What about “The Advocate” (with Colin Firth)?
I can’t remember anythign glaringly wrong with the 13th Warrior.
Avoid *Black Knight * at all costs.
So the 1950’s “Ivanhoe” is right out? Pity, great movie.
“Timeline” had some really good elements about it, if you could ignore the time travelling college students.
“History goes to the Movies” (1999, J. Roquemore) seems to suggest The Vikings and The Warlord (although he agrees that the movie got " jus primae noctis" wrong, but so did Braveheart.)
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic, but I really enjoy that movie.
“Lo, there do I see my Father…”
“Don’t worry, Little Brother, there’s more!”
Great stuff, even if Bandaras isn’t Arabic.
Since this is about films, I’ll move this thread to Cafe Society.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
I can’t remember anythign glaringly wrong with the 13th Warrior.
It was an enjoyable movie but the costumes were totally wrong. The warriors’ armour ranged from 700 years before the period (Roman gladiator helmet on one guy) to 500 years after (Several guys had 15th c. armor). Not at all accurate.
I would. There is a version starring Patrick Bergen and Uma Thurman. It’s probably the best movie I know for getting the look and feel of the early middle ages right.
Another French movie, albeit harder to find than Le retour de Martin Guerre is La Passion Béatrice (1987) [aka The Passion of Beatrice or just Beatrice].
It’s brutal and disturbing, but is considered to be very historically accurate and has a wonderful performance by Julie Delpy – who was only 17 at the time – in the title role.
Thanks for the box…
I saw a movie called “The Anchoress” in Mid. Lit. class. It looked rather accurate. Particulary the church in the end which was rather dark and bare.
And probably not as accurate, but no doubt dirty enough, Paul Verhovans “Flesh and Blood”, which is a fun little movie. Rather dark as well.
I thought about this one too, but I assumed it was too obscure a french movie to be worth mentionning on an american board.
As for being historically accurate, once again I couldn’t tell. It looks so, but not being a specialist, what would I know…
And disturbing, indeed…
Wouldn’t any reference to it at all be getting it wrong, as it’s basically an urban history legend?
Andrei Rublev is quite accurate in setting, costuming, and main historical events, even though it had to make up most of what Rublev did, as we know next to nothing about his life. But it shows quite well what life was like in medieval Russia under the Mongol yoke, and also got quite a few details right that would only be apparent to an Eastern liturgical weenie like myself.
FWIW, I had a history professor tell the class that there was one historically accurate moment in the film. Apparently, Longshanks actually did throw his son’s lover to his death from a window.
I’m sceptical. If you’re talking about Piers Gaveston, he outlived Edward I by five years.
Sorry,I don’t have a cite, merely reporting what my history professor told us in class.
And smelled. Maybe not really but it doesn’t take much imagination to smell the Middle Ages while watching it.
Girl with a Pearl Earring looks pretty accurate. People do have objections to its characterization of Johannes Vermeer and his wife though.