Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reviews of history-themed movies on Guardian web site

Expand Messages
  • xina007eu
    Hi all, on the Guardian s web site, a film critic reviews history-themed movies. This week, Braveheart is being dissected:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,
      on the Guardian's web site, a film critic reviews history-themed
      movies. This week, Braveheart is being dissected:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jul/30/3
      Enjoy!
      Best regards,

      Christina
    • Katherine Throckmorton
      A very good dissection of the low points of Braveheart. Although my favorite piece of Braveheart dissection is still Sharon Krossa s Braveheart Errors:
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        A very good dissection of the low points of Braveheart. Although my
        favorite piece of Braveheart dissection is still Sharon Krossa's 'Braveheart
        Errors: Illustration of Scale'
        http://medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml

        -Katherine


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rebecca Klingbeil
        ... I still maintain that Braveheart is a good *fantasy* movie - it has plot, and is fun, and has lots of nice eye-candy. But it is *fantasy*, pure and simple.
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 31, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Katherine Throckmorton
          <katherine.throckmorton@...> wrote:

          > A very good dissection of the low points of
          > Braveheart.

          I still maintain that Braveheart is a good *fantasy*
          movie - it has plot, and is fun, and has lots of nice
          eye-candy. But it is *fantasy*, pure and simple.

          I did a paper on this for my History of Civilization
          class my freshman year in college. We had to take a
          'historical themed movie' and discuss it. I had a
          blast taking Braveheart apart - not very hard to do,
          with a little library research. I ended it with the
          phrase " 'Braveheart' may be a good movie, but it is
          not good history!"

          I think my personal favorite 'oops' of the movie is
          that the princess who sleeps with Wallace was, in
          actually, 4 years old at the time of his death.
          Whoops. That and the battle that historically takes
          place at a river and bridge is set in a broad field,
          nary a creek in sight. We talk about it as the
          Battle-Of-The-Missing-Bridge when we watch the movie.

          Leofwynn Marchaunt
          [who goes back to work on her newest project since she
          can't go to Pennsic]
        • ren_junkie
          I had to stop reading after the Chinese nunchaku comment (it s Okinawan), and after he said the lacof Stirling bridge was inexplicable . It s explained very
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I had to stop reading after the Chinese nunchaku comment (it's
            Okinawan), and after he said the lacof Stirling bridge
            was "inexplicable". It's explained very well. They didn't have the
            budget to build a medival bridge. I don't like the lack of bridge, but
            it's hardly inexplicable. And he didn't use a nunchaku. Ever. Not at
            all in the movie. And I remember Bruce Lee took a lot of heat for using
            an Okinawan nunchaku in Enter the Dragon, as opposed to a CHinese 3-
            section flail.

            Not defending the movie's accuracy any, but I found the critic to be as
            badly informed as many of the movie's presented "facts"

            Christopher
          • xina007eu
            ... using ... as ... Well, I guess they might have had the budget for a model of a medieval bridge and maybe some blue box technology (or whatever they use
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "ren_junkie" <ren_junkie@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > I had to stop reading after the Chinese nunchaku comment (it's
              > Okinawan), and after he said the lacof Stirling bridge
              > was "inexplicable". It's explained very well. They didn't have the
              > budget to build a medival bridge. I don't like the lack of bridge, but
              > it's hardly inexplicable. And he didn't use a nunchaku. Ever. Not at
              > all in the movie. And I remember Bruce Lee took a lot of heat for
              using
              > an Okinawan nunchaku in Enter the Dragon, as opposed to a CHinese 3-
              > section flail.
              >
              > Not defending the movie's accuracy any, but I found the critic to be
              as
              > badly informed as many of the movie's presented "facts"
              >
              > Christopher
              >

              Well, I guess they might have had the budget for a model of a medieval
              bridge and maybe some blue box technology (or whatever they use
              nowadays for this kind of stuff) to make it look like the battle took
              part on a real bridge. They sure had the budget for those mechanical
              horses and they advertised that they used these and did not harm any
              real horses during the battle scenes!
              So what would you call the thingy that Braveheart uses in that meeting
              scene? Does this have a name at all in martial arts?
              (BTW, Wikipedia claims that "Although the certain origin of nunchaku is
              disputed, it is thought to come from China through the Japanese island
              of Okinawa". I hope that makes it all right for Bruce Lee to have used
              it.)
              Also, the Guardian's film critic is a she, not a he :-)
              Best regards,

              Christina
            • ren_junkie
              Actually on budget, I m just going by what the movie makers said. A blue screen on that scale at that time would have looked terrible. Lord of the Rings was
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Actually on budget, I'm just going by what the movie makers said. A
                blue screen on that scale at that time would have looked terrible.
                Lord of the Rings was really the first to do big huge convincing CGI
                battles in landscapes that were a mix of models, set, matte, and
                CGI. The mechanical horses were peanuts compared to what it would
                have cost to build Stirling bridge. And it couldn't be a model,
                becaue you'd have to have horses pounding over it.

                I'd assume it was just a threshing flail. Farming implement, same
                tool that gave birth to military flails of various tyes all across
                Euraisia. And even tho we all know Wiki is the most reliable source
                out there, 'chucks are definitely not Chinese. At least not in a
                martial arts sense. The tradition there is a 3-sectioned flail.
                Rather a large device. The 'chucks as we all think of them come
                from the karate heritage, which is Okinawan. It was just a regular
                threshing flail. The Japanese ruled Okinawa, and the Okinawan
                peasants were not allowed weapons, so they had to use stuff like
                that. The sickles were also popular as they were a farming
                implement. In fact, hinged and chained flails were used all over
                Europe for military and civilian functions. Doubt in the movie it
                was intended as a martial arts weapon.

                No, the King Fu gurus of the time were all over Bruce about it. In
                fact, when Jackie Chan did the sequel to "Enter the Dragon" (Bruce
                was dead), he used the traditional Chinese flail.

                She?...Oops, I suppose I failed to look at the name.

                Thanks,
                Christopher
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.