Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

worst HF film

User avatar
Madeleine
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5721
Joined: August 2008
Currently reading: The Chalet by Catherine Cooper
Preferred HF: Plantagenets, Victorian, crime
Location: Essex/London

Post by Madeleine » Thu January 8th, 2009, 12:29 pm

I watched quite a bit of Braveheart on fast-forward. Loved the French and Saunders sketch though, the film parodies were always their best bits!

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu January 8th, 2009, 3:57 pm

[quote=""Belili""]I don't. That movie beat me over the head with it. Its political message could not have been more clear. I did go with a bunch of liberal arts degree holders and I am one myself, but we all walked out with appalled expressions on our faces, even the fanboys among us.
[/quote]


Well, no one I have ever talked to made mention of what you just did. We just enjoyed the film. If you saw it as something different so be it. If people want to see it as racist, then fine. Let them. I didn't. I found it a fun movie to watch.

It certainly made enough money $456,068,181 worldwide. But whatever, to each their own. I cannot agree with you on this matter. :)
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Leo62
Bibliophile
Posts: 1027
Joined: December 2008
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Leo62 » Thu January 8th, 2009, 5:44 pm

[quote=""Divia""]Well, no one I have ever talked to made mention of what you just did. We just enjoyed the film. If you saw it as something different so be it. If people want to see it as racist, then fine. Let them. I didn't. I found it a fun movie to watch.

It certainly made enough money $456,068,181 worldwide. But whatever, to each their own. I cannot agree with you on this matter. :) [/quote]

I'm with Belili. I didn't "go looking" (or spend good money) to be offended by 300. I liked the whole idea of it and I wanted to enjoy it. I didn't and I left.

If other people enjoy the movie and see something different (like my partner did) that's fine. But I don't appreciate the implication that by making these observations and criticisms, I am somehow seeing something that isn't there due to my febrile uber-liberal PC imagination. Please.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu January 8th, 2009, 7:00 pm

You can take it however you like. I simply said there are some people who go looking for such things. If that is you, well then you fall into the category. If it isn't you then you then why worry?
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Dani
Scribbler
Posts: 31
Joined: August 2008

Post by Dani » Fri January 9th, 2009, 2:34 am

I would have to Say The Other Boleyn Girl. Which was a shame because that was one of my favorite books.

User avatar
pat
Avid Reader
Posts: 472
Joined: August 2008
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Post by pat » Fri January 9th, 2009, 5:39 am

Braveheart: Providing you take out the blue make-up, the over dramatisation and the inacuracies....I actually enjoy the film! Not one I would go and buy, but I sometimes watch it if it is on! I love the F & S version!
A good book and a good coffee, what more can anyone want? xx

User avatar
Leo62
Bibliophile
Posts: 1027
Joined: December 2008
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Leo62 » Fri January 9th, 2009, 11:15 am

I've thought of another one! Charlotte Gray. Turned a pretty decent book into a pile of mushy poo. Could almost rival Pearl Harbor for worst WW2 movie. Almost.

Ash
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 2475
Joined: August 2008
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by Ash » Fri January 9th, 2009, 2:15 pm

[quote=""Leo62""] But I don't appreciate the implication that by making these observations and criticisms, I am somehow seeing something that isn't there due to my febrile uber-liberal PC imagination. Please.[/quote]

I had no interest in the movie, but I agree here. This is a discussion of movies after all. Saying you disagree is one thing, Saying that someone is 'seeing things' means something totally different.

I enjoyed Braveheart for the entertainment value, but knew, as soon as I saw the implication that Edward I was fathered by him, I knew that what I just watched was anything but historic.

Carla
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 965
Joined: August 2008
Contact:

Post by Carla » Fri January 9th, 2009, 7:56 pm

[quote=""Ash""]I enjoyed Braveheart for the entertainment value, but knew, as soon as I saw the implication that Edward I was fathered by him, I knew that what I just watched was anything but historic.[/quote]

My word, that would have taken some doing :-)
PATHS OF EXILE - love, war, honour and betrayal in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria
Editor's Choice, Historical Novels Review, August 2009
Now available as e-book on Amazon Kindleand in Kindle, Epub (Nook, Sony Reader), Palm and other formats on Smashwords
Website: http://www.carlanayland.org
Blog: http://carlanayland.blogspot.com

User avatar
Kveto from Prague
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 919
Joined: September 2008
Location: Prague, Bohemia

Post by Kveto from Prague » Fri January 9th, 2009, 9:31 pm

inaccuracies aside i kinda liked braveheart. couple of reasons, the portayal of edward I as a royal ambitious jerk (most sucessful kings were as well) with a personal bone to pick with scotland. this is the guy who had that he was "the hammer of the scots" carved into his gravestone. (ironic since historically he hammered the scots into a sense of nationality)

the other part i liked was that the battle scenes were brutally realistic. very little glory in combat there. the winners were the ones who used the more underhanded tactics (sometimes the "good guys", sometimes not).

compare those battle scenes to "300" where the combat speeds and slows like a video game. theres no evidence of the teamwork the spartans used to their advantage. it was usually the spartans running forward and killing guys on their own. and worst of all the attempts to "look cool" as the warriors liked to "strike a pose" as they hurled a spear killing a rhino (and honestly, a rhino?) and the arrows blotting the sun was a metaphor. only a "cool" movie like this would take it literally. or the guy who cried like a baby after his son died on the suicide mission that they were on (which part of suicide didnt he get?) and how about the guy with monster blade arms?

these would have been fine in a fantasy film like lord of the rings but parading as some type, any type, of history is just a bit sad. the worst thing is that it took an interesting story from history and essentially crapped all over it making so that no other directors can tell that interesting story even close to properly.

as for the racialist aspect it is there, although one could argue that against the historical story itself. in the story the "good guys" are greeks and the "bad guys" are persians. ( i know labeling good and bad guys is silly but we are talking cinema here so most everything is silly). the persians/irainians should be offended, but mostly because they had to appear in this cinematic travesty.

on the reverse of that look at a film like "kingdom of heaven" that got trashed for showing sympathetic portayals of muslims at a time when that view was not popular.

and i never take box office reciepts into account (its often used to "justify" someones enjoyment of a film). most fims are made to appeal to the lowest common denominator which is why "independence day" is one of the biggest money makers ever. in fact, big box office receipts often work in reverse, the better films dont have them. and sorry if anyone liked "300". i didnt and think i explained why. to each his/her own.

all in all, i think i tend to make allowances for historical inaccuracies in cinema that i dont really tolerate in HF books. its probably not fair but films are meant for the masses and HF books are meant for intellegent people like those who visit this site :-)

Post Reply

Return to “Movies, Television, Radio, and Music”