about entertaining and audience, and when you have as big a budget as Kingdom of Heaven does you need to appeal to a very large audience to even make a profit. It's all about making artistic choices to make the movie more entertaining for a wider group of people.
Not to mention history isn't nearly as exciting as we make it out to be often enough.
I mean to us it is interesting and thus exciting, but it's not well suited for the medium of a 2 hour movie.
Gabeed said:
That would have made the movie so much better. Orlando's acting voice isn't all that effective at delivering serious lines.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Like the 2010 Robin Hood, you mean?EdwardWellcraft said:
FrisianDude said:Like the 2010 Robin Hood, you mean?EdwardWellcraft said:
That movie is more about finding historical accuracies....Richard getting shot in the neck by a crossbow is about it. Also, Max von Sydow FTW!
Urlik
Sergeant Knight
ages ago I saw a film about the Battle of Hastings but I can't remember the name. I have a feeling that it was a Hungarian production (it wasn't English or American) but I am not 100% on that.
all I can remember about it is the scene where Harold takes off his helm, picks up a dane axe and starts swinging it around, seriously annoying the Norman cavalry, until he gets an arrow in the face.
for a film made before the mid 80's the arms and armour looked reasonably authentic.
all I can remember about it is the scene where Harold takes off his helm, picks up a dane axe and starts swinging it around, seriously annoying the Norman cavalry, until he gets an arrow in the face.
for a film made before the mid 80's the arms and armour looked reasonably authentic.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Richard was wearing some kind of sallet as well. That didn't look particularly in-period.Skot the Sanguine said:
True, though I think it is the same helmet they used at the end of Kingdom of Heaven for Richard as well.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Could be, never saw KoH entirely.
