A knight's tale is still a good choice.
I like the "sport" feeling in the movie.
Has anyone seen Sparticus (1960), not the show, the show is utter fucking shit. If you like the show gtfo and never talk to me again.
Is this movie any good? I don't mind if its older, I just want a good, epic historical movie.
I'm sorry, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen...not just medieval movies...just the worst in total. :)
300...
Sounds great Lars, I'll definitely look into it.
The extended version of Kingdom of Heaven is great.
Troy.
If you want to see thousand of soldiers that are not computer animated, watch this movie.
If you want to see thousand of soldiers that are not computer animated, watch this movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgngFW4rqyw
It's a good movie but unfortunately the quality is bad.
Ironclad is a crap/good movie.. It's all like 1 long crpg siege.
If you want to see thousand of soldiers that are not computer animated, watch this movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgngFW4rqyw
It's a good movie but unfortunately the quality is bad.
Gladiator, Mongol, Rome (HBO series, I know it's not a movie, but you really can't deny its awesomeness).
Oh yeah, of course the greatest movie of all time, Shaka Zulu (1986).
What's wrong with Brad Pitt in Troy? I think his portrayal of Achilles is what makes the movie good.
It's just a blond, beardless beau playing one of the toughest fighters in history.
Ironclad:
I think the director and/or producer had to have played Warband lol. I mean come on, epic gatehouse defense, archers firing down on soldiers moving the siege tower, 1h hammer spam, polearm moves, 2h spam, shield walls, tin can cav, OP throwing the whole nine. =P
I think he actually portrayed him quite well. Mind you, Brad Pitts ability for rousing speeches before battle leaves something to be desired.
Also the Templar is a badass ;)sure they were playing warband. they have even implemented the rule 120 ppl max in battle. ;)
sure they were playing warband. they have even implemented the rule 120 ppl max in battle. ;)
You might like these titles as well:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058777/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080180/
They're not perfect (especially the second one) but for a Zulu fan it's all there is, although I'm sure you already know about 'em. :wink:
Also - i could go on with numerous titles now and many people will throw in anything they can remember of but it's all kinda pointless since its a matter of personal taste for movies. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RI0Y3jI4S0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RI0Y3jI4S0)
The movie was not bad, but I wouldn't call it a historic one. Yes, it plays in the past, and there are some nice gore scenes, too, but still it's more some kind of "philosophic artist movie" than a typical historic movie. Life and events at that time play a too little role.Basicly that movie was a let down. Way too slow pacing and it didn't offer what it promised; a crusade and fighting in the holy land.
I was quite disappointed from "Troy", I have to admit (not only because of Brad Pitt). If you watch the movie without knowing the "historical" background, you get the impression that the siege only took ten days instead of ten years... :?
You're aware that the siege of Troy was fictional anyways? :D It's Greek mythology....
The movie isn't completely faithful to the mythology, true.
You're aware that the siege of Troy was fictional anyways? :D It's Greek mythology....
The movie isn't completely faithful to the mythology, true.
So, so Hercules is not real either?Next you'll tell me Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real....
Plus any movie that has Aishwarya Rai in is perfectly watchable for me :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qhkBTGE_Wo (main girl in that).
You're aware that the siege of Troy was fictional anyways? :D It's Greek mythology....
The movie isn't completely faithful to the mythology, true.
What the fuck?
You KNOW that the siege of Troy happened right?I mean, I doubt that they made a Giant Horse from wood and tricked the Tojans, but they definately besieged Troy.
Watching Jodha Akbar. It's a bollywood movie about one of the Mughal emperors. Has some good battle scenes in it with elephants ect. Here's the battle of Panipat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BloCPGWQvv8
No subs or anything sorry! So you'll have to fast forward to the fighting :P Starts at 2mins or so. You get some spamitar action in there as well :wink:
I'll second that shit. I had forgotten to put The Last Legion on my list. Aishwarya Rai's in that one as a badass bodyguard/assassin. Pretty damn good fight scenes as well.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462396 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462396)
Do I get this right? - First both, team orange and team black, send in their infantry, and once the melee has started both teams send in their masses of elephants, and the elephants only kill the enemy soldiers?
And there is a guy who is using his bow in melee, covered by a few bodyguards who form a ring around him? And this ring is moving rather freely to a melee which is kind of "scattered" all over the place by duelling pairs, so that it rather reminds on a prom with pairs everywhere than on a melee where you try to hold your line and stick to your mates?
There is a lot of lush and wet teritories in Turkey even in western part. People look at summer holiday advertisements and think that Turkey only has that climate. (Or worse they belive Turkey is some desert country because it's muslim.)
In my eyes hitoric movies should stick close to realism and history to be "good" historic movies. Everything else is just entertainment. Like "King Arthur", which in my eyes is very similar to "The last Legion". Concerning both the setting and the quality. The best part in "The last Legion" were the Goths at the beginning, the best part in "King Arthur" was Stellan Skarsgard as Saxon King. Screw the rest.
However, films like Last Legion and King Arthur arent even close. So yeah, I see your point. Of course, we could probably take Gladiator off the list too since Maximus was a totally fictional character built from a combination of four different historical figures (Cincinnatus, Narcissus, Marcus Nonius Macrinus & Spartacus).[/font][/size][/color]
P.P.S: Different topic: I always thought the battle of Panipat was fought in 1757- the same year as Leuthen. Seems I got my facts wrong :(
However, there has been more 'evidence' that Troy may have very well been in Cornwall. And the "Achaeans" very possibly may have not been Greeks, but Celts that inhabited that part of Greece during that era. And hence part of the reason that it is known as Greek Mythology, since Greeks derived most of their mythology directly handed down from the Celts.
It's wild, I know, but there are some pretty strong indicators that point to this.
- Early Greeks of that time weren't strong enough or unified enough to field a massive army or fleet of that size.
- The terrain around Cornwall matches the accounts that speak of a lush, wet climate (rather than the arid, dry climate of Turkey)
- The number of rivers that ran thru and around Troy, match the number of rivers spoken about in the stories.
- The fact that the Celts needed tin for their bronze, which Cornwall was overly abundant in.
- Massive amounts of Celtic influence all around Cornwall that still exists today proves they were in fact there.
- Accounts of a "Brutus of Troy," a descendant of the Trojan hero "Æneas" and according to the Historia Regum Britanniae say he was the legendary founder and first king of Britain.
- In a borrow found at Trelowarren (which is in Cornwall), there are ancient monuments made of clay and stone, of Hector and Patroclus.
And there is a lot, lot more that I cant remember. Been awhile since Ive read any of the books on that, but it was definitely interesting stuff. They go on to talk about the differences between the seas that were crossed, and the accounts of the return home from Troy and how a return voyage from Cornwall matched the geography so much more, etc, etc. And some interesting archeological findings in various places along the route.
But this is already turning into a tldr kinda thing so Ill shut it down for now.
- Early Greeks of that time weren't strong enough or unified enough to field a massive army or fleet of that size.1. Early greeks were a collection of city states led by the Basileus, in the story Agamemnon united most of the cities by war, or shrewed diplomatic marriages. Suggesting that the unification of Greece occurred during the lifetime of Agamemnon. Furthermore, it has been shown in archaeology that the nearby empire of the Hittites recognized the Mycenaeans as equals In the same league as Egypt and Mesopotamia during this time. Thus the idea that the Mycenaeans werent strong enough or unified is a bit silly.
- The terrain around Cornwall matches the accounts that speak of a lush, wet climate (rather than the arid, dry climate of Turkey)
- The number of rivers that ran thru and around Troy, match the number of rivers spoken about in the stories.
- The fact that the Celts needed tin for their bronze, which Cornwall was overly abundant in.
- Massive amounts of Celtic influence all around Cornwall that still exists today proves they were in fact there.
- Accounts of a "Brutus of Troy," a descendant of the Trojan hero "Æneas" and according to the Historia Regum Britanniae say he was the legendary founder and first king of Britain.
- In a borrow found at Trelowarren (which is in Cornwall), there are ancient monuments made of clay and stone, of Hector and Patroclus.
(click to show/hide)
Rather than discount his points largely off your own interpretation, you should go read some books about this theory. It's actually very interesting and does have some weight behind it. Draggon gave a quick summary of some of the issues and theory behind it, but naturally, it is a forum post and of course you can pick holes every way you look at it.
Here's a lecture based on it given by one of the main theorists behind this:
http://phdamste.tripod.com/trojan.html
This one is heavily based on relating it to Homer but there are other books/works that look into it in a far more scientific ect fashion.
The problem is many 'serious' classicist simply dismiss this theory because it goes against everything they have ever believed. As with much historical argument, when the standard views are argued against, the long time 'scholars' in the field simply dismiss it out of hand, despite the fact that in many cases the new view has become the accepted in later generations. Simple fact is though, there's very little evidence that Troy existed in Turkey either. So this is as likely a possibility in my eyes as that.
In all honesty though, I consider Troy to be like the King Arthur legend (opinions of which I expressed a few posts above). It's essentially the same thing. 'Finding' Troy in Turkey is the equivalent to me driving down to Tintagel in Cornwall (the castle long associated with Arthurian legend) and claiming I found Camelot.
(click to show/hide)
Well regardless I simply think it is an interesting theory. And my point still stands, until they find the conclusive proof that Troy did exist in Europe/Asia then it can be located any where that a theory can be made to support it. As of now Troy is still pretty much myth. Certainly the fall of Troy is.
And uncovering a settlement does not count as proof. Archaeologists have a horrific tendency to uncover something and say they found something related to some myth. Partly because they only really get one chance in their career's to uncover something like that. So my point about Tintagel and Camelot still stands. Until they find proof that that settlement is indeed Troy (of which there is scarce little in the settlement claimed to be homeric Troy), then they can claim whatever the hell they like. It doesn't make it true.
We are not going to find a giant neon sign that says "WELCOME TO TROY, POP. 100 000". The fact that Archeologists found a settlement that is Large enough to fit the description of homer, in the location that has always been speculated to be troy, suggests that troy was there. Compared to Cornwall, which has no archeological evidence of a city even approaching that size until the roman period, it is far more likely that the convention theory is correct.
The problem with this theory is the dearth of Keltic mythology avaliable to us. If we had copies of the myths and legends the gauls/other kelts shared, we would be able to draw comparisons to the ancient greek myths. Unfortunately rromans and greeks detested the Kelts... SO this comparison can never be made.
Holy crap, you guys wrote a damn book while I was gone. =P
Good stuff all around. Love this topic.
Anywho, lots to chime in about but I'll just throw this tidbit in for now. I'm gonna look for some links to it, but if I'm not mistaken there were quite a large number of tablets recovered from the site in Turkey, but none of them mention a large battle that would fit the description of "Troy", nor are any of the commanders, leaders, "heros" names mentioned anywhere in them. They do however mention the battle of Kadesh I believe it was?
I'll see what I can find on that.
FUCK YOU ALL.
No one has mentioned the original 300 yet. That was a good movie. The new 300 however, well, it sucked balls.
I liked the new 300 movie. Not as a historical movie, but as great visual entertainment.
Flesh and Blood (also named Flesh+Blood) is a pretty good late medieval movie. It's fucking grim, realistic, brutal, and features a naked girl in most scene. Rutger Hauer is in it as a flamberge wielding mercenary that doesn't give a shit. It is directed by the glorious Paul Verhoeven, who is a fucking badass.oh yeah i have this one, it's always fun to watch =). Also while being completely fictional, it somehow manages to show the medieval life in a more or less realistic way.
One of my favorite movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOy1JZBH5c
Anyone who takes '300' seriously and complains about it being historically incorrect is an idiot, it's based on a comic book which is fictional and fantasy, not everything has to be based on reality, 300 is a good movie and it's entertaining, it's not meant to be historically accurate and educational.
You are right, of course.
I think the OP should edit his first post to create some kind of list, based on the recommendations of this community.
What I would do is to divide the list into sections like "Historically very accurate movies (The Name of the Rose)", "Entertaining with good historical accuracy (Kingdom of Heaven)", "Entertaining with low historical accuracy (King Arthur)" and "Fantasy/Fictional historic movies (300/The last Legion)".
So everyone knows what kind of film it is, because simple attributes like "good" and "bad" don't apply to everyone, because everyone judges things differently. Links to imdb.com would help, too.
Watched "Red Cliff" on Netflix a couple nights ago. Godam that's a great movie. "Three Kingdoms" was also pretty good, but not as epic as "Red Cliff". 100% badass.
They show alot of battlefield strategy, counter-tactics and trickery, etc. The combat action is also done very well. At least they weren't flying thru the air - lol.
As for the historical accuracy I really have no clue. My Chinese military history knowledge sucks balls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5ta4lPNukü
pre-trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8raYASyito
offical trailer
I would like hear some comments , movie will come in February 2012.(click to show/hide)
Yes its siege of
Oooh, looks sweet. I especially like the bare headbutt against the helmet. :mrgreen: Reminds me of when I hit bare-headed ppl with my 2h and they live - heh.
All jokes aside though this does look badass. Think it's gonna be about the Ottoman Turks conquering Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5ta4lPNuküLord Of The Rings Two Towers?
pre-trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8raYASyito
offical trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5ta4lPNukü
pre-trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8raYASyito
offical trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5ta4lPNukü
pre-trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8raYASyito
offical trailer
I would like hear some comments , movie will come in February 2012.(click to show/hide)
fall of ConstantinopleIt's not fall of Constantinople it is Rise of Istanbul instead.
It's not fall of Constantinople it is Rise of Istanbul instead.(click to show/hide)
:D Turkish Propaganda ftw.safavid stayla ftw
safavid stayla ftw
Yep, I miss his totally unbiased, historically accurate posts.well its totally about being a nation , i mean crowded nation.Like only Istanbul's population is more than many countries population on EU.So people share same culture and propaganda style if they want to live with other 15 milion people =) Its like this in turkey.
well its totally about being a nation , i mean crowded nation.Like only Istanbul's population is more than many countries population on EU.So people share same culture and propaganda style if they want to live with other 15 milion people =) Its like this in turkey.
Actually I didn't even understand what he wanted to say :?
----
The Last Valley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOhEDvf1ZmU) (30 years war)
i just went ahead and assumed that he was arguing for forced assimilation of the conquered because societal stability>freedom to dissent. I don't know either :D
Anyone who takes '300' seriously and complains about it being historically incorrect is an idiot, it's based on a comic book which is fictional and fantasy, not everything has to be based on reality, 300 is a good movie and it's entertaining, it's not meant to be historically accurate and educational.
NPR: [ ] Frank, whats the state of the union?
FM: Well, I dont really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants and were behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isnt working out perfectly every time.
NPR: Um, and when you say we dont know what we want, whats the cause of that do you think?
FM: Well, I think part of that is how were educated. Were constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, its kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.
NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.
FM: Well, okay, then lets finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who were up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw peoples heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. Im speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and Im living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.
NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think theyre so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?
FM: Well, Id say its for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. Weve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didnt call the nation into a state of war. He didnt explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So weve been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but Ive never seen anything like Bush-hatred. Its completely mad.
NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?
FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, its almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, Why did we attack Iraq? for instance. Well, were taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked chocolate chip cookie Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, were doing the same thing now.
NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but
FM: Well, so did Iraq.
Anyone who doesn't take 300 as a disgusting piece of propaganda, which is what it is, is completely ignorant of Frank Miller's views and political inclinations. The guy is a retarded neo-con convinced America is engaged in a death grip war of civilisations. So basically all the morons going around "Why, this is just good old fashioned entertainement, nothing at all wrong with the message this might send" are poorly informed. The very simplistic messages being sent aren't just some random coincidence. The symbolism isn't exactly subtle.
And like every moronic man-boy who, hilariously enough, was nowhere to be found back when Vietnam was in full swing (probably too busy learning how to meticulously draw muscular men in not enough clothes), this cunt speaks casually of "spilling" blood for the might of the empire. Obviously not his, though. 300 is basically the War on Terror seen through the eyes of someone with less intelligence than understanding of history, which as everyone concedes is already pretty low.
edit:
have a look at this interview with NPR, for example, and then tell me with a straight face this guy wrote "300" with no ulterior motive.
Frank Miller's post-9/11 propaganda comic Holy Terror has been through a few changes. In 2006, it was announced as Holy Terror, Batman!, and was due to be a piece of DC comic that pitted Batman, one of the most popular comic book heroes ever, against Al-Qaeda, perpetrators of 9/11 as well as other terrorist attacks all around the world. Miller's logic was that since Captain America and other heroes had punched out einstein and killed chocolate chip cookies during World War II, what we needed was a superhero to punch America's new enemy in the face.
Imdb page please.Sorry didn't return to this thread until now >.> but here it is
So by his own admission this guy sets out to create propaganda that would've been considered appropriate during a full on Total War 60 years ago. If anything that just makes 300 even more suspect. It's really a masterstroke of marketing, the way it managed to be portrayed as just simple, cool-looking entertainment in all media instead of the loathing-filled spergy revenge fantasy it really is.
i think you're inputting beliefs about 300 after knowing his intentions with holy terror. 300 was definitely jingoistic, even xenophobic, but hell that was faithful to the style of Greek politics and customs at that time. i cant really think of anything from 300 that was blatantly a reference to modern politics,because "greek freedom" was really a rallying cry for the greeks during the persian wars.
For one thing, 300″ gave all credit to the Spartans, extolling them as role models and peerless examples of manhood. Adorably macho defenders of freedom.
Uh, right. Freedom. Sorry, but the word bears a heavy burden of irony when shouted by Spartans, who maintained one of the worst slave-states ever, treating the vast majority of their people as cattle, routinely quenching their swords in the bodies of poor, brutalized helots who are never mentioned, even glimpsed, in the romanticized book or movie. Indeed, the very same queen who Frank Miller portrayed as so-earthy, so-kind, was said to be quite brutal with a whip, in real life.
Millers Spartan warriors honestly and openly conveyed the contempt for civilians that was felt across the ages by all feudal warrior castes. An attitude in sharp contrast to American sympathies, which always used to be about Minuteman farmers and shopkeepers citizen soldiers the kind who bravely pick up arms to aid their country, adapting and training under fire. Alas, Frank Millers book and movie 300″ ridiculed that kind of soldier
even though the first invasion by Persia, ten years earlier under Xerxess father had been defeated by just such a militia army from Athens made up of farmers, clerks, tradesmen, artists and mathematicians. A rabble of ill-disciplined brawlers who, after waiting in vain for promised help from Sparta, finally decided to handle the problem alone. On that fateful day that citizen militia leveled their spears and their thin blue line attacked a professional Persian force many times their number, slaughtering them to the last man on the legendary beach of Marathon.
For the Athenians, who are routinely derided and insulted in the movie, to the point of ommitting, Ooh I don't know, the massive naval battle they were fighting at exactly the same time the Spartans were holding the pass at Thermopylae (along with 1K of militia soldiers from other cities, who despite also being derided and insulted fought and died till the end, they didnt run away to let the brave spartans hold the rearguard) . And that's already pretty ironic, considering the Athenians could own slaves and their democracy was extremely restrictive. The Spartans politically had more in common with Stalinist Russia than anything in the US, and they certainly would never have shouted for freedom during a battle. This is just one of the many reasons Frank Miller fails at history.
I liked 300 because I like blood and murder in movies.
And, tbh, normal People dont see anything else in that movie than some entertaining slaughter.
Its guys like you who are deep into the matter who see similiarities between the "War on terror" and 300.For a normal Guy, its absolutely absurd to compare those things.
I mean, fuck, 300 was about Half-naked Semi-Gay Men massacring Thousands of Gay-looking but heterosexual Persians and some African beasts.
I was personally sad that 300 existed. They were about to start making a HISTORICAL movie on Thermopylae. Based on a book I read a while ago, called Gates of Fire (Steven Pressfield). But they decided not to make it and went with 300 instead :|
But yes, there is no need to look so in depth into a movie like that. Most people take it as face value, entertainment. They don't see anything else, and I'd personally rather look at it that way to. There is such a thing as over analysing something and I fear that is what's happening here.
300 and troy are personally my favoriteromangreek movies made in the United States.
I can't say much for gladiator as it looked like some medieval-bubonic plauge- SARS type shit
Sorry, had to fix.?
?
troy and 300 were both roman movies, not greek
?
troy and 300 were both roman movies, not greek
troll.
lol
Only explanation, I agree.
KaMiKaZe_JoE your quote signature says "do or do not, there is no try" - Dumbledore. That's a quote from Yoda.
This is a huge topic and an interesting one that there is alot of conflicting information on.Im so necroquoting this post .
No way to put everything into one post without it being a massive wall of text, but there is another historical view out there that hasn't caught much attention. Mainly because mainstream historians have already bought and sold the idea that Troy was in Turkey (the site is now called Troia, in a city renamed Truva by the Turkish government) and this has been taught over the last many years as 'truth'.
However, there has been more 'evidence' that Troy may have very well been in Cornwall. And the "Achaeans" very possibly may have not been Greeks, but Celts that inhabited that part of Greece during that era. And hence part of the reason that it is known as Greek Mythology, since Greeks derived most of their mythology directly handed down from the Celts.
It's wild, I know, but there are some pretty strong indicators that point to this.
- Early Greeks of that time weren't strong enough or unified enough to field a massive army or fleet of that size.
- The terrain around Cornwall matches the accounts that speak of a lush, wet climate (rather than the arid, dry climate of Turkey)
- The number of rivers that ran thru and around Troy, match the number of rivers spoken about in the stories.
- The fact that the Celts needed tin for their bronze, which Cornwall was overly abundant in.
- Massive amounts of Celtic influence all around Cornwall that still exists today proves they were in fact there.
- Accounts of a "Brutus of Troy," a descendant of the Trojan hero "Æneas" and according to the Historia Regum Britanniae say he was the legendary founder and first king of Britain.
- In a borrow found at Trelowarren (which is in Cornwall), there are ancient monuments made of clay and stone, of Hector and Patroclus.
And there is a lot, lot more that I cant remember. Been awhile since Ive read any of the books on that, but it was definitely interesting stuff. They go on to talk about the differences between the seas that were crossed, and the accounts of the return home from Troy and how a return voyage from Cornwall matched the geography so much more, etc, etc. And some interesting archeological findings in various places along the route.
But this is already turning into a tldr kinda thing so Ill shut it down for now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5ta4lPNukü
pre-trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8raYASyito
offical trailer
I would like hear some comments , movie will come in February 2012.(click to show/hide)
4. VERCINGETORIX - is super far from cRPG, its in Roman era, during shield and sword, but its one of my fav movies. Originally french, its the story of the last stand of the Gauls, a bunch of epic battle scenes, and alot of good feeling. The speeches, the way he surrendered to Ceaser.
That movie was a travesty.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199481/reviews
Im so necroquoting this post .
I lol'ed irl.
You know what, i've heard that King Arthur is Syrian not English legend.
His real name was Arif not Arthur there is a legend in Syria which is Emir Arif and his Scimitar stucked at rock in Aleppo and his djinn friend muhammed who helped Arif to reclaim his throne and unify mid-east...
For fucks sake there is an ancient city of troy in Çanakkale/Truva region.I've been there and its on UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST yet you claim the legendary Troia was in Britannia and Oddyssey of Homer tells us story of celts in greek ? Greeks had no enough sources to build that army and fleet ? You know ALL states of GREECE united against Troy and ATTACKED together right ?
What do you guys use to get that high for fuckkidy fucks sake ?
Different Perspectives.
People hated it becuase of how inaccurate it was,
Which is why I love it.
I despise people who are grotesquely obsessed with historical accuracy.
If I wanted to read about history,
Id read about history.
If I want to watch a movie,
I want it to be bards tale, full of slaughter, speeches, and myths.
People who expect to learn about 100 year conflicts in less then 60 minutes by moving pictures make me LMFAO
I despise people who are grotesquely obsessed with historical accuracy.
If I wanted to read about history,
Id read about history.
Book burning? Soviet style propaganda? They are NOTHING compared to Hollywood, and that is what worries me.
BOOKS ARE BETTER (1 series, about 10 books, "the last kingdom")
!!!!! HOW COULD I FORGET!!!
MAIN KING IS RAGNAR, of the Norseman, or "Nords" ; )
SOUND FAMILIAR (warband)
1. reading "the last kingdom" now. just omg.
lore placed over history about the Danish invasion of england.
wut. if your reading Cornwells books about Uhtred then they are some of the most epic books written but Ragnar isnt a King :P
Throne of Blood
kingdom of heaven
Ironclad, 300, Troy?.. Best Ancient / Medieval Military History Movies?.. You smoke crack?
If you want good martial arts movie watch the Last blades man. based on history / romance of the three kingdoms, good watch for dynasty warriors fans.
I always get the impression that an important part of Asian film making is "make it as unrealistic as possible". Never saw an Asian movie that actually tried to show real fighting, how it probably looked like.If you really think that the western movies show proper fighting , you're terribly wrong. It's just as staged and fake as it is in most asian titles. It's obviously done that way for entertainment reasons, for the audience. In many asian movies they either use the over-choriographed approach or the over-gory approach (although that can be also said about the western movie-makers).
So you've found one spanish historical movie to contradict my statement ? Congratulations =). I was gonna watch that one btw, thanks for reminding me.
Well, I just wanted to say that I didn't know an Asian movie with such battle scenes. It's always whirling around some weird bamboo spear with soft shaft and hitting around enemies on their ears like it was a wet towel, and flying through the air with the help of invisible but obivous ropes. That's what I saw from Asian movies. :?Unless you're an asiaphobe (and then our conversation is pointless), you should probably do some more research or ask people around and watch some more asian war and alike movies. So far it seems that either you just watched house of flying daggers or a couple of those crazy kung-fu flicks from the previous century. You know, the ones where a 90 year old mr.Miyagi with a 2 meters long beard flies around =).
Edit: another movie I think I can recommend to anyone who isn't too much into historic realism is The Messenger: Joan of Arc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W87sf7CewDE). It has a few bullshit elements, but all in all I think it is pretty decent work.
Edit2: Couldn't find a better vid, the movie is rather unknown :?
If you'd want to counter pikes you'd probably just want to shoot them.
With what? Short ranged guns that allows only for a volley until the pikemen charge you and overwhel the gunners?
I was personally sad that 300 existed. They were about to start making a HISTORICAL movie on Thermopylae. Based on a book I read a while ago, called Gates of Fire (Steven Pressfield). But they decided not to make it and went with 300 instead :|
But yes, there is no need to look so in depth into a movie like that. Most people take it as face value, entertainment. They don't see anything else, and I'd personally rather look at it that way to. There is such a thing as over analysing something and I fear that is what's happening here.
So you are saying that they brought firearms to shoot at other units using firearms but that they would get steamrolled by everything else?
Then what's the point of bringing firearms in the first place?
Big, tight blocks of pikemen must have been very vulnerable to concentrated fire.
Only romantics believe in the superiority of the stereotypical medieval doctrine.
Ladies and gents fierarms have been incorporated into many of the european armies for the same reason the crossbow was - it was even easier to use. Did you not notice how as european medieval history progresses through times, battles get bigger and bigger? The reason is fairly simple - an archer would train years to be proficient with a bow, months with a crossbow, and mere weeks with a musket. By the time of napoleonic wars, you would be given a gun, a uniform and if youre lucky, some training. It became a conflict of numbers and resources as well as strategy. So thats why the new age medieval armies are superior. Being a armored clad knight is all well and nice, but see how many of those you can pit against a ten times bigger ammount of levied pikemen/halberdiers. That is why the knights slowly died out. Train from age of 7 to get shot by a bullet. Only romantics believe in the superiority of the stereotypical medieval doctrine.
The Room xD
Tell me good movies to download!Twilight and its sequels.
A knight's tale is still a good choice.
I like the "sport" feeling in the movie.
Anyone seen the documentery movie: The Battle For Middle Earth: 1066
About the viking invasions near york and offcourse the norman invasions in the south wich led to the famous battle of hastings.
It's really well done with alot of action maybe not high budget but it sure is historical accurate.
Anyone seen the documentery movie: The Battle For Middle Earth: 1066Probably the only 'historical movie' ever made.
About the viking invasions near york and offcourse the norman invasions in the south wich led to the famous battle of hastings.
It's really well done with alot of action maybe not high budget but it sure is historical accurate.
Probably the only 'historical movie' ever made.
Fuck that 6.4 rating, the movie was amazing.
Arn the Knight Templar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0837106/
Templars are just winners, that's all there is too that, end of.