Re: Worst historical drama film of the 21st century thus far?
In case of the room I actually think Tommy Wiseau did not make it intentionally bad, he simply cant act, write, direct, etc. And just goes along with the ride after other people say he did it on purpose. It's just too much of a mess even for that, I am not buying it.
Still hillariously bad, but certainly not intentional.
As for historical accuracy in movies, I'll take what I can get. Does anyone here actually expect ANY holllywood blockbuster movie to be accurate?
In a way you can compare it to other genres too.. I mean.. in how many movies and series are cops portrayed in an accurate way? Or Doctors? Or criminal investigation teams?
Personly I'll just take what I can get when it comes to historical accuracy. The more the better I gues, some creative liberties I can understand too. Sure, sometimes it does get bothersome when its clear they arent even trying to be accurate, but such actions just lower the movie to be a simple popcorn flick instead of something more than that.
Here's my opinions on some of the movies mentioned in this thread:
-Gladiator.
It's quite a nice movie with quite some beautifull moments. Some nice battles without going over the top as much as more recent movies. The only thing really bothering me is that all battles are to the death. I get the idea they didnt want to go for a particular existing emperor and seeing how there have been many I don't mind Emperor Commodus being fictional or inaccurate since that is not what the story is about. Its about Maximus and the gladiator games.
I gues Maximus is also a little bland though, hes kind of the typical hero character. Russel Crowe does play the role well, but I feel the role itself is limited. Still a fun watch from time to time.
-The Patriot.
While there are some nice images and battles of the period, it does disturb me how stupidly biased it is by how they go out of their way to portray the Brittish as pure evil. I gues to make a proper movie about this war it would need to be written by someone who is neither American or Brittish. I also feel they are not consistent with the tone of the movie. Theres some humor to it which is common for Mel Gibson and I do feel those parts work well, but it just gets too dark at times, mainly through the stupid evil portrayal of the Brittish. The burning of the church should have been left out, it would already have been a lot better movie without that. Its just too unreal.
-King Arthur.
I ignored that disclaimer anyways, King Arthur is myth no matter how much people try to prove otherwise. I just see it as an alternative telling of a familiar tale. The battles are good, I love how dramatic it can get and the knights have good chemistry, aside from Arthur. Arthur like earlier mentioned Maximus is that generic hero guy that lacks personality.
It's a fun watch for the battles, I like how it can get quite dark. Yes the saxons are not accurate, but I quite like their leader. He has character and doesnt look like the typical bad guy.
Guinevere was annoying though, thinking to know everything despite her likely limited pool of knowledge.
-First Knight.
I actually liked this movie, though would have prefered a bit less focus on the love story and a bit more on the knights of the round table. It had an odd style to it but I liked it, and Sean Connery is a great pick to play the king. The villains are also really relentless in this movie, employing many dirty tactics which actually does make them a force to be feared. Malagant is a good villain. Since the story is fiction anyways, I dont care much about historical accuracy here as long as it is more medieval. I gues the knight's costumes are a bit odd though and could have been a bit more medieval.
-The Last of the Mohicans.
Now this is a good movie. Surely there may be some small things not accurate, but clearly they really tried to be accurate with this movie, and at the same time it is a hollywood movie with a lovestory and a villain and everything. But there is so much more going on here, there is a lot of hidden depth to it that can be left open to interpretation.
-Barry Lyndon.
I gues this movie might practicly be the holy grail as far as historical accuracy goes, Stanley Kubric was obsessed with the little details after all and I love the authentic lightning that is used. It really gives a good idea what life was like back then, in many little ways. Like the soldier's wife who has not seen her husband in a long time and seeks the company of other men in the meanwhile. Its the kind of things that I wouldnt have thought of, but that make sense when you see it and hear the narrator talk about it. Beautifull soundtrack as well, this movie is a true work of art.
-300.
Doesnt try to be accurate so I don't mind. Its about manly men kicking butt, in a way it reminds me of action heroes of the 80's which I do miss in later movies. Definatly a movie that pumps up adrenaline and gets you all exited to kick butt in a videogame. Gerard Butler is very vital to this movie, he works great as the alpha male. I have not seen the sequel yet but from the trailers I already know it lacks such a person, and that is why it can't work.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Inhuman One
out there but I could still find better movies than in mainstream western cinema. 
