a new "historically correct movie" of Ridley Scott

[john m roberts]

The issue of Premier magaxine now on the stands has a writeup of the production with some good pics. The guy in the silver mask is the Christian king (Baldwin or Badouin, I forget which) who was afflicted with leprosy, so the mask makes sense.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

No evidence for pila as pikes?


try the adamklissi relief, it shows a legionaire in scale armour dispatching a barbarian with a pilum.

[Frank Miranda]

(Baldwin or Badouin, I forget which) .

Actually, you didn't forget which! Both are versions of the same name.

[Octavianvs]

in reguard to praetorian armour and tunic not only have I never seen anything factual supporting black. from a personal observation seeing as how buildings were painted up to be nice and bright, homes were as well and never seeing darkness really portrayed at all I doubt that the grunge/stealth look would have appealed to romans. you would find the praetorians looking very similar to legionaries with the exception of shield decoration and perhaps some nicer personal items and maybe tarting up your kit a bit since youve a few more denarii then the your legionary friends and could afford perhaps nicer belt plates or fancier scabbard.
Octavianvs

[Octavianvs]

Liam Neeson looks suitably medieval, Orlando Bloom looks suitably decorative, and David Thewlis looks like Paul Gascoigne :lol:

The trailer features gouts of napalm, of course.

perhaps this is a sort of compromise for the historians theres Neeson's believable looking person. then theres Orlando to get girls in the theatre and we al know if things aint burning and exploding people dont realise theres a war I guess. I wouldnt be surprised to see a rendition of leonardos glider plane in this movie dropping fire bombs seeing as how historical continuity and peiods have no real meaning

All in all though if it gets people interested inhistory then we can educate the brainwashed masses. Get them away from the PC BS show them how reality was much more real then Hollywierd could ever bring out.
Octavianvs

[Octavianvs]

Oh one more thing whats with the hyppika gymnasia face mask on the person?
Octavianvs

[A_Volpe]

Keep your eyes open on the History Channel in the next few weeks for the next installment of "History Vs. Hollywood" where they will be discussing the new movie and actual Crusader history. Much of the program was filmed at the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA - Where I do demos with the Sword Guild and of course my Roman Dude programs.

You'll get a neat view on the Great Hall, our exhibit hall, with some dramatic lighting.

I was on Staff for the filming a week or so ago (staff meaning "Don't Touch That" watching), very interesting to see how that had things set up and how they went about filming, I've never really seen that before. I also got to "meet" Geoff Warlwo (spelling?), who is the Host of the program.

Hopefully the Museum will be shown in a good light and the material it presented will go over well. (I wasn't around for that stuff, just the filming of the Intro, Conclusion, and commercial bridges/bumpers)

I have no idea what I think about this Crusader movie yet. I think I'm just going to go with the typical and assume it'll be "entertaining" and not much else.

[naso]

Ok I have to admit the previews look alright to me for hollywood. I mean it does look like chainmail and not painted burlap. I am going to see it this weekend and I won't expect much and hopefully I will be suprised by an entertaining movie.

Denis

[Marcus Mummius]

I saw the movie yesterday evening. It's a very good movie IMHO! It's quite historically correct and the equipment looks rather good. It's about the best equipment I ever saw in a medieval movie. It has a good story and a message. And above all it was very entertaining! The music was good and some scenes had incredible atmosphere. I will certainly watch it again.

Regards,
Marcus

[naso]

Thats encouraging. It does look good. I saw Alexander and as any of you know it sucked. I thought it looked alright but the story was boring and the acting wooden. I am hoping for more from Ridley Scott. Say what you will about authenticty Gladiator was an entertaining film and well directed even if he took a lot of liberties witht he history.

Denis

[Carlton Bach]

I saw the film yeasterday and I was surprised by both the high quality of a lot of the gear and the erratic choices the propsmen made.

The European armour and shields are GOOD, though at times a few centuries out of date (look at the helmet Richard Gare de Lyon is wearing - yikes!). Also, many of the knights' shields are too small, though the infantry ones looked about right.

Clothing - let's not go there. The footwear is off, and so are most protagonist costumes, but some of the extras' garb is spot-on. Generally, everyone who is anyone is wearing too short tunics, the wrong trousers, the wrong shoes, and embroidery that is several centuries later.

The tableware varies between the impressive and the ridiculuous. All the pottery was glazed on the outside, which is wrong for 11th century Europe (though AFAIK not the Middle East). I liked the glass (though it was a tad on the elaborate side), but the pewter plates in Messina were cringeworthy. The queen's table manners were atrocious.

The Muslim army was very impressive. Especially how Saladin timeported them in from the 15th century, round metal shields, curved sabres, mail/plate combos and all

I was impressed no end by the siege engines. Yes, the big trebuchet was probably a bit early, and the effects of the catapult fire were way overblown, but on the whole I remember nothing that was inherently improbable. I would have expected springald-type catapults on the towers rather than ballista-type, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely. And, a minor nitpick, /naft/ is filtered through fuller's earth and does not look like crude oil. Most of the bitumen is gone and it is almost clear, like cerosene.

The odd problem - hanging Templars on the sentence of a secular court, for example - but they didn't invent history from the whole cloth. The film would probably have been better if they had included the real ideological issues of the day rather than an anachronistic tolerance concept, but it would also have become complicated. Well, and I don't remember Judea being *that* dry and sandy.

I still think they ought to have made a movie about the Fourth Crusade.

[john m roberts]

Haven't seen it yet, but giving the Saracens Ottoman-era equipment may have been done to make the two armies easier to distinguish. Period equipment was amazingly similar, given the differences between the two cultures.

[naso]

ok. I give a mixed review. It was a great film and more histotically accurate than I have seen in other similar films, better than gladiator. Even some of the key incidents are at least mentioned. I think the armor was good in general. not perfect but a reasonable attempt at authenticty and while still taking in to account certain things you have to do for film; like having distinguishable costuming for different cultures.

The film as a whole ranges from sublime to just plain cheesy as far as the story goes. Liam Neeson was great, too bad there wasn't more of him. It was good and worth seeing but there are some real slow spots in the film that don't quite flow. Now you have my humble opinion

Denis

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

i saw the movie this weekend - i liked it. Good scenes (although some are copied from Lord of The Rings). Equipment is impressive by Hollywood standards IMHO.
I liked how Saladin was portayed (they even pronounced the name correctly).

I was impressed, i think i´ll see it again.

[Magnus]

It was ok...i'd give it a 7 out of 10. The main problem with this movie is the simple fact that (I agree with the critics here) Orlando Bloom does not have the physical, tough guy appearance or stature to pull off a role like this. This left a major aspect of the movie a bit weak...not to say Bloom isn't a good actor, he is, but not in such a powerful role.

There was also no clearly defined villain, at least that lasted longer than half the movie. At least in Gladiator, you had Joaquin Phoenix playing Commodus who was brilliantly evil, to the point where you really hated this guy. There was no counterbalance to the film, and given the weak casting choice of Bloom as the lead, maybe that's a good thing.

I can't comment on the historical accuracy, equipment or story, and even if I was knoledgable in this area, I wouldn't care anyway. It is, after all, a MOVIE.

Having said that, the battle scenes were steller. More convincingly real looking than Troy. Visually the movie was excellent. But it was certainly lacking the gripping depth of lead characters that like it or hate it, made Gladiator at least an entertaining film. The secondary roles were well cast...but they couldn't provide enough support for the lead, IMO.

I heard one story on the radio say that these epic type films have been in decline since Gladiator, or even Braveheart as far as their success as films. I tend to agree with this. Troy was O.K., but I didn't even bother with Alexander. Perhaps they need to give the epic theme a rest for a few years.

I don't think you'll be at a loss if you wait for this one to come out on DVD.