|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 22, 2011 12:08:21 GMT -5
Saw it over the weekend and was disappointed with it. I won't get longwinded on you but here's what I didn't like about the film:
* It far too long to get 'there' in many of the scenes.
* I didn't find the American accents in this movie to be very convincing.
* One of the Scottish tribes north of Hadrian's Wall reminded me of the Pawnee in "Dances With Wolves."
I could go on, but I just didn't find the movie all that entertaining. Some might, though. Different strokes for different folks.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 22, 2011 13:44:57 GMT -5
The fact that Tatum Channing is in it was enough to turn me off of going to see it lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 22, 2011 14:48:54 GMT -5
Yeah I figured it would be a rental!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 22, 2011 15:06:14 GMT -5
I was expecting a lot more, guys.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 22, 2011 15:46:53 GMT -5
Another "300" without the geysers of blood and impressive pectorals. I was surprised they made a movie out of it particularly since archaeological evidence has proved that the premise is false. I read the book as a young boy and thought of it as an average story. At the time of the book's publication, the disappearance of the IX Hispana was a genuine mystery, so it made it kind of fun.
I really wish they could make decent sword and sandal movie. The last one that had a semi good script was Gladiator. If the BBC with a limited budget can make a fabulous miniseries like "Rome" or "I Claudius", why can't someone make a decent movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 22, 2011 16:05:34 GMT -5
I was surprised they made a movie out of it particularly since archaeological evidence has proved that the premise is false. Wot? A movie . . . fiction, exaggeration, and stretching reality? How dare they? Um . . . no money in it? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 22, 2011 16:11:36 GMT -5
Another "300" without the geysers of blood and impressive pectorals. I was surprised they made a movie out of it particularly since archaeological evidence has proved that the premise is false. I read the book as a young boy and thought of it as an average story. At the time of the book's publication, the disappearance of the IX Hispana was a genuine mystery, so it made it kind of fun. I really wish they could make decent sword and sandal movie. The last one that had a semi good script was Gladiator. If the BBC with a limited budget can make a fabulous miniseries like "Rome" or "I Claudius", why can't someone make a decent movie? I liked 300. Call it an Alamo set in Greece. BBC may not have a Hollywood budget, but they have a very large bank roll. Besides, money never guaranteed quality. Hollywood hasn't been consistently good in years. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 22, 2011 16:22:30 GMT -5
Wot? A movie . . . fiction, exaggeration, and stretching reality? How dare they? I'm eagerly awaiting a movie about Piltdown Man. Gladiator made a pile. I'm sure Hollywood is trying hard to figure out how to make a sequel. I heard there is talk of remaking Spartacus. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 22, 2011 16:24:19 GMT -5
Another "300" without the geysers of blood and impressive pectorals. I was surprised they made a movie out of it particularly since archaeological evidence has proved that the premise is false. I read the book as a young boy and thought of it as an average story. At the time of the book's publication, the disappearance of the IX Hispana was a genuine mystery, so it made it kind of fun. I really wish they could make decent sword and sandal movie. The last one that had a semi good script was Gladiator. If the BBC with a limited budget can make a fabulous miniseries like "Rome" or "I Claudius", why can't someone make a decent movie? I liked 300. Call it an Alamo set in Greece. BBC may not have a Hollywood budget, but they have a very large bank roll. Besides, money never guaranteed quality. Hollywood hasn't been consistently good in years. I didn't like 300. The real story is far more exciting and, IMO, would have made better movie. I agree about Hollywood. BBC at least made sure they actually had classicists hired as consultants on their productions. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Feb 22, 2011 18:42:40 GMT -5
Spartacus on starz is pretty good. Done in the style of 300. If you don't have starz its pretty easy to get all the episodes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 22, 2011 23:45:12 GMT -5
I was surprised they made a movie out of it particularly since archaeological evidence has proved that the premise is false. I'd like to talk about this a bit more. Where would I find this? Something about English actors that elevate them above their North American counterparts. They really sell their roles/characters on a different level. I found this missing. The movie lost me early. A patrol was being dispatched and the orders to them were "left turn ... quick march" ... the very first thing to hit me was the American accent. The second thing I thought of was, why didn't they research the actual commands rather than use contemporary commands ... The ending was a major disappointment. It was like the producer came in during the shoot and said, `need to sum this up.` Decent movies ... I liked Excalibur back in the day. The Last Samurai follows a timeline to an actual Samurai rebellion, but there are a lot of inconsistencies that make more of a movie (which is why I enjoyed it). Braveheart was a hit and miss that made for a good movie too. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 23, 2011 15:09:15 GMT -5
I'd like to talk about this a bit more. Where would I find this? Plenty of information about this if you look. Most of the myth regarding IX Hispana's destruction is based on the works of Antonine historian Marcus Cornelius Fronto who mentions a disaster taking place in Britain under the rule of Emperor Hadrian although the legion itself is never mentioned. Tiles stamped with the legion's insignia found in Nijmegen proves that IX Hispana, or at least a vexillation of considerable size, was stationed in Germania Inferior in 121 AD, replacing VI Victris which was then transferred to Britain. The legate Lucius Aemilius Carus, the IX Hispana commander at that time, is later recorded as being appointed governor of Arabia in 142 or 143, which is another indication that the legion was not destroyed but transferred. It also proves that the legion existed in the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius (AD 137 to AD161) who ruled after Hadrian. What is known for sure is that it no longer existed during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The latter issued a series of coins honouring each legion after his campaigns on the Danube and IX Hispana is missing. The speculation is that it was destroyed in the East (Bar Kochba revolt in Judea in AD 132, campaigns of Lucius Verus or Avidius Cassius in Parthia in AD 161 etc...) or perhaps even during the Marcomannic Wars of the 170s where the Roman army suffered several military disasters on the Danube i.e. the period corresponding to early part of the movie "Gladiator" which is several decades later than the timeline proposed in the movie "The Eagle" The myth of the legion's destruction in Scotland was most likely the result of incomplete research during the Victorian era and perhaps more than a fair share of wishful thinking ( Rule Britannia, the elevation of Bouddica to the status of British hero etc... ad nauseam ). It should be noted that the Romans routinely invaded Caledonia until the 4th Century AD and there is no record of any military disasters taking place in that country starting with Agricola's campaigns in AD 83 and culminating with the building of the Antonine Wall in Scotland itself at the Firth of Forth. There are, however, numerous mentions of military disasters taking place in the province of Britannia itself - the Iceni revolt of AD 61 being the first one. Emperor Septimius Severus died at York in AD 211 while on campaign in Britain, Theodosius Senior had to re-invade the country in AD 360 etc...I suspect some people get the two places and the timelines mixed up. I think most of us got use to a British accent since there are very few movies of the Classical period made in the U.S. I think of Charlton Heston in "Ben Hur" being a notable exception. Having a British actor play a Roman is not necessarily a good thing. It's the reason almost everyone mispronounces the word "Caesar". The correct pronunciation is like the german word "Kaiser". You can see why the Brits chose the Italian "Cesare". To be fair, there is not much information on Roman drill except what is described by Vegetius' Re Militari. Most of that work is missing and it was written almost two centuries later when the structure and armament of a Roman legion was completely different. I liked Excalibur. First rate cast and it followed Mallory's story fairly closely although it substituted Percival for Bedivere. I'm not a Tom Cruise fan so it took away some of the enjoyment of Last Samurai. I was surprised that the Satsuma Rebellion was made into a movie. Braveheart was a lot of fun so, like Excalibur, I didn't mind the inaccuracies. The movie that impressed me the most was The Passion of the Christ. A pretty fair representation of 1st Century Judea. As opposed to Braveheart, a lot of attention was paid to detail. The use of colloquialisms mixed with Vulgate Latin and the use of Aramaic was a nice touch. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 24, 2011 5:41:29 GMT -5
I'm Spartan and I hated the 300 movie. Sure, it brought to light an epic moment in Western history but it did absolutely nothing for historical accuracy. Spartans were armored tanks compared to everyone else and yet, in the movie they were in a gay pride parade. Spartans never broke ranks to fight one on one and yet, in the movie they were Ultimate Fighting with swords. They were superior one on one fighters but they were vastly superior as an uber trained and disciplined phalanx war machine, slaughtering their enemies, up close and personal.
That pivotal moment in history, that incredible bravery and sacrifice does not need embellishment to make it any greater then it already is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 24, 2011 5:43:30 GMT -5
I didn't like 300. The real story is far more exciting and, IMO, would have made better movie. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 24, 2011 6:05:34 GMT -5
I really wish they could make decent sword and sandal movie. The last one that had a semi good script was Gladiator. I'm hoping and praying that they could make a big budget Spartan movie along the lines of Gladiator. Following the life and training of a Spartan is a story in itself and then, Thermopylae would be the crowning moment. I read Gates Of Fire and thought that it would be a great candidate for a movie, until I read about who had the movie rights. A Spartan movie with George Clooney and Bruce Willis as a heroes would strip me of my sanity. www.curledup.com/gatefire.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 24, 2011 8:18:41 GMT -5
I really wish they could make decent sword and sandal movie. The last one that had a semi good script was Gladiator. I'm hoping and praying that they could make a big budget Spartan movie along the lines of Gladiator. Following the life and training of a Spartan is a story in itself and then, Thermopylae would be the crowning moment. I read Gates Of Fire and thought that it would be a great candidate for a movie, until I read about who had the movie rights. A Spartan movie with George Clooney and Bruce Willis as a heroes would strip me of my sanity. www.curledup.com/gatefire.htmI actually dropped the author, Steven Pressfield, a line and got a reply. If they made the movie from this book I don't think there would be a better war movie out there. The book was brilliantly written and celebrated. Pressfield was actually made a citizen of Sparta afterward. Gladiator: Even Mrs Dis liked it. It had everything and like most Hollywood movies, they deviated from history here and there, so as to make a good movie. 300: I was telling you before, I just wasn't prepared for it. Someone here on the boards mentioned that the movie was made from a comic book. Well, knowing this actually made it a better movie for me. I've watched a few times since and I think they did a good job capturing the comic book environment, so in that context it wasn't all that bad. Still won't be buying a copy of it, though. Maybe if I were a comic book guy I would and there are lots of collectors out there. The Last Samurai: Again, historically inaccurate here and there, but it made for an entertaining movie. I think what also drew me to the movie was that there was so little on the screen about that time period in Japan. Yes, the Samurai/Ninja costumes were a bit out of date for the period, but it really added to the mystique of the period. No, the Americans weren't in Japan training government troops at the time, but the movie had Tom Cruise in it, so .... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 24, 2011 8:24:31 GMT -5
I bought the series from HMV. Outstanding performances throughout the cast (English actors mind you). One of the more memorable performances was from John Hurt in the character of Caligula. I read somewhere (IMDB.com I think) that hurt gave a 3-minute dialog where at the end scene the cast and crew gave him an ovation. Excellent historically-based fiction. Outstanding!! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 24, 2011 13:29:27 GMT -5
I actually dropped the author, Steven Pressfield, a line and got a reply. If they made the movie from this book I don't think there would be a better war movie out there. The book was brilliantly written and celebrated. Pressfield was actually made a citizen of Sparta afterward. I've watched Gladiator several times and it has permanent residency in my hard drive. Do you still have Pressfields e-mail? I need to beg him to stop the Clooney/Willis massacre before I get arrested for justifiable homicide. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Feb 24, 2011 13:30:21 GMT -5
I'm sure I read somewhere that they are doing a "Battle of Marathon" movie. I think it's done by the "300 guys" so most of you won't like it  . I don't get the dislike towards 300 myself. I've always been into ancient history and I loved it. Loved Gladiator too, but then I thought Troy and Alexander were crap. To each their own I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 24, 2011 15:00:56 GMT -5
I'm sure I read somewhere that they are doing a "Battle of Marathon" movie. I think it's done by the "300 guys" so most of you won't like it . I don't get the dislike towards 300 myself. I've always been into ancient history and I loved it. Loved Gladiator too, but then I thought Troy and Alexander were crap. To each their own I guess. I know the same people who brought you "300" are working on a prequel called "Xerxes". Whether this includes Marathon or not, I'm not sure, ( Xerxes is portrayed as a young man in "300", he would have been a child at Marathon), but I expect history will be ignored once again. The Persians during the Achaemenid period were in many ways a more advanced civilization that 5th Century Greece, but will no doubt be portrayed as deformed monsters once again. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 24, 2011 17:11:47 GMT -5
I actually dropped the author, Steven Pressfield, a line and got a reply. If they made the movie from this book I don't think there would be a better war movie out there. The book was brilliantly written and celebrated. Pressfield was actually made a citizen of Sparta afterward. I've watched Gladiator several times and it has permanent residency in my hard drive. Do you still have Pressfields e-mail? I need to beg him to stop the Clooney/Willis massacre before I get arrested for justifiable homicide. No worries, man. Here you go. steve@stevenpressfield.com Remember near the end of the book where they were about to dispatch a Persian who ended up calling out several names including, "Rooster"? That was at the Battle of Plataea and "Rooster" was a former semi-citizen who was just about put to the sword himself for being rebellious. Only "Rooster" shows up in full Spartan armour at the battle after his mates tell him of a prisoner who blurted his name. I emailed Mr Pressfield asking him whether or not he was planning a follow up book on the Battle of Plataea based around the character, "Rooster." His reply to me was: "... You know I never thought about that. Maybe some day. However, you have my permission to write it." Great comedian that Mr Pressfield. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Feb 24, 2011 18:24:56 GMT -5
I'm sure I read somewhere that they are doing a "Battle of Marathon" movie. I think it's done by the "300 guys" so most of you won't like it . I don't get the dislike towards 300 myself. I've always been into ancient history and I loved it. Loved Gladiator too, but then I thought Troy and Alexander were crap. To each their own I guess. I know the same people who brought you "300" are working on a prequel called "Xerxes". Whether this includes Marathon or not, I'm not sure, ( Xerxes is portrayed as a young man in "300", he would have been a child at Marathon), but I expect history will be ignored once again. The Persians during the Achaemenid period were in many ways a more advanced civilization that 5th Century Greece, but will no doubt be portrayed as deformed monsters once again. 300 was from the greek/sparta perspective so it's likely they demonized their attackers. There was propaganda back then. I was ok with it. I liked the stylized epic feel, gladiator captured the epic feel as well. Something a lot of films don't do well. I didn't go into it expecting a documentary. Yeah it's called Xerxes and it does focus on the battle of marathon. www.firstshowing.net/2009/frank-millers-battle-of-marathon-300-prequel-titled-xerxes/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 24, 2011 20:56:16 GMT -5
300 was from the greek/sparta perspective so it's likely they demonized their attackers. There was propaganda back then. I was ok with it. The movie makes the Persians look like fools, where in fact, they did conquer most of their known world. The difference was that they underestimated the Greeks. The Greeks fought between themselves so often as city states, that they became masters of a level of warfare that was unknown/unfamiliar to the Persians. Then there were the Spartans who brought it up to another level above the fellow Greeks, never mind the Persians. So yes, the movie demonized and portrayed the Persians as fools, which they were not and the Spartans as gay pride parade Ultimate Fighting warriors, which they were not. But then again, it's a movie based on comics..... |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Feb 24, 2011 22:24:51 GMT -5
300 was from the greek/sparta perspective so it's likely they demonized their attackers. There was propaganda back then. I was ok with it. The movie makes the Persians look like fools, where in fact, they did conquer most of their known world. The difference was that they underestimated the Greeks. The Greeks fought between themselves so often as city states, that they became masters of a level of warfare that was unknown/unfamiliar to the Persians. Then there were the Spartans who brought it up to another level above the fellow Greeks, never mind the Persians. So yes, the movie demonized and portrayed the Persians as fools, which they were not and the Spartans as gay pride parade Ultimate Fighting warriors, which they were not. But then again, it's a movie based on comics..... Is it not, in part, the foolish overconfidence of the persians that makes it such a compelling story? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 25, 2011 12:33:06 GMT -5
Is it not, in part, the foolish overconfidence of the persians that makes it such a compelling story? Yes. Leaving actual battle tactics aside, arrogance, completely dismissing the enemies capabilities and far too much mirror gazing. . They thought the Greeks would surrender based on threat rather then battle. To Greeks, who fought each other almost to the point of an annual pastime, war did not frighten them. After all, the Spartans didn't evolve into an uber fighting machine because the crops didn't grow or the deer wouldn't surrender. A lose and controversial modern analogy would be Israel and their neighbors and then some. The Persians should have left the Greeks alone. Within decades, the Greeks launched the March of the Ten Thousand and later on, Alexander decimated them all the way to the Himalayas. For two centuries after that, the Greeks Hellenized Persia until about 60 BC were they rose again. By that time, the Romans had risen. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 25, 2011 15:43:45 GMT -5
The March of the Ten Thousand . Xenophon's Anabasis would make a fine movie indeed. As is the case with Leonidas and the 300 at Thermopylae, the real story is far more exciting than anything Hollywood could dream up. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 25, 2011 19:43:11 GMT -5
I'd like to talk about this a bit more. Where would I find this? Plenty of information about this if you look. It's knowing where to look that becomes a bit of a problem, duster. I've been putting together some courses for the local college here in town about local military history. I'm doing it because it's fun (like talking about this stuff). One of my contacts happens to be the curator for Old Fort Henry. Because of the fort and my friendship with him, I'm currently putting together a course on the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1838. As for the IX, I've pointed a few of my friends to this discussion. Having lived in Germany, my wife and I have visited Holland many time. I've been to Nijmegan for various reasons; vacation and of course, the annual international marches. However, for three consecutive years I took a different bunch of guys up to some of the battle sights. I never thought about ancient history, though. Unfortunate, because it was a passion of mine in high school. I knew of Carus' appointment, but I hadn't realized the IX went with him. Interesting. This is significant. If there are incomplete records, or missing records, it would explain how historians drew to their conclusions. I've read a bit on Bouddica, but not much to be honest. I think I found while actually researching the IX. Perhaps one of those evenings where I realized I had six or seven browsers open at the same time only to realize how far I had deviated from my original readings. Ben Hur still ranks as one of my all-time favourites to be honest. As a young lad I liked it because of the action and chariots. As I grew older I found the movie to be more about faith than anything else; faith in God, faith in family, faith in friends, faith in one's self. I'm teaching all weekend, but I plan on finding this later. I recall finding something on this a few years back. I thought the casting for both movies was excellent. I remember seeing "Excalibur" in the threatre back in the day. I was surprised to learn that Nigel Terry (King Aurthur) was also in the movie "Troy" many years later. Terry, by the way, sold his character quite well in "Excalibur." "The Last Samurai" was very entertaining I found. Casting was brilliant and I honestly thought Cruise sold his part very well. However, he was also surrounded by brilliant actors as well. Billy Connolly played Sgt Zebulon Gant, a former career cavalryman who served with Curise's character, Capt Nathan Algren. I enjoyed the movie mainly because of the storyline. The main character, Algren, finally finds a balance in his life through his association with the Samurai. However, the action scenes are excellent. Mrs Dis and I went to see it New Year's Eve the year it came out. I liked the use of Aramaic in the film, but as for the movie itself, I really don't know how you'd depict the final hours of Christ. Gibson did a great job doing that I guess, but I only saw the movie once. It's not part of my library. Will check in later. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 26, 2011 14:46:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 26, 2011 14:54:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Feb 26, 2011 20:21:32 GMT -5
Having lived in Germany, my wife and I have visited Holland many time. I've been to Nijmegan for various reasons; vacation and of course, the annual international marches. However, for three consecutive years I took a different bunch of guys up to some of the battle sights. I never thought about ancient history, though. Unfortunate, because it was a passion of mine in high school. Nijmegen was one of the main legionary bases on the Rhine. It was known as Batavodorum and was the former capital of the Batavians. The latter were considered elite soldiers and played an important part in the conquest of Britain We don't know if it did for sure. What we do know from Carus' funeral inscription is that he was legate of the IX Hispania shortly before his appointment as governor of Arabia during the reign of Antoninus Pius. Since a legate commanded a full legion, it's assumed Ix Hispana was transferred to the mainland intact. Had it been a detached cohort or vexillation, it would have been commanded by a tribune. My mistake. I was going off the top of my head. It was Septimius Severus who issued coins to honour the legions. Rather, a public monument dating to the reign of Marcus Aurelius lists all the legions of Rome including the two raised by him in AD 165 ( II and III Italica). The IX Hispana is not on the list implying it had been destroyed or disbanded. What is also known is the Imperial governor of Cappadocia was defeated by the Parthians in AD 162 and the legion that accompanied him was annihilated. Some think that the legion that was destroyed might have been IX Hispana. It's also know that the Romans suffered considerable losses against the Marcomanni and the Sarmatians ( at one point, the Germans invaded Italy). Possibly because of this, two new legions needed to be raised. Perhaps one of the units wiped out might have been IX Hispana. Most of IX Hispana was destroyed by Bouddica during the Iceni revolt of AD 61 and the legion reconstituted some time later. A legion could be reconstituted if the "genius" or spirit of the legion still existed. This implies that perhaps one or two cohorts survived. I suppose its possible the same thing could have happened 50 years later. |
|
. I don't get the dislike towards 300 myself. I've always been into ancient history and I loved it. Loved Gladiator too, but then I thought Troy and Alexander were crap. To each their own I guess.