Best and Worst ancient (BC) themed movies...

[Arakhor]

I actually quite liked the first half-hour or so of 10,000 BC. It's just a shame that it went down the 'ancient astronauts' route, even if you explain the various geographical oddities as the action being set in the Andes. (I'm not at all sure if you can see the North Star from the Andes, though.)

 

[Phrossack]

I actually quite liked the first half-hour or so of 10,000 BC. It's just a shame that it went down the 'ancient astronauts' route, even if you explain the various geographical oddities as the action being set in the Andes. (I'm not at all sure if you can see the North Star from the Andes, though.)

Parts of it were good, and on the whole, it was fairly entertaining. But the mammoths and slaves building the pyramids for the stereotypical evil, veiled, long-nailed, effeminate Oriental despot, the slavers who had distorted voices to show their evilness, the blend of Paleolithic and Late Antiquity technology (stirrups and long iron swords), the trite plot of a hero searching for clues about his father and trying to live up to his legacy by fighting evil with his family's special weapon... it was all too much.

 

[Arakhor]

I quite agree, yes.

 

[Hygro]

I actually quite liked the first half-hour or so of 10,000 BC. It's just a shame that it went down the 'ancient astronauts' route, even if you explain the various geographical oddities as the action being set in the Andes. (I'm not at all sure if you can see the North Star from the Andes, though.)

Sooo many bad movies have good intro first half hours. Even Jumper had a good beginning, before the characters grew up.


I'm gonna vote yes on 300, a mixed yes on Gladiator, a no on the original Spartacus, and yes for Ben Hur to name some.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh, yeah, Jumper was bad. Hayden Christiansen was totally believable as a moody, disaffected young man, but that didn't mean that I liked the character at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I liked Troy. I'm a solid yes on 300 just for the entertainment value. Ben Hur is classic when in the mood for old movies. I also liked the original Clash of the Titans much better than the more recent one.

For drek, I suggest Clan of the Cave Bear. Neanderthals distinguished by dark hair from the blond cro-magnon girl, with no dialog because, y'know, realism.

 

[Hygro]

Oh, yeah, Jumper was bad. Hayden Christiansen was totally believable as a moody, disaffected young man, but that didn't mean that I liked the character at all.

And the love interest, fine enough actor, wrong role.

I liked Troy. I'm a solid yes on 300 just for the entertainment value. Ben Hur is classic when in the mood for old movies. I also liked the original Clash of the Titans much better than the more recent one.

For drek, I suggest Clan of the Cave Bear. Neanderthals distinguished by dark hair from the blond cro-magnon girl, with no dialog because, y'know, realism.

Oh yeah, Troy was fantastic.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Simultaneously the best and worst ancient themed movie:

Link to video.

Over clocking the motor, or something.

Ben-Hur was not a "BC" movie. It takes place during the reign of Tiberius.

The Ten Commandments was good, even if historically inaccurate.

It's accurate to say that there were Egyptian pharaohs named Ramses and Seti, but I can't think of anything else about that movie that was historically accurate.

Link to video.

I liked Spartacus. I wonder if anyone ever told Kirk Douglas it wasn't pronounced "Brindoozyum."

I never cared for Gladiator either. I feel like I could just watch the fight scenes as a montage and skip the rest, the rest of the story was not particularly original or entertaining and the historical inaccuracies drive me up the wall.

The music was nice. I enjoyed the scenes with Derek Jacobi. The rest of the movie was utter crap.

 

[warpus]

I guess my point about the Ten Commandments was that it doesn't have to be historically accurate to be good.

If someone makes a movie about Helen of Troy the time-travelling cyborg beast from Pluto, and the movie actually works and makes sense and the special effects are mindblowing, the twist unexpected, the writing spectacular, and the acting incredible..

then I guess my only complaint would be if they say that the movie is based on a true story. People are stupid - they need to be told what's just a story and what isn't. Maybe make everyone stay for 5 minutes after every movie is over and have a historian explain everything.. That seems too burdensome though, especially on historians, although it would probably create a thriving industry.. Either way what I recommend is some sort of a rating system. Movies not at all claiming to be based on things that actually happened get 0%. Actual footage of the events in question would be a 100% rating.

Obviously with some events it's unclear what the exact % should be, but all you do is get a bunch of interns to figure it out. Or whatever. As long as I know that if I'm picking up a movie with a 12% rating, that there might be robots or people who have never existed, and a 73% rated movie might be good enough historically for a casual sunday night movie for one.

The Ten Commandments is not historically accurate thing is not meant to be a swipe at the author or fans, I actually quite like the movie and as a kid was an expert in knowing the story inside out for test writing purposes.. It's what I think historians are saying about the depicted events. If that's not what the consensus is among historians, then I will take that back. It's obviously quite accurate to what's in the written version.. But my point revolves around movies that are not historically accurate yet good, you see.. and so.. .. ..

 

[MilesGregarius]

No mention of Quest for Fire yet?

 

[luiz]

Troy and Gladiator were good, though I liked them much less the second time I tried watching them.

I loathe 300.

 

[PhroX]

I never really enjoyed Gladiator bar a few scenes.
It was too long and overwrought.

Anyone else agree with me?

I though it was decent but nothing more. I mean, I enjoyed most of it (the sickeningly sentimental final scene with him finding his family in the Elysian Fields or whatever it was aside), but it wasn't anything special and certainly not worthy of the hype and adulation is seems to receive from some quaters.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I guess my point about the Ten Commandments was that it doesn't have to be historically accurate to be good.

If someone makes a movie about Helen of Troy the time-travelling cyborg beast from Pluto, and the movie actually works and makes sense and the special effects are mindblowing, the twist unexpected, the writing spectacular, and the acting incredible..

then I guess my only complaint would be if they say that the movie is based on a true story. People are stupid - they need to be told what's just a story and what isn't. Maybe make everyone stay for 5 minutes after every movie is over and have a historian explain everything.. That seems too burdensome though, especially on historians, although it would probably create a thriving industry.. Either way what I recommend is some sort of a rating system. Movies not at all claiming to be based on things that actually happened get 0%. Actual footage of the events in question would be a 100% rating.

Obviously with some events it's unclear what the exact % should be, but all you do is get a bunch of interns to figure it out. Or whatever. As long as I know that if I'm picking up a movie with a 12% rating, that there might be robots or people who have never existed, and a 73% rated movie might be good enough historically for a casual sunday night movie for one.

The Ten Commandments is not historically accurate thing is not meant to be a swipe at the author or fans, I actually quite like the movie and as a kid was an expert in knowing the story inside out for test writing purposes.. It's what I think historians are saying about the depicted events. If that's not what the consensus is among historians, then I will take that back. It's obviously quite accurate to what's in the written version.. But my point revolves around movies that are not historically accurate yet good, you see.. and so.. .. ..

Ohforpetessake...

Did I say anywhere that I don't like the movie? No. It's actually one of my favorites, for a number of reasons. But for historical accuracy, the vast majority of it is either outright nonsense, anachronistic, or can't be verified by primary sources or archaeology.

No mention of Quest for Fire yet?

Looks like you just did.

It was an interesting movie. I remember watching it during a time when we had access to a weekend of free Superchannel, and this wasn't the sort of movie one would find just anywhere, like now.

 

[Arakhor]

It turns out that there is quite a large selection of films set in Antiquity and earlier, even if you do ignore the various Shakespearian adaptations.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It turns out that there is quite a large selection of films set in Antiquity and earlier, even if you do ignore the various Shakespearian adaptations.

I'd forgotten about The Egyptian. I've seen the movie and read the book. Looks like some interesting stuff in that list.

 

[Yeekim]

I'd forgotten about The Egyptian. I've seen the movie and read the book. Looks like some interesting stuff in that list.

That book (as most from Waltari) is great, but I doubt I could really enjoy a 60-year old movie.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's a bunch of really good Chinese films that are set contemporary to the Classical era. Hero, Red Cliff and The Lost Bladesman, off the top of my head. I don't know if that counts, but I'm sure the visual difference is as obvious to Chinese audiences as the difference between Gladiator and Robin Hoodis to us.

I have a soft-spot for Troy, not so much because it's all that good, but I admire that they committed to the Mycenaean setting. They mostly avoided defaulting to "movie Greece" in the costuming, weapons and architecture, and the two exceptions- the armour of the Myrmidons and the boats- have at least been altered enough to show they were aware of the issue.

edit: Oh, and there's a bunch more of varying quality. Lessee, er... Sacrifice wasn't to my taste, I think you have to understand Chinese drama a bit better than I do... Confucius was kinda dull, basically a hagiography... Battle of Wits is good, Mohist themes are a unique touch, and Andy Lau is sooo handsome... Little Big Soldier was a lot of fun, manages to pull off both the historical setting and the Jackie slapstick... Empress and the Warriors was okay, bit heavy on the wire-work, White Vengeance is pretty good, Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon is visually very impressive, but pretty forgettable when stood against Red Cliff, and Mulan was honestly just boring. There's also The Assassins, which isn't listed here for some reason, but is also pretty good.

edit2: Whoops, nuked my own post...

Most sword-and-sandal movies from the 50's were dreck. More recently, we've had 10,000 BC, which I guess could be entertaining to some (who doesn't love terror birds?), but is only marginally more historically accurate than Star Wars. The more recent Clash of the Titans wasn't very good, and 300 was trash.

I liked 300. As an historical epic, it's trash, sure enough, but the trick is to watch it as an exercise in homoerotic fascist mythology. Snyder didn't realise he was making fascist cinema, so it doesn't commit as well as it might, but there's enough shouting and flexing and good ol' palingenetic ultranationalism to work.

 

[Domen]

I liked 300. As an historical epic, yeah, it's garbage, but the trick is to watch it as an exercise in homoerotic fascist mythology. It's still far from perfect, because Snyder didn't realise he was making fascist cinema, so that whole dimension ends up kinda compromised in a lot of respects, but there's enough shouting and flexing and improbably gushy blood to carry it.

By fascist cinema you mean?:


Link to video.

===================

BC movies - Faraon (minus for no chariots):


Link to video.

About as old as Spartacus 1960:


Link to video.

 

[Kyriakos]

There's a bunch of really good Chinese films that are set contemporary to the Classical era. Hero, Red Cliff and The Lost Bladesman, off the top of my head. I don't know if that counts, but I'm sure the visual difference is as obvious to Chinese audiences as the difference between Gladiator and Robin Hoodis to us.

I have a soft-spot for Troy, not so much because it's all that good, but I admire that they committed to the Mycenaean setting. They mostly avoided defaulting to "movie Greece" in the costuming, weapons and architecture, and the two exceptions- the armour of the Myrmidons and the boats- have at least been altered enough to show they were aware of the issue.

edit: Oh, and there's a bunch more of varying quality. Lessee, er... Sacrifice wasn't to my taste, I think you have to understand Chinese drama a bit better than I do... Confucius was kinda dull, basically a hagiography... Battle of Wits is good, Mohist themes are a unique touch, and Andy Lau is sooo handsome... Little Big Soldier was a lot of fun, manages to pull off both the historical setting and the Jackie slapstick... Empress and the Warriors was okay, bit heavy on the wire-work, White Vengeance is pretty good, Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon is visually very impressive, but pretty forgettable when stood against Red Cliff, and Mulan was honestly just boring. There's also The Assassins, which isn't listed here for some reason, but is also pretty good.

edit2: Whoops, nuked my own post...

I liked 300. As an historical epic, it's trash, sure enough, but the trick is to watch it as an exercise in homoerotic fascist mythology. Snyder didn't realise he was making fascist cinema, so it doesn't commit as well as it might, but there's enough shouting and flexing and good ol' palingenetic ultranationalism to work.

But is it volkisch enough?

Ah sorry, repeated the phrase there.
I wonder why

 

[Harv]

[Embedded Video 1 Million Years BC snipped

Okay. You one-upped me.

Any mention of Monty Python's Life of Brian?