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

[Condottiere 40K]

I heard he was dueling a phantom sniper, as the German antagonist was never near Stalingrad.

[Påsan]

Care, Stalingrad was "sniper city" during WW2.

[athanaric]

Well enemy of the gates got points for introducing the horrors of Stalingrad to the western audience.

Depends on what you define as "Western audiences". Many "Westerners" sensu lato were quite familiar with the topic.

BTW just saw Fury. That was a very honest historical movie. Perhaps we're over the "Merica rah rah" phase of historical movies?

Hopefully, yes. I never quite understood why movies produced after 1945 had to distort facts in the Americans' favour. I mean, it's not like they lost the war and had to come up with excuses.
In fact, I hope we're over the WWII movie phase in toto, and the money were spent on depicting other, more interesting (and dare I say more relevant?) time periods.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Depends on what you define as "Western audiences". Many "Westerners" sensu lato were quite familiar with the topic.

Indeed. It was already legendary in Europe as the turning point battle in the war (there are even streets and a metro stop in Paris named in honour of the Russians who won the battle), and the book that really broadened public knowledge of the battle was Antony Beevor's Stalingrad. This book shot to no. 1 on the bestseller lists in 1999. It came out 2 years before Enemy at the Gates, and 4 years before the first CoD game that basically ripped off the scenes from Enemy at the Gates. Plus there are better movies on Stalingrad already, including the excellent 1993 German film. So I can't even credit EatG with a useful public awareness role, particularly in the light of its sensationalist approach (including the ludicrous lambs to the slaughter scene of Russian conscripts at the start, which exaggerated both the implementation of the 'no-retreat' order and the weapons shortage for fresh troops). The Russian military leadership was inept, but they didn't turn into total psychopaths (with the exception of comrade Stalin, who was one already) when they were in severe danger of losing the war.

[Condottiere 40K]

[GussieFinkNottle]

Ahem, '21st century'
But yes, that film was appalling, besides giving the cast and crew cancer

[Condottiere 40K]

It had to be mentioned, as the acme of blockbusterish American historical drama.

[Biggles]

Unfortunately that magnificent Sergei Bondarchuk film Waterloo (1970) was a box office flop, so Stanley Kubrick abandoned his own plans to direct a movie about Napoleon.

Napoleon as seen by Kubrick? I'd give a way my whole salary to see that!

[GussieFinkNottle]

Napoleon as seen by Kubrick? I'd give a way my whole salary to see that!

Don't forget he could do mainstream schlocky war epics as well as disturbing highbrow stuff. Just look at Spartacus. Ridley Scott occasionally does the same. Something's got to pay the rent.

[Knight of Heaven]

BTW just saw Fury. That was a very honest historical movie. Perhaps we're over the "Merica rah rah" phase of historical movies?

That phase has been long gone since the late 70s and the 80s.... basicaly since the Vietnam war directors like Kubrick or Copolla for instance portrayed the american side with dubious morals in war as well... then you have the Clint Eastwood films ( in wich he makes a film with the japanese viewpoint, or emperor, and jarhead etc
I dont know that Side of American gloryfication where much more comon in the 50s and 60s then it is right now.

Anyway that said i would like to mention a 2004 film about the korean war Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo its an awesome film.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

American trailer sucks...

[Inhuman One]

Kubrick is a legend though, I am still amazed that he seems to tackle completely different settings and genres with each movie.

Dr Strangelove is a comedy and satire, The Shining is horror, Barry Lyndon is a historical epic, A space Odyssey is a very slow paced almost theraputic science fiction, A clockwork orange is a very disturbing image of the then near future, full metal jacket is a war movie, etc.

I don't think many directors are not only capable of that range, but also showing to be very succesfull in it.

[flota]

What about hero? The jet li movie about the assassin that doesn't kill the emperor

[athanaric]

What about hero? The jet li movie about the assassin that doesn't kill the emperor

Well, it had great visuals and a good score. As well as being philosophical, I guess. So I wouldn't say it qualifies. It's a shame though it wasn't realistic. That's a weak point of all Chinese movies about pre-1900s history (at least the ones I know) - they forgo realism for the sake of "epic" pictures, choreographed ballett-like action and ridiculous stunts.

[Knight of Heaven]

A movie doenst need to be realistic to be a good movie.... the hero by all standards is an exelent film.
Cinema is the 7th art after all doesnt need to be realistic... who thinks that way sees Cinema in an erroneous way... Cinema isnt there to be real or portray real things... that is your or some audiences expectations.
its there to be whataver the creator/Director imagines it so...
Its the same thing im saying Theatrical plays suck because they are not realistic... its a shortsighted view imo.
Im not going to say Picasso or Salvador Dali sucked because they cant paint things as they are in the real world... it doesnt make any sense imo.

they forgo realism for the sake of "epic" pictures, choreographed ballett-like action and ridiculous stunts.

There is nothing wrong with that, i think its briliant and was beautifull.
Its a movie that deals more in fables and mythology then exactly historical representation... and there is no rules saying that they cant mix the two and make a good film.


If i have anything to point out to Jet Lis Hero is the nationalistic propaganda undertones of the morality of the story, even if there is substance to the underlying philosophy, the current context of Chinese Cinematic industry cant be forgotten.

[athanaric]

There is nothing wrong with that, i think its briliant and was beautifull.

There is something wrong with that IMO, it's historically inaccurate. I enjoyed Hero, CTHD, House of Flying Daggers, Curse of the Golden Flower, and similar movies as pieces of art, but I would've enjoyed them a lot more if they were realistic and gave viewers a glimpse of what life in China at their respective time periods really was like. I think many people on this board specifically would agree with me there.
Well, at least these movies are free of most of the BS that European/American historical movies are plagued with.

[Knight of Heaven]

No i dont think there is anything wrong with that, the directors vision its a director vision, i respect his/her artistic freedom... you may not like it and thats ok. But none of it makes it wrong or right.

However to say it could be better if it was a more historical acurate representation is taking it as big if imo, you dont know if it would make it a better movie or not.
Only that you would like to see something like that and its valid point... but it doesnt necessarly make it better or even right... there is no right or wrong here. What you deffending is a mere matter of taste.

If they made a film like that with a more historical representation i would take it as it is, it might be a good movie, or not... it isnt a bad movie because its not a period acurate representation.
It all has to do how they deal with this stuff, in how they present it and what is the vision for said movie.
If they want to go for historical acurate period piece so be it, but cleary they dont have that particular vision for this movies...
Hell If we are talking about Hero, i didnt even felt it was a period piece... nor the Golden flower, none of the films you listed i see it as period historical pieces.
All i see is story told using the traditional chinese mythology and setting.... but i didnt felt they were period pieces in the exact sense of the word.

Good example is Akira Kurosawa movies... they are not period pieces in the representation of a specific historical event, yet they pass the image of authentic, and are among the best works of art of cinema... Ran, kagemusha, 7 samurai, etc... they all take place in a historical setting, but they are not historical. They are amazing films regardless.
For example this battle never happened in history as the characters are fictitious, the kingdoms are fictitious, they are all part of a fable, or a story being told, yet is one of the most amazing battle scenes pictured in film...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of the differences between Asia and the west traditionaly in these things usualy is the mythological aproach of the historical past... its one way to do it, it isnt wrong.

[Inhuman One]

Hero is a nice film yes, very beautifull.

I don't mind it not being fully accurate, it doesnt need to be. It feels like a beautifull fantasy world. I gues its not too different from 300, the 13th warrior and Inglorious Basterds. It's historical fantasy of sorts.. something inbetween historical movies and fantasy films.

[Kyriakos]

I liked the 13nth warrior. Too bad that Banderas seemed to wither away later.

I guess it happens to anyone who has been in at least one movie by Tarantinanino

[Knight of Heaven]

Banderas was in a Tarantino movie? are you not mistaken it for a Roberto Rodriguez film?

[Kyriakos]

Banderas was in a Tarantino movie? are you not mistaken it for a Roberto Rodriguez film?

Well one story from it was by Taran, but iirc it was the fourth one, while Banderas was in the third

That movie where Tim Roth plays the hotel receptionist/servant guy.