PDA

View Full Version : OT: Elizabeth - The Golden Age



Kurfurst__
12-17-2007, 03:52 PM
I`ve seen this *thing* this evening.

I must admit, it`s one of, if not the worst movie I`ve seen this year. Schoolboy bravado, stupid dialouges without the slightest wittyness, and the silliest character from the other side for the last seven decades :half-crazed Spanish religous zealot nutjobs, who won`t even go to the toilet without at least a dozen Jesuits with ten-meter high crosses behind them; now that`s supposed to be their King, so now can have a fair idea how the rest of these idiots, who at the time ruled half the world for some odd reason, probably look like : yes they are all from the same ugly mother and father, increadibly hairy, and they all visit the same taylor and hairdresser. The most vibrant characters amongst them, for the sake of change equip themselves with an extra dark layer of make-up around their eyes, YEAH THEY ARE THE EVIL GUYS IF YOU HAVENT NOTICED, bravo, bravo... sorry if you are trying to copy Eisenstein, at least try to be Eisentstein, or present a half-decent copy of him...

Clive Owen OTOH made the single greatest performance in the movie, that is, proved the impossible, and I am not speaking about single-handedly defeating the WHOLE Armada - that latter being around only to serve as a poor excuse to get some CGI into this chamber-drama on fire - but he de-throned David Hasselhoff and crowned himself as the G@yest Hairy Actor of Our Times.

I puzzled who should be stoned to death - the script writer, that bloody-poor-excuse for a director, or Clive Owen. I am inclined for Owen though. All who are in favour say aye!

Saving graces :

+ Cate Blanchett, still good, funnily enough no role at all in the movie that is supposed to be about her character, but she`s a great enough actor to give us some great moments
+ Cate Blanchett in a magnificent gothic harness
- Cate Blanchett in a almost-magnificent piece of gothic harness that you`ll realize after 5 seconds to be a poorly made prop made out of semi-polished aluminium junk, and by any case Gothic style plates were, by the late 16th century out of fashion anyway (GREAT work research team.. doh), but at least then she makes one of the most dumb speeches in the history of the cinema - more on that later.
+ Photography
- the sound track

Conclusions : Clive Owen excommunciated himself from the community of mankind with that movie; Cate Blanchett proved she can still play a role when she had been given none; Geoffrey Rush - yes go check the cast if you don`t believe me, he was actually hired for this film, and no, I can`t remember either what role he played. Perhaps Guard No. 3.

Low-cost CGI and pathethic 'battle' scenes, from a director who apperantly tries to copy scenes from Eisenstein and Luc Besson`s Jeanne d`Arc, but fails miserably - was this thing filmed in Bollywood..? Sad, as the first Elizabeth was a rather pleasent historic film with enjoyable intriques and such.

Good God, where the earth I`ve put Polanski`s Macbeth...? Need to find it ASAP to overcome the horror, for this movie was removed from it`s mother before time. Perhaps should not have been removed from it at all.

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-17-2007, 03:55 PM
Just so I have a perspective, how did you like the first Elizabeth?

Kurfurst__
12-17-2007, 03:57 PM
Now that was a good while ago, but my memories tell me it was a fairly pleasant film with lots of intriques and interesting characters.

EDIT : Refreshing my memory with IMdb, that one had, hmmm, Vincent Cassel, Fanny Ardant, Joseph Fiennes, John Gielgud....

Good old times.

ytareh
12-17-2007, 03:59 PM
Rented Elizabeth I a few weeks ago in anticipation of the sequel {Elizabeth I 2?!?}Have to say I liked both.First was probably a bit better admittedly.But that speech "I too Sir can command the wind ......!!!"was stirring stuff-and the bit with herself in the armour on the horse .All backed up by a documentary by a 'serious' historian I saw soon after-not Hollywood hype ...the fireship stuff was true also-of course that was Drake's plan and not Raleigh's AFAIK....

SeaFireLIV
12-17-2007, 04:01 PM
I knew right off the bat when I saw the gung-ho Hollywood style of the clips when they were marketing it that this film was going to be awful. You just confirmed my woes.

DuxCorvan
12-17-2007, 04:54 PM
Both Cate Blanchett movies are a SH*T, full of historical idiocies, common places and concessions to modern juvenile public.

For a good account on Elizabeth I Tudor, watch the old BBC series, 'Elizabeth R.' (the most accurate), or, if you need some more eye-candy, the recent miniseries with Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons.

Both of them are serious biopics.

The Blanchett movies are to make any informed viewer puke, unless you're looking for teenage romance with handsome 'romantic' blokes, some action a-la-Mel-Gibson with goods and baddies, and a mix-up of historical characters and facts, completely messed and altered like a salad.

BTW, the whole Armada episode... the English defended bravely, and the fire ships were instrumental, but the Armada was yet formidable and mostly untouched after that. It was a failure because they failed to coordinate with the invasion fleet in Flanders -and had to desist. It was the terrible trip back to Spain -bordering the whole Isles amid horrid weather and the wrecked crewmen being murdered by Irish coast pirates- what rendered a failed operation into an utter disaster.

Anyway, the plan was too ambitious, was poorly commanded, and many things were able to fail, to be viable. It was a very bad plan from the start. The death of Álvaro de Bazán, and the appointment of Medina-Sidonia -a brave soldier but useless as a sailor- condemned it completely.

Of course, in the movie, this all has been reduced to cartoony simplicity.

As for the 'Golden Age' of England... well, culturally and politically, sure. But the true political, economical and military 'Golden Age' for England started about a century later. 17th century was a stormy time for the British.

Kurfurst__
12-18-2007, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
As for the 'Golden Age' of England... well, culturally and politically, sure. But the true political, economical and military 'Golden Age' for England started about a century later. 17th century was a stormy time for the British.

Yup. When I saw the first titles - Spain the tyrant of Europe, and that Britain alone slogan... well I though 'hmmmm'.

If anything, the 17th century that followed soon after was the sill the prime of the Spanish Empire, that slowly wrecked itself by - being too rich and powerful, and having no need to seriously develop it`s own industry. Why, if you have the money and it`s much cheaper to buy from elsewhere? The other great Empire on decline was, for different reasons, that of the Ottomans. Decline did not neccesarrily means disappearance - both Spain and the Ottomans continued to control vast amounts of land and people, they were just no longer major players in politics.

If anyone had flourished and had a Golden Age in the coming century, it was the Dutch, while France had firmly and energetically established itself a modern centarlized STATE and replaced Spain as the most powerful European power by the end of the century. The rule of Elizabeth I was, as suggested above, certainly not a Golden Age yet as a Great Power, but certainly it was the end of England`s historic period as as a moderately important kingdom on the edge of Europe`s political map. It was a beginning of the long road, a trip that was interrupted by another long and bloody Civil War.

Thus the seeds of many great continental wars of the 18th were sown, and the French secured themselves firm enough positions to become the 'bad guys' of Europe for two centuries, well, at least the most potent to make trouble for everyone else around, but especially their old rivals, the Habsburgs and the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, that was that, by now, more of a title, and more realistically, a Habsburg Empire, stubbornly controlled by the most gifted dynasty ever.

joeap
12-18-2007, 01:43 AM
Very interesting posts guys...ah the joys of being history buffs...means we cannot enjoy 99% of "historical" films without bashing them for their errors. BTW my boss saw the film and made some similar comments to those here. Hmmmm I'll give it a skip then.

MEGILE
12-18-2007, 02:10 AM
I don't think it was meant to be a documentary.

That said Clive Owens acts worse than Hugh Grant.


Toodles.

DuxCorvan
12-18-2007, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
I don't think it was meant to be a documentary.


We'll let's make a movie with Eisenhower and Churchill living a gay romance in Rome in 1870, and let's say it isn't a documentary, either.

The problem is that movies are, unfortunately, the only vehicle through most people -specially young people- get their information and knowledge. They'll believe the cr*p as a true account of history, and that's the glass they'll see the world through, for history is also the basis for ideology and nationalistic feelings.

I have nothing to object, just put an advert in the credits saying it has many 'poetic licenses' and that 'all resemblance to real people and facts are mostly coincidence', and that's all. They do it to protect the image of people alive or recently deceased. I don't understand why they don't pay the same respect to people deceased centuries ago.

mmitch10
12-18-2007, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
We'll let's make a movie with Eisenhower and Churchill living a gay romance in Rome in 1870, and let's say it isn't a documentary, either.


Now that would be a freaky movie, I'd watch it if it had Cameron Diaz playing Churchill and Michelle Pfeiffer playing Eisenhower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

whiteladder
12-18-2007, 03:45 AM
I have nothing to object, just put an advert in the credits saying it has many 'poetic licenses' and that 'all resemblance to real people and facts are mostly coincidence', and that's all.

I think you will find (even in the films based on real events) the section in the titles along the line of "The characters and events depicted in this photoplay are ficticious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental"

I also would be surprised if most people stick around to watch the titles, in my experinece the theater is usually clear before it gets to "third guard on left" in the titles.

Most if not all the films we would call historical usually deviate away from the strict facts, because it can get in the way of telling a good story. Not a new phenomenon from the Illiad to Shakespear artists have used dramatic license to get across a story.

What happens when your try and make a dry historical film is no one goes to see it. Tora,tora tora is historically better than most, but no one went to the cinema to watch it. Contrast that with Pearl Harbour which was an abomination as far as history was concerned, but was one of the highest grossing films of 2001.

DuxCorvan
12-18-2007, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
What happens when your try and make a dry historical film is no one goes to see it.

I don't think a historically informed movie has to be necessarily 'dry'. Often the true story is better than the 'filtered' one. Some facts surrounding the real life of Elizabeth I are as entertaining and moving as the ones in the movie, plus you don't have to force 'suspension of disbelief' to that extreme, to enjoy it. Only you can't have the pretty Joseph Fiennes roaming around the palace like a juvenile jerk with his shirt open...

BTW, Pearl Harbour could have been a nice movie without the anacronism and the childish character profiles. You don't need to make it as 'documentary' as Tora, Tora, Tora -where there are almost no fictional personal stories involved- you can have romance, action, explosions, ships and planes all the same, only you don't need to LIE to have them.

Ever read a good 'historic novel' (Bernard Cornwell, Simon Scarrow, Patrick O'Brian...)? They use fictional characters and stories in a completely historical scenario, they tell entertaining stories, and they don't have to change History to do that.

For example, 'Master and Commander' is a good movie, albeit fictional. (Except for the mixed-up title). They even change story to make the bad guys be French instead of USA -so it could satisfy the US public- but even doing that, they don't mess the whole historical scenario so bad to get so, and it's a nice and credible depiction of life in a military ship in the early 1800s.

SeaFireLIV
12-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
What happens when your try and make a dry historical film is no one goes to see it.

I don't think a historically informed movie has to be necessarily 'dry'. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. Often the reality is more interesting that the fiction. People have this attitude that anything real must be boring. That really is not always the case.

whiteladder
12-18-2007, 09:35 AM
Precisely. Often the reality is more interesting that the fiction. People have this attitude that anything real must be boring. That really is not always the case.

I`m not disagreeing with you and I should point out I was talking about films that deal with a specific historical event, not ones that are in a peroid setting(like Master and commander).

In general when film makers have tried to adhere to the accepted history the films haven`t done so well. A Bridge Too Far bombed at the cinema, Waterloo bombed, Oliver Cromwell bombed the list goes on.

If I was putting up millions of $ to make a film I would want to know I had a fair chance of getting it back!

While I agree I actually think the true stories behind to many historical events are much more interesting, it still doen`t mean they make a good narrative that translates to a 90 minute motion picture.

When you look at the sucessful historical films like a A Bridge over a river kwai, Lawrence of arabia that actual bend the history right out of shape to make the narrative fit.

DuxCorvan
12-18-2007, 09:37 AM
'Lawrence of Arabia' was yet twisted by Lawrence himself... (the man was quite his own legend-maker). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Pluto8742
12-18-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
If anyone had flourished and had a Golden Age in the coming century, it was the Dutch.

The 17th Century in England saw William Shakespear, Francis Bacon, the King James Bible, Thomas Hobbes, the founding of the Royal Society, Robert Boyle, the publishing of the Philosophical Transactions, Edmond Halley, Christopher Wren, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton (and the Principia Mathematica) and John Locke.

I'd say the 17th Century was pretty good for the English.

Kurfurst__
12-18-2007, 03:23 PM
Yup, pretty good era culturally, and a stepping stone for great things to come; but after that IS what the previous poster and I said, no..?
As a Great Power, I`d rather put the Golden Age title under the name of post-Napoleonic times and Queen Victoria.

OTOH, for the Dutch, the 17th was undoubtedly the zenith of the History of Holland in just about every field. A tiny nation, yet it controlled 3/4 of European trade, colonized the New World (New Amsterdam, ie New York amongst others) started the industrial revolution with it`s wind/sawmills, and created the first true, tolerant res publica of Europe; their scientific and brought business and finance to a new level. The scientfic and cultural achievements of the era were not a tiny bit of shy of Dutch success in the field of trade either; it`s enough to think of their magnificent painters, Grotius (the founding father of International Law). And this small, new country was not giving up easily the land it won from the sea to any other; not even the Spanish. That alone was a mighty achievement - Spain was the undisputed superpower of the era.

I find the Dutch Golden Age a much neglected and unappreciated subject. But the way we knew modern Europe, it all started there.

joeap
12-18-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I find the Dutch Golden Age a much neglected and unappreciated subject. But the way we knew modern Europe, it all started there.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Very fascinating period indeed.

MB_Avro_UK
12-18-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yup, pretty good era culturally, and a stepping stone for great things to come; but after that IS what the previous poster and I said, no..?
As a Great Power, I`d rather put the Golden Age title under the name of post-Napoleonic times and Queen Victoria.

OTOH, for the Dutch, the 17th was undoubtedly the zenith of the History of Holland in just about every field. A tiny nation, yet it controlled 3/4 of European trade, colonized the New World (New Amsterdam, ie New York amongst others) started the industrial revolution with it`s wind/sawmills, and created the first true, tolerant res publica of Europe; their scientific and brought business and finance to a new level. The scientfic and cultural achievements of the era were not a tiny bit of shy of Dutch success in the field of trade either; it`s enough to think of their magnificent painters, Grotius (the founding father of International Law). And this small, new country was not giving up easily the land it won from the sea to any other; not even the Spanish. That alone was a mighty achievement - Spain was the undisputed superpower of the era.

I find the Dutch Golden Age a much neglected and unappreciated subject. But the way we knew modern Europe, it all started there.

Good thread and thoughtful analysis Kurfurst re Holland http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. The political and military influence of Holland IMHO is neglected by historians.

In 1667 the Dutch Navy sailed up the River Thames in England and caused havok. They captured British ships and bombarded Chatham.

England also had a Dutch King!!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Taylortony
12-18-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by mmitch10:

Now that would be a freaky movie, I'd watch it if it had Cameron Diaz playing Churchill and Michelle Pfeiffer playing Eisenhower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Hmmm....... The term "smoke me" comes to mind as one of them unwraps a cigar......

Rjel
12-18-2007, 07:47 PM
IMO, the best one can hope for from a "historically" based movie is that it's entertaining and will peak someone's interest enough to explore the subject matter in a little more detail. Don't sell young kids short. They're no more disinterested than most of us were at that age in history.

na85
12-19-2007, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

+ Cate Blanchett in a magnificent gothic harness


I demand pics!

DuxCorvan
12-19-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I find the Dutch Golden Age a much neglected and unappreciated subject. But the way we knew modern Europe, it all started there.

I'll never understand why the Orange dynasty has not yet a movie, series, whatever, of their own. Those guys built a world power almost out of nothing, just wit and determination, while still fighting for the independence of the protestant Low Countries -an endless pain for the Habsburgs.

The 17th century is full of terrible and epic history -the English revolutions, the Thirty Year War (with the rising of both Holland and Sweden as powers), the French 'Fronde', the Ottoman advance over Europe -ending in the siege of Vienna and the epic rescue by the Polish King, Jan Sobieski- the golden age of piracy in America, the end of the Sengoku Jedai in Japan -beginning the brilliant but paranoid Edo era under the Tokugawa rulers... There's a lot of movie stuff, only never or superficially explored. 'Alatriste' was a sad dud, but at least it 'touched' the time.

And not only the 17th century. Just in Spanish history -of course, the one I best know- I can recall a lot of epic movie-substance: the Reconquista, the Italian campaigns against the French (15th and 16th cent.), Hernan Cortés and the conquest of Mexico, the rivalry between emperor Charles V and Francis I of France -with the latter being held prisoner, the sea campaigns of the Marquis of Santa Cruz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n%2C_1st_Marquis_of_Santa_ Cruz), the Battle of Lepanto, the Sucession War, and, of course the Peninsular War against the French, which alone is a fertile source of popular heroes and epic stories. Just to name a few.

There are a lot of Forgotten Battles in Hollywood, too.

Kurfurst__
12-19-2007, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

+ Cate Blanchett in a magnificent gothic harness


I demand pics! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/_uploads/film_images/868_Elizabeth%20The%20Golden%20Age.JPG
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/15/Liz_071115085103246_wideweb__300x375.jpg

F19_Olli72
12-19-2007, 04:06 AM
I still have found only one historically correct depiction of the Elizabethan era:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/content/images/2007/02/21/geithere_800_800x600.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/content/images/2007/02/22/percy_800_800x600.jpg

Vanderstok
12-19-2007, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I find the Dutch Golden Age a much neglected and unappreciated subject. But the way we knew modern Europe, it all started there.

I'll never understand why the Orange dynasty has not yet a movie, series, whatever, of their own. Those guys built a world power almost out of nothing, just wit and determination, while still fighting for the independence of the protestant Low Countries -an endless pain for the Habsburgs.

The 17th century is full of terrible and epic history -the English revolutions, the Thirty Year War (with the rising of both Holland and Sweden as powers), the French 'Fronde', the Ottoman advance over Europe -ending in the siege of Vienna and the epic rescue by the Polish King, Jan Sobieski- the golden age of piracy in America, the end of the Sengoku Jedai in Japan -beginning the brilliant but paranoid Edo era under the Tokugawa rulers... There's a lot of movie stuff, only never or superficially explored. 'Alatriste' was a sad dud, but at least it 'touched' the time.

And not only the 17th century. Just in Spanish history -of course, the one I best know- I can recall a lot of epic movie-substance: the Reconquista, the Italian campaigns against the French (15th and 16th cent.), Hernan Cortés and the conquest of Mexico, the rivalry between emperor Charles V and Francis I of France -with the latter being held prisoner, the sea campaigns of the Marquis of Santa Cruz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n%2C_1st_Marquis_of_Santa_ Cruz), the Battle of Lepanto, the Sucession War, and, of course the Peninsular War against the French, which alone is a fertile source of popular heroes and epic stories. Just to name a few.

There are a lot of Forgotten Battles in Hollywood, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there have been dutch films/series about the first William of Orange, but as it's a dutch film it's quite critical. Don't expect the dutch to make something like "The Patriot", good vs evil historic movie! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I totally agree with the 17th century being the real golden age. Funny thing is I only learned about the politics of the era and the Dutch influence when reading the Barocque Cycle (Quicksilver, The Confusion, System of the World) by Neal Stephenson. If you like his style (you'll either love it or hate it) these books provide a great insight of the late 17th century europe. I did check a number of historic facts in his book but I can't vouch for the historic accuracy as he himself calls it "science fiction". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DuxCorvan
12-19-2007, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

+ Cate Blanchett in a magnificent gothic harness


I demand pics! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/_uploads/film_images/868_Elizabeth%20The%20Golden%20Age.JPG
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/15/Liz_071115085103246_wideweb__300x375.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ha ha ha! Like she was 30 years old in 1588! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Come on! She was 55 then! Ridiculous... They have depicted her with hair loose, as she was portraited in her Coronation thirty years before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Of course it was a Golden Age -she never ages in the films. In truth, Elizabeth was this old parrot -and it was allegedly very favored in her official portraits:

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/ElizabethR.jpg

Now compare with the striking resemblance of Glenda Jackson in the old BBC series:
http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_tv/elizabeth_2.jpg

And the very same scene of the Armada speech -a true account- but this time not disguised in some nice Joan of Arc, but in historical kingly armor of the 16th century:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39368000/jpg/_39368885_glendabbc_203.jpg

I know, customs are not all in a movie, but this is just an example of how a true adviser works.

And Jordi Mollá as Philip II of Spain, ha ha ha ha! He's supposed to be a blond tall guy in his 60s... The resemblance is, apart from hairstyle... non-existent!
http://www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/cronicas/jpg/ANF00980.jpg
http://u.univision.com/contentroot/uol/art/images/ent/cine/2007/10/jordi_molla_3_100507.jpg

And everything the same... the people, the facts... even the music (The BBC series used real elizabethan music, while I heard Mozart's Requiem in the first Blanchett movie! OMG! But that's better than the pop hits in 'Marie Antoinette'... WTF). Man, I hate the Blanchett movies... They're an abomination.

luftluuver
12-19-2007, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
And not only the 17th century. Just in Spanish history -of course, the one I best know- I can recall a lot of epic movie-substance: the Reconquista, the Italian campaigns against the French (15th and 16th cent.), Hernan Cortés and the conquest of Mexico, the rivalry between emperor Charles V and Francis I of France -with the latter being held prisoner, the sea campaigns of the Marquis of Santa Cruz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n%2C_1st_Marquis_of_Santa_ Cruz), the Battle of Lepanto, the Sucession War, and, of course the Peninsular War against the French, which alone is a fertile source of popular heroes and epic stories. Just to name a few.
There was a TV series of 14 2 hour movies set in the period of the Peninsular War?
http://www.napoleonguide.com/sharpe.htm

DuxCorvan
12-19-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

There was a TV series of 14 2 hour movies set in the period of the Peninsular War?
http://www.napoleonguide.com/sharpe.htm

Ah, yes, the Sharpe series. It is based in a Bernhard Cornwell series of novels. I haven't read nor seen it. I guess it may be a bit 'too British' for my taste, and full of the typical common places and topics about the Spaniards, so I won't make myself suffer through that.

Someday I'll give it a chance. But I doubt it will show the foul double game the British played while in Spain -materially destroying all Spanish rising industry and infrastructures in the pass, to avoid post-war economic competence, and supporting American colonies insurgency- but instead concentrate in how Wellington supposedly saved our as$es while we were drinking or raping or playing guitar or something in that style. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
12-19-2007, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

There was a TV series of 14 2 hour movies set in the period of the Peninsular War?
http://www.napoleonguide.com/sharpe.htm

Ah, yes, the Sharpe series. It is based in a Bernhard Cornwell series of novels. I haven't read nor seen it. I guess it may be a bit 'too British' for my taste, and full of the typical common places and topics about the Spaniards, so I won't make myself suffer through that.

Someday I'll give it a chance. But I doubt it will show the foul double game the British played while in Spain -materially destroying all Spanish rising industry and infrastructures in the pass, to avoid post-war economic competence, and supporting American colonies insurgency- but instead concentrate in how Wellington supposedly saved our as$es while we were drinking or raping or playing guitar or something in that style. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Cornwell is a great story teller and writes a rousing historical novel. I especially recommend his Uhtred series, set in the English Dark Ages, which pits Alfred of Wessex against the Danes for domination of Great Britain. And it is a very even-handed tale, with both sympathetic and despicable characters portrayed on both sides.


I always had the impression that Great Britain's principal interest on the Iberian Peninsula was the kingdom of Portugal, and that the English relationship with the Spanish anti-French revolt was little more than a matter of military convenience. After all, England and Spain had been traditional competitors both in Europe and in the New World for several centuries. IIRC, the English had actually hi-jacked the Spanish plate fleet treasure as late as 1804, despite the fact that the two nations were technically at peace.

Blutarski2004
12-19-2007, 09:28 AM
If there is any historical event which CRIES OUT to be made into a film or TV series, it MUST be the Great Siege of Malta (1565).

What a magnificent gigantic saga!

DuxCorvan
12-19-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
If there is any historical event which CRIES OUT to be made into a film or TV series, it MUST be the Great Siege of Malta (1565).

What a magnificent gigantic saga!

Agreed. It has all the elements of an epic story. Unfortunately, that dire quest for survival -that changed Western History forever- is not popular nor even known among most of the public, and PC lackeys would soft it not to offend 'other cultures'... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And, yes, I like Cornwell. The Uthred saga is superb, real movie stuff.

Blutarski2004
12-19-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
If there is any historical event which CRIES OUT to be made into a film or TV series, it MUST be the Great Siege of Malta (1565).

What a magnificent gigantic saga!

Agreed. It has all the elements of an epic story. Unfortunately, that dire quest for survival -that changed Western History forever- is not popular nor even known among most of the public ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... No Hollywood script writer alive would have the nerve to write anything that remotely resembled what actually happened during that siege - right down to the wounded and crippled knight who had himself secured to a chair set in the breach of the wall of the fortress St Elmo so that he could help to defend it.

Kurfurst__
12-19-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by na85:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/15/Liz_071115085103246_wideweb__300x375.jpg

Ah ha ha ha! Like she was 30 years old in 1588! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Come on! She was 55 then! Ridiculous... They have depicted her with hair loose, as she was portraited in her Coronation thirty years before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Of course it was a Golden Age -she never ages in the films. In truth, Elizabeth was this old parrot -and it was allegedly very favored in her official portraits:

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/ElizabethR.jpg

Now compare with the striking resemblance of Glenda Jackson in the old BBC series:
http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_tv/elizabeth_2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all fairness, that above I`ve posted is the Queen`s Battle Speech Wig. Blanchett was actually made increadibly ugly, with rudely short hair upon which he wears the hideous wigs of the era...

I quite liked that part of the film to be honest, the costumes, and the only actual portray of a character in the whole movie - a very lonely, nearly bald old harpy bearing the weight of the crown with great politcal skill, but having a miserable personal life.

http://www.thefilmchair.com/images/oscar0708/elizabeth-golden-age-2.jpg
http://weblogs.variety.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/30/elizabeth5.jpg
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/elizabeth-the-golden-age-0.jpg

The Jeanne d`Arc/Lord of Rings elven Queen part was still something very much.... unneeded and lame. Still less an offence than the Philipp II the Nutjob and Sir Hairy Dumbgaze... :/

R_Target
12-19-2007, 01:57 PM
I gave up on Blanchett after that ridiculous Katherine Hepburn impression she did in The Aviator.

Xiolablu3
12-19-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I gave up on Blanchett after that ridiculous Katherine Hepburn impression she did in The Aviator.

+1, it just wasnt believable, was it? Every moment she was on screen I was thinking 'shes acting, shes acting', there was no way I could find the character convincing.

However, unlike Kurfy I thought she was good/convincing in the Lord Of the Rings as that elf goddess kinda woman, and I have seen other films where she was pretty good.


In the films I have seen her in, I dont think she deserves her glowing reputation. However-no doubt there must be films where she acts well that I havent seen....I dont watch all that many films.

R_Target
12-19-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
I gave up on Blanchett after that ridiculous Katherine Hepburn impression she did in The Aviator.

+1, it just wasnt believable, was it? Every moment she was on screen I was thinking 'shes acting, shes acting', there was no way I could find the character convincing.

However, unlike Kurfy I thought she was good/convincing in the Lord Of the Rings as that elf goddess kinda woman, and I have seen other films where she was pretty good.


In the films I have seen her in, I dont think she deserves her glowing reputation. However-no doubt there must be films where she acts well that I havent seen....I dont watch all that many films. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. DiCaprio wasn't exactly stellar in The Aviator either. Although I think Leo has turned the corner with The Departed. Either that or Nicholson's part is so overplayed that Leo looks good in comparison.