Worst historical drama film of the 21st century thus far?

[saxdude]

In what world is Noah anything but fantasy?

[Roma_Victrix]

In what world is Noah anything but fantasy?

Apparently in the households of about 1/3 of the entire United States.

I read your post. Your premise was based on a contradiction I just highlighted the contradiction. King Arthur being set in a historical period doesn't make it any less fantasy or more historical, nor does you pulling a few facts from the period to back up your point.

Next you'll be claiming 'The Passion of the Christ' as a historical drama.

I don't like your stiff standard for historical period drama films, not one little bit, because you're basically suggesting that anything beyond a docudrama isn't a historical period drama. That would mean any film "based on true events" with some delineation wouldn't even make the roster, in your opinion. I'd relegate the movie King Arthur to the fantasy genre if it had fire-breathing dragons and elves casting magic spells on each other. Despite all its inaccuracies and having its central character being a mythological national hero, the film is at least grounded in a very real historical setting of Roman Britain and the natural laws of physics apply, with nothing supernatural about what's going on beyond some rather ridiculous ranges for fired arrows.

[Knight of Heaven]

Apparently in the households of about 1/3 of the entire United States.

He meant the film... if you didnt see it, do so it realy isnt a religious epic film.
Honestly i went to watch it with a very same line of thinking, and end up a bit suprised, that wasnt anything like i was expecting... its not a bad film honestly, i actualy enjoy it. Probably because my expectations were not very high to begin with.. but there you go.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The same way king Arthur film is fantasy brought to a relative historical setting, Noah is a biblical story, brought to the fantastic/Sci-fy realm. Only difference is its actualy decently done, as oposing to the Arthur movie.

You have the point of the king Arthur regarding the setting, or the attempted historical aproach ( wich is actualy fiction as they presented in the film) either way you want to see it, its a bad film. Only I can think of a few that are way worse than that

Just remember that Elizabeth the golden age movie for instance...

Btw best King Arthur Movie?
This one

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Condottiere 40K]

The dialogue could have used some polishing, but it does blend in all four elements, maybe less so for Christian mysticism, and more so for magical mist.

[Halie Satanus]

I don't like your stiff standard for historical period drama films, not one little bit, because you're basically suggesting that anything beyond a docudrama isn't a historical period drama. That would mean any film "based on true events" with some delineation wouldn't even make the roster, in your opinion. I'd relegate the movie King Arthur to the fantasy genre if it had fire-breathing dragons and elves casting magic spells on each other. Despite all its inaccuracies and having its central character being a mythological national hero, the film is at least grounded in a very real historical setting of Roman Britain and the natural laws of physics apply, with nothing supernatural about what's going on beyond some rather ridiculous ranges for fired arrows.

They shoehorned an alternative 'gritty' retelling of a story based on a myth into a historical period and you're calling that 'historical drama.' If anyone is going from one extreme to another it's you. These kinds of films polarize opinion, especially on TWC. The recent Hercules movie is a prime example of a mythical story being given a literal twist. King Arthur is an even more designer movie which, in my opinion takes it far from 'historical.' I'm pretty sure, if asked, any reputable historian asked what they thought of King Arthur would say 'pure fantasy.'

You have a valid basis for a thread here, the use of historical periods/settings and artistic license. You've just chosen a poor example of the genre.. Surely the worst (subjectivity aside) would be a movie that tried really hard but was still dung. Alexander would be my pick, mostly down to bad casting and a complete lack of spark in the dialogue and scripting.

[Roma_Victrix]

Surely the worst (subjectivity aside) would be a movie that tried really hard but was still dung.

If this thread was restricted to your criteria (which would then exclude King Arthur), then you certainly have a good point here, with Alexander as a prime candidate. I suppose Troy (a movie arguably just as bad even with the saving grace of Brian Cox) wouldn't fit the bill in your mind, though, seeing how it's based on the mythological epic poems of Homer if not loosely based on real events in Mycenaean Greece at the end of the Bronze Age.

[Condottiere 40K]

Ridley Scott is hit or miss; Kingdom of Heaven gave a certain point of view to the Crusades, though based on certain historical events and was painless to watch, if it wasn't very compelling, whereas Robin Hood may have been more interesting if told from the original perspective of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Påsan]

Gladiator, Robin Hood and Noah are the worst historical dramas. Ffs Noah, that doesn't even look like the Black Sea.

What, really? Get the hell out of here.

Gladiator, while not "historically correct" is downright an excellent movie.
Robin Hood, while not "Historically correct" either is both well-acted and has some very good cinematic sequences.
Noah while not "Biblically correct" Was very well acted and extremely weird. Also its not a Historical drama any more than a ing LOTR movie is.



Compare those three to utter shite like The Last Legion which manages at the same time to be both Historically nonsensical, atrociously acted ,horribly directed AND boring.

Actually no I've changed my mind. Alexander the Great was all of the above while also manages to make one of the most awesome characters in history seem like a sexually confused crybaby.

Ironclad too except it was somewhat entertaining with all the fighting.

[Knight of Heaven]

It is only me that actualy liked Alexander ( specialy the directors cut)? ... even though i was hoping for more! much more! But i think its a complicated film to do either way you want to aproach the life of Alexander...
Alexander didnt seemed sexualy confused in the film to me.. actualy quite the oposite ( he didnt cared, he was he), he came across as a crybaby at times yes. Even though at the times he did, historicaly he indeed end up doing those horrible things so, not sure how could anyone portray that sort of thing any different. As much i like Colin farrell, the role probably wasnt a fit for him. I actualy liked the young alexander more ( the kid) then the grown up version.

Ridley Scott is hit or miss; Kingdom of Heaven gave a certain point of view to the Crusades, though based on certain historical events and was painless to watch, if it wasn't very compelling, whereas Robin Hood may have been more interesting if told from the original perspective of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

I like Kingdom of Heaven, even if it is no doubt very politized, and moralized, considering the time it came out, i dont know how a film about the crusades, wouldnt be though.. i mean even today any film you would do about the crusades will have no doubt an angle in it, and even it isnt made with that in mind, people will make the angles anyway...

[Wulfburk]

Alexander imo was a mediocre film that had a really big potential. And yeah Colin Farrel didnt fit the role at all.

Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator are really good movies so i cant understand how anyone picks them. Robin Hood was ok to good IMO.

Saving Private Ryan IMO is greatly overrated, but still there are many worst movies than it. I'd pick the Last Legion as the worst.

[Påsan]

If this thread was restricted to your criteria (which would then exclude King Arthur), then you certainly have a good point here, with Alexander as a prime candidate. I suppose Troy (a movie arguably just as bad even with the saving grace of Brian Cox) wouldn't fit the bill in your mind, though, seeing how it's based on the mythological epic poems of Homer if not loosely based on real events in Mycenaean Greece at the end of the Bronze Age.

Meh Troy is awsum.

[Roma_Victrix]

Meh Troy is awsum.

I'm with you on Gladiator, that really was a great film and, even though not trying to be 100% authentic for the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, had other more worthy merits in which to judge it. For instance, the music, the casting and acting, the special effects, the plot and character development, etc.

However, Troy was just plain old cheesy, especially the megalithic settings for the city of Troy and the downright terrible costumes. Not only did it fail in the department of historical authenticity for a late Bronze Age setting, but most of the acting was completely wooden. The one cool thing about Troy, in my opinion, was the special effects, but if that's the only criteria a movie should be judged by then Michael Bay would be a god amongst mortal men.

[Kyriakos]

I actualy liked Noah as a fantasy film ( i dont think it was a historical drama.... just like passion of christ isnt exactly a historical drama), didnt see Noah as anything else then a nice fantasy drama film, and i got the impression it didnt intended to anything else than that.... regardless of biblical history or not.. I dont think it is a bad film either.
Gladiator as well, its not acurate but it isnt a bad film ( actualy a remake of a older Roman historical drama of the 50s i think)... Robin Hood on the other hand... bad movie, and bad historical portrayal...


That film is bad, but i think its not because of the reasons you mentioned... 300 was very inacurate and fictitions as well, and yet was a much more acomplished film...
Rise of the empire has one bright light though...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That is around how far into 300:Rise you would have to scroll down to try to see that light as well. And while the original 300 had issues with history, at least the director there does not think it cool to introduce you to a massive departure from anything even tenuously tied to history in the space of 5 min. I loved Baphomet in 300, and also the rinos and the rest of the madness (and Sparta), but i think that if the film started with Sparta being in asia minor or something, and Leonidas having been just at a meeting with Thales or Homer, then i would tend to not watch more of that either

[Markas]

Robin Hood, while not "Historically correct" either is both well-acted and has some very good cinematic sequences.

I'm still not entirely sure what Russel Crowe's accent was supposed to be. It turned Irish at some points. On the whole I thought the movie was completely wrong-headed and not very compelling. The original idea they had pre-Scott sounded much better... though it could have sucked just as much.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm still not entirely sure what Russel Crowe's accent was supposed to be. It turned Irish at some points. On the whole I thought the movie was completely wrong-headed and not very compelling. The original idea they had pre-Scott sounded much better... though it could have sucked just as much.

I honestly can't stand the same old tired themes Hollywood goes for...over and over...again and again. Very few are brave enough to take a risk by presenting audiences with something out of their comfort zone of familiarity. I'd love to see someone make a film about the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for something like that. Knowing Hollywood, they'd probably end up casting Vin Diesel in it.

[Påsan]

I'm with you on Gladiator, that really was a great film and, even though not trying to be 100% authentic for the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, had other more worthy merits in which to judge it. For instance, the music, the casting and acting, the special effects, the plot and character development, etc.

However, Troy was just plain old cheesy, especially the megalithic settings for the city of Troy and the downright terrible costumes. Not only did it fail in the department of historical authenticity for a late Bronze Age setting, but most of the acting was completely wooden. The one cool thing about Troy, in my opinion, was the special effects, but if that's the only criteria a movie should be judged by then Michael Bay would be a god amongst mortal men.

Yeah but it had this



and this




and this angry dude



So it was k.

[Halie Satanus]

If this thread was restricted to your criteria (which would then exclude King Arthur), then you certainly have a good point here, with Alexander as a prime candidate. I suppose Troy (a movie arguably just as bad even with the saving grace of Brian Cox) wouldn't fit the bill in your mind, though, seeing how it's based on the mythological epic poems of Homer if not loosely based on real events in Mycenaean Greece at the end of the Bronze Age.

Could make a case for Troy since poems were often the way history was recorded. I also kind of liked Troy, if only for the epicness of the Hector/Achilles fight..

[Kyriakos]

Agamemnon was cool in that Troy movie... Unfortunately it was not based on the Iliad much. I mean most people in the movie die at random times/places, including Menelaos, Ajax, and Agamemnon

And if you stray that far away from the source material, mang, then how long till the Hittites invade?

[caratacus]

The Tudor period is a particular favorite of mine and the BBC made a serious mistake in putting their label on this pathetic offering which gave scant attention to historic accuracy.
Final seduction indeed!!!
http://www.theguardian.com/media/200...bbc-television

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BBC ought to be ashamed of its Tudor drama series, says Starkey

Maev Kennedy
The Guardian, Friday 17 October 2008

The historian David Starkey has lambasted the BBC over the swashbuckling dramatisation The Tudors, saying the corporation should be ashamed of the series, which features the increasingly bloated Henry VIII played by the lissom Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers, usually half naked and tumbling into bed with some woman auditioning to become one of the six wives.

"The Tudors is terrible history with no point," Starkey said at the Cheltenham literature festival. "It's wrong for no purpose. I've got no problem with getting history wrong for a purpose - Shakespeare often got things wrong for a reason. But it's the randomised arrogance of ignorance of The Tudors. Shame on the BBC for producing it."

In fact, the BBC did not produce the series but bought it in. A spokeswoman said yesterday: "The Tudors is not a drama-documentary, which has always been made clear, but a highly authored and entertaining interpretation of events in a period in history."

The second series has just ended on the BBC, with Henry halfway through the wives, having got rid of Anne Boleyn. Historically, the king should be in his 40s and already putting on the enormous bulk of his later life, but the actor playing him is still slender as a blade of grass, reportedly to increase the box office appeal of the series.

The drama has attracted a steady audience of about 2.3 million viewers - rather less than some of Starkey's own documentaries, including Henry and His Wives, and another on the history of the monarchy whose ratings thrashed the then hit soap opera Ally McBeal. The first series attracted 3.2 million viewers.

The Tudors is an independent co-production between Peace Arch, Showtime and Working Title, and is filmed in Ireland. Starkey, though a serious academic, has also cheerfully described himself as "an all-purpose media tart", and relishes controversy.

When he was described as "the rudest man in Britain" for his acid tongue on Radio 4's The Moral Maze, he gleefully calculated that the title added at least £100,000 a year to his earnings.

[Condottiere 40K]

Rome set the pattern, whose most ingenuous follower would be Game of Thrones, a rather imaginative retelling of the Wars of the Roses,