Main > The Library
Ironclad
Sir William:
I never look to Hollywood for any sort of full-authenticity, as that sort of thing wouldn't sell out crowds. Imagine realistic sword fights- we'd love them but the majority of the movie-going public wouldn't understand the stances or subtle nuances in it.
One of the reasons I liked Centurion was the the combat was quick and brutal, no Hollywood style of sword-bashing like you normally see.
Sir Ulrich:
I just saw the film, I must say it was pretty good. Armor is depicted realistically as the hero got hit several times yet his armor held and the main armor is maille and padded aketons. Also saw a coat of plates too. The beginning opening of the film shows the maciejowski bible modified a bit and it was nice. It was violent too, very violent. Only thing I didnt like was the danes, they were depicted as pagans and they ripped off Braveheart a bit with blue warpaint and no armor.
Sir Edward:
Yep, and they altered some of the historical details too. The wrong tower on the keep collapsed, for instance. Also, the pigs weren't burned alive, but rather pig fat was "painted" onto the supporting timbers in the tunnel. Baron Albini (or Aubigny, or whatever) never got touched by King John, he died in the keep.
Overall the film was well done though. I'm not too sure about Marshal's sword though. Looked a bit too huge for the period. :)
Sir William:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2010-10-27, 21:08:19 ---
--- Quote from: Paladin on 2010-10-26, 16:34:48 ---Big James Purefoy fan here...with him as the Marshal, I'll watch it just for that. Great cast by the way. Anyone seen Robin Hood yet?
--- End quote ---
Looking forward to Ironclad.
I saw the 2009 Robin Hood. It was crap. Pure, utter, crap. Words can't describe the atrocity. :( My wife said it was terrible, but my parents liked it. Of course, my parents have zero knowledge of medieval history, so as a pure "hollywood entertainer" it was fine. My wife said Robin Hood: Men In Tights was better and even more accurate - for reference, my wife isn't in SCA or anything medieval other than the MD Renn Fest once a year.
--- End quote ---
I think I've seen it about five or six times so far...I thoroughly enjoyed it! It isn't a period piece, its a yarn...Robin Hood is just a story from antiquity that's been given legs by a number of different authors in different times- I liked that they showed a portrayal of him before he became the raider we all know and love. I've never read another origin story for him so this was entertaining to say the least. Most of the movies I've seen only touched lightly on his participation in the Crusades (if in fact he ever truly existed). But even if he existed, how do we know the stories that have been passed down are about him? Truth is, we don't...there's no real evidence to support it, but we all love him anyway. What I don't get is how one portrayal is any more 'accurate' than the next?
What was pure, utter crap about it, Sir James? I'll grant you, the weapons weren't great but they're Windlass pieces, and better than their usual stuff so not too bad. The armor? Or the lack of padded undergarments underneath? That struck me from the beginning- Godfrey wears nothing under his maille except a thin tunic; his French is better than Robin's though.
I thought the fighting scenes were pretty good...for the most part. King John flopped like a sack of potatoes on his horse and his sword strokes were laughable at best, but that's Hollywood as we know it. William Hurt as the Marshal was uninspiring for me...but I am not a fan of his so there's that.
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-04-12, 15:12:22 ---What was pure, utter crap about it, Sir James? I'll grant you, the weapons weren't great but they're Windlass pieces, and better than their usual stuff so not too bad. The armor? Or the lack of padded undergarments underneath? That struck me from the beginning- Godfrey wears nothing under his maille except a thin tunic; his French is better than Robin's though.
--- End quote ---
Here's the relevant part from my older post: http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,752.msg6677.html#msg6677
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2010-11-05, 03:13:08 ---I actually cringed at the "help me with my chainmail" part too. :)
I thought the combat was okay, but obviously had the hollywood "flair" to it, of course. I don't know why, but I had a hard time making sense of the movie.
(snipped)
Near the beginning when the king dies, my wife and I both said "wait, what?" because we haven't seen any other Robin Hood in which the king dies. Disney, Men in Tights .. the king comes back to put his brother in his place at the end.
I think they were going for some kind of link between Robin Hood and Masons/Freemasonry. I couldn't quite tell if it was intentional, or just clumsy coincidence. I never did figure out what they were trying to do with it, and again, I've never seen that in any other Robin Hood movie or story I've seen/read. (EDIT: This is in reference to where they talk about his father being a stone mason, and masons are the "in" thing lately - DaVinci code, etc)
Marian getting stuck underwater towards the end was another thing that bugged me. The boats crashing into each other made no sense, and as somebody with an archery background, the whole shooting a wet bow and arrow that distance with that accuracy made my toes twinge. Wet fletching? Wet bow string? Wet wood? Guess there had to be a dramatic superlucky/superhuman bow shot in the movie somewhere, right?
Aside from those things, I felt that all of the "merry men" were woefully underdeveloped and unused in the story. They have always been a bigger part to the story, especially with the time they spent together "before" the movie timeframe.
In the end, I ended up googling Robin Longstride to see if there was some sort of basis to the movie. I admittedly didn't look for a long time, but I couldn't find any reference to it. I thought perhaps the movie was taking a more historical basis than the "fairy tale" version that is more popular, and in the end, not finding that to be the case, it made me think a bit less of the movie too.
Crowe tried, but he did a mediocre at best Robin Hood. Part of it might be my subconscious link to him being in Gladiator, so others might not be so critical.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version