(click to show/hide)
I've seen the first one, pretty dissappointing.
Loyd refused to be a historical advisor for this film, guess why :lol:(click to show/hide)
Pretty fun watch Lindybeige destroy this movie piece by piece :mrgreen:
Ok, but you could apply all these to cRPG too.
But cRPG is not trying to be a historical movie, Tovi.
And no, you couldn't.
Dense again?
cRPG is not aiming to be historically accurate.
cRPG is not aiming to be historically accurate.
shit if you want historical accuracy watch documentaries. why would anyone want to fuck up fun for facts.
why would anyone want to fuck up fun for facts.
Because unfortunately there are many in this world stupid enough to take a Hollywood as largely fact.
I just saw Ironclad 2 Battle for Blood.
Oh god it sucks. Some movies are so bad and cheesey that they are funny and you can laugh at them. This one tries to be serious though, and it's just totally horrible.
The castle "sieges" are like 12 people assaulting a wall. The acting is atrocious. It's not the same actor playing the protagonist. The camera work is shit. The cinematography is just so forced. Like, trying to be dramatic but totally failing. The writing is corny. The characters are flat. There are a few good moments -- but it's not worth it.
The storyline -- the sequence of events and interactions -- the timeline of the battles ---- IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE. It jumps around all over the place. The ending is completely nonsensical. It is abrupt and baffling. It leaves questions with the viewer -- and not the kind of good questions that provoke thought. Questions like "what the fuck was that? Who the hell is that character and why on earth would he do such a retarded thing? That's the end? Who wrote this piece of shite? Where they really high, or did they just quit and someone else had to end the script? What were the producers thinking? The director? Did the actors even know what they were doing, or were they all lied to?"
Sorry for the rant -- but based on the description of the movie, I thought it would be good, and I wanted to come back and follow up.
I dont get why people seek historical accuracy in this. Nowhere on the DVD box or the posters did it state "historically accurate". I mean, yea sure, its fun to nitpick, but dont go apeshit over it. Its a movie where some historic parts were mixed with fiction. Big deal. Id say "Braveheart" was a way bigger crime. Basically they kinda shitted on a Scottish national hero and Mel Gibson in blue warpaint became a first thing americans...and well everybody else non-scottish get the image of when they think of Scottland or Scottish freedom. And that is just fucked up.
I am an American and I look at Braveheart as basically a documentary. Freaking love that movie.
I am an American and I look at Braveheart as basically a documentary.to his defense, I also loved the hell out of Visored Barbuta helmets until I found out that it's not historical. Not a single goddamn knight ever wore that shit. Quite a bummer, still looks cool though :mrgreen:
to his defense, I also loved the hell out of Visored Barbuta helmets until I found out that it's not historical. Not a single goddamn knight ever wore that shit. Quite a bummer, still looks cool though :mrgreen: