The new generation of historical epics

So, sword and sandal movies. Historical epics. Things like Ben Hur, Spartacus, the Fall of the Roman Empire, all that jazz. Epic movies with huge casts, vast sets, and elaborate action sequences. The first 'generation' of those movies died in the 60s if I'm not mistaken, after the immense flop of a spectacle called 'Cleopatra'.

Then, more recently, they began to be reborn. Braveheart, then Gladiator, then a whole slew of others through the early years of the 2000s. Recently, they sort of fallen off with the failure of things like 'King Arthur', but still with an occasional movie like 300, or the new Ridley Scott Robin Hood film in the works.

So, what movies are included in this 'new generation' of sword and sandal films? Well, let's make a list:

-Gladiator
-Braveheart
-Kingdom of Heaven
-The Lord of the Rings trilogy (somewhat)
-King Arthur
-Alexander
-300
-Troy
-Apocalypto

That's about the extent of the modern genre, and many of them have turned out... not so good.

So I put the question to you, as this forum appreciates history to a degree few others do, which of these films sucked and which were good? Was this new generation of historical epics equal, superior or inferior to the old ones? How could they have been improved?

I enjoyed Gladiator the most myself, I thought it was far and away the best out of these new historical movies. I'm also beginning to enjoy Kingdom of Heaven a lot more, thought Orlando Bloom was rather badly miscast in the role of Balian, but Ridley Scott's direction more than made up for it, for me. Troy was also somewhat decent, bad acting yes (Orlando Bloom again), but the action scenes were entertaining, and the set and costume work was excellent. Braveheart was also a pretty decent film, but by and large the rest were crappy. Especially King Arthur and Alexander!

Who agrees? Who disagrees? How can these movies be made better?

From historical view, all of them suck because the unhistorical storyline.

The only good historical war film is Black Hawk Down.

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

From historical view, all of them suck because the unhistorical storyline.

The only good historical war film is Black Hawk Down.

Can people please stop the whole unhistorical rant. They are foremost Movies, not Documentaries, and thus the directors will have certain liberties in how the tell the story, and the whole Based on a actual story does not equal it being 100% true to the real events...

Originally Posted by Katsumoto

You obviously have no idea how movies are made. They are shot in a few months, would you really expect them to film a scene, wait a year or so till the actors age, come back, shoot another scene, wait few more years, then shoot another scene?? I suggest you read up on movies before making comments, especially the iMdb trivia sections.

Wow. You have obviously never heard about this stuff called makeup, and the black transistion screen with a 10 years later sign, ey?

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Wow. You have obviously never heard about this stuff called makeup, and the black transistion screen with a 10 years later sign, ey?

Ever heard of a budget? You expect them to put every major character into make up, which not only costs money, but it also takes a very long time to do. Another reason why it's pointless is that 80% of the people watching the film would not know or care how long the war lasted. The only reason to make it 10 years is for historical, and since its a Hollywood movie and not a documentary (Can we even take the Illiad as historical fact?) it would be incredibly pointless.

Also, how can you guys say Troy is better than Gladiator? That's just plain ridicilous, I can't believe that's even generated a debate.

Originally Posted by Katsumoto

Also, how can you guys say Troy is better than Gladiator? That's just plain ridicilous, I can't believe that's even generated a debate.

A debate you obviously have read as carefully as Tiberias watched Troy.

Originally Posted by Rapax

A debate you obviously have read as carefully as Tiberias watched Troy.

I have read it. I think you're looking for something in Troy which really isn't there. Maybe you love the Illiad, so you wish for the film adaptation to be good, I don't know. It is a good movie, but nowhere near as great as Gladiator. If they made the Troy series by David Gemmel into a movie(s), then that would be epic.

Even Black Hawk Down had a lot of inaccuracies, though.

...and it hardly qualifies as a "Sword and Sandal" epic anyway...

Apocalypto didn't really have any battle scenes though.

How about the curse of the golden flower... or whatever it is called?

Originally Posted by Darkarbiter

Apocalypto didn't really have any battle scenes though.

How about the curse of the golden flower... or whatever it is called?

Curse of the Golden Flower was an artistic historical fiction. Which is what most are, but all the Chinese epics coming out as of recent that I can think of Korean included all have some artistic/fantastical or exaggerated quality to them.

I still like all these movies, but what else do you have?

Originally Posted by Armatus

Curse of the Golden Flower was an artistic historical fiction. Which is what most are, but all the Chinese epics coming out as of recent that I can think of Korean included all have some artistic/fantastical or exaggerated quality to them.

I still like all these movies, but what else do you have?

I guess on that note The Battle of Red Cliff should be mentioned. The Chinese version is over 4 hours long in 2 parts. Naturally it has the same artistic license of heroes battling dozens of enemies at once and doing insane jumps and dodges, but overall it's a pretty impressive battle epic that's also interesting through watching the opposite sides outsmart each other with cunning plans.

Originally Posted by Rapax

I guess on that note The Battle of Red Cliff should be mentioned. The Chinese version is over 4 hours long in 2 parts. Naturally it has the same artistic license of heroes battling dozens of enemies at once and doing insane jumps and dodges, but overall it's a pretty impressive battle epic that's also interesting through watching the opposite sides outsmart each other with cunning plans.

I second this. At least the Chinese version (haven't seen the international one so I can't judge) is a pretty interesting epic as long as you are not opposed to the style of such Chinese films in general

I give the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Braveheart" a border line pass. 300 should not, in my opinion, be considered a historical film. But the worst case is that they tell us, not officially though, "hey, watch this movie, both entertaining and historical" and it's unrealistic. (not guessed I meant Patriot?) To finish with, Alexander and Troy were just for fun. Especially Troy.

Originally Posted by Romanos IV

I give the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Braveheart" a border line pass.

You mean, Battle of Stirling Bridge without a bridge?? Then what type of battle is that??

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

You mean, Battle of Stirling Bridge without a bridge?? Then what type of battle is that??

EDIT: whoops I think I misunderstood the post

Originally Posted by Eric

Who disagrees?

I disagree with the assertion Alexander was a crappy movie. I thought it was an excellent film, and an epic undertaken that did not fail to disappoint.

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

I disagree with the assertion Alexander was a crappy movie. I thought it was an excellent film, and an epic undertaken that did not fail to disappoint.

I also loved it.

Good:
Braveheart
Gladiator
The Last Samurai

Okay:
Kingdom of Heaven
300(really good movie; but historical?)

Bad:
Any other

Would Saving Private Ryan be considered a historical epic is so it is good.

I disagree with the assertion Alexander was a crappy movie. I thought it was an excellent film, and an epic undertaken that did not fail to disappoint.

Really why it was mind numbing boring, and I just could never get over Oliver Stone making Alexander. Mr Platoon and Wall Street making an epic about someone who was easily the villain of all his other movies - he should have made Demosthense or Hyperides...

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

Because you, like everyone else who says any movie is "too long", are an impatient tool?

or it was just bad writing. There's being drawn out, and then there's too ing long. Alexander was the latter.