StarDestroyer.Net BBS

...It also sucks.

The 13th warrior is an abomination.

Thanas wrote:...It also sucks.

The 13th warrior is an abomination.

You see, no movie is going to be 100% accurate for any particular time period; however, action, drama, compelling characters in a good legend/myth like atmosphere? Yeah, I think it's just fine.

Knife wrote:

Thanas wrote:...It also sucks.

The 13th warrior is an abomination.

You see, no movie is going to be 100% accurate for any particular time period; however, action, drama, compelling characters in a good legend/myth like atmosphere? Yeah, I think it's just fine.

Compelling characters? WTF?

The 13th warrior was boring and an insult to the very idea of the vikings. You know, freaking neanderthals?

EDIT: Sorry for sounding like a raging madman. It is just that whenever I hear of that movie, I fly into some kind of blinding rage.

A Knight's Tale (featuring the late Heath Ledger) is perhaps worth a go, although it was mis-marketed and didn't seem to know what tone it should've had.

Although not about knights in particular Robin and Marian (1976) is still highly recommended, and it starred Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Robert Shaw, and Richard Harris. It featured a knight as a prominent bad guy.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves Brilliant film, due entirely to Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman.

Darth Wong wrote:Does Robin Hood count as a legitimate knight movie? I think that in order to be a knight movie, the film should focus primarily on (you guessed it) knights, and Robin Hood is no knight.

Well it isn't knightly, but the medieval theme might fit. To be honest I can't think of many non-Fantasy films or series that fit the bill.

Few knights but one badass cruel evil dragon...Dragonslayer!

flight of the dragons was a decent kids dragin movie, like the villain though (hell it should be a favourite here to some, fantasy is defeated by LOGIC and SCIENCE!)

BTW: The robin hood movie does include knights, just norman knights instead of your romantized knights. The setting would have been 1192 and the norman influnce was still present.

Robin of Sherwood as a series does have some knights in it, including an episode with Templars, but its primarily for the medieval setting.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I'm rather partial to "Robin and Marion" with James Bond and Holly Golightly.

oh and if you have the stomach for it, Flesh and Blood.

Robin and Marian is depressing. My mom wanted that movie because she like Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. It's a pretty good movie but don't go in thinking it's going to be some big adventure movie. It's more of a character thing with an older Robin and Marian.


Flesh and Blood (aka Flesh+Blood). I like this movie too. It definitely does not sugar coat medieval times. IIRC it was Paul Verhoven's first English Language movie. It stars Rutger Hauer and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Thanas wrote:
Compelling characters? WTF?

The 13th warrior was boring and an insult to the very idea of the vikings. You know, freaking neanderthals?

EDIT: Sorry for sounding like a raging madman. It is just that whenever I hear of that movie, I fly into some kind of blinding rage.

To each their own, of course. I also rather enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven mentioned earlier but...

However, it does highlight something, there isn't enough medieval films. About time Hollywood got off it's super hero kick.

Another Rutger Hauer "knightly" movie is Ladyhawke (1985). It's not the main focus of the film but it's there. The movie is more of a romantic tale with some action and magic involved than it is an action movie. At one time it was one of my favorite movies. Probably because I had a crush on Michelle Pfeiffer at the time.


It also stars Mathew Broderick and Leo McKern. Actually, looking at IMDB, it appears that Broderick gets top billing in the movie. It does tend to focus on things as he sees and experiences them.

Braveheart's medieval...a little sparse on knights, and it shits historical accuracy, though.

Frank Hipper wrote:Braveheart's medieval...a little sparse on knights, and it shits historical accuracy, though.

Also extremely long. I was never able to make it through the full thing, definitely not one I'd recommend.

Another Rutger Hauer "knightly" movie is Ladyhawke (1985). It's not the main focus of the film but it's there. The movie is more of a romantic tale with some action and magic involved than it is an action movie. At one time it was one of my favorite movies. Probably because I had a crush on Michelle Pfeiffer at the time

I already mentioned it on the first page.

The 'magic' is very low-key- just a curse where Michelle Pfeiffer is a hawk in the day and a woman at night, and Rutger Hauer is a man in the day and a wolf at night. Freaking awesome (and of course very sad) curse.

Two Swedish movies, Arn - The Knight Templar and its sequel, Arn - The Kingdom at Road's End, come to my mind. The first one is less preachy and much more downplayed version of Ridley Scott's The Kingdom of Heaven with a major Swedish background (instead of French/generic European). It gives a much more nuanced view of Christian clergy than Ridley Scott's film did, as well. I haven't yet seen the second one, although I bought it from sales today.

Tsyroc wrote:Flesh and Blood (aka Flesh+Blood). I like this movie too. It definitely does not sugar coat medieval times. IIRC it was Paul Verhoven's first English Language movie. It stars Rutger Hauer and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

It's not really knightly or medieval, being set in the Renaissance period, and it's definitely not for the fainthearted; there was a rather graphic rape scene IIRC.

The list of movies approved by the SCA:
LadyHawke
Excaliber
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
Knight-riders
Highlander (there can be only one!)
Lion in Winter
Braveheart

yes, I said if you can stomach it about Flesh+blood

Lion in Winter is also very, very good, and Robin and Marion is still a favorite of mine that I mentioned back on the first page.

Haven't seen it mentioned yet so First Knight (1995) with Sean Connery and Richard Gere. I recall seeing this around when it first came out and that it was my first exposure to a "modern" medieval movie. The Knight battles and story were pretty good from what I can remember, but then again, I last saw it as a young teen and don't recall much of it now so I cant really say for sure whether it's a crappy movie or not untill I see it again.

Its probably classed as too early period wise, but there's also the rather mediocre (In my opinion) King Arthur. The best part of that film in my opinion was Hans Zimmers score.

Jade Falcon wrote:Its probably classed as too early period wise, but there's also the rather mediocre (In my opinion) King Arthur. The best part of that film in my opinion was Hans Zimmers score.

Are you talking about the one that featured Maid Marian as some pagan warrior woman? Because that one was easily forgettable.

General Zod wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:Its probably classed as too early period wise, but there's also the rather mediocre (In my opinion) King Arthur. The best part of that film in my opinion was Hans Zimmers score.

Are you talking about the one that featured Maid Marian as some pagan warrior woman? Because that one was easily forgettable.

Guinevere, you mean, and yes.

Rogue 9 wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:Its probably classed as too early period wise, but there's also the rather mediocre (In my opinion) King Arthur. The best part of that film in my opinion was Hans Zimmers score.

Are you talking about the one that featured Maid Marian as some pagan warrior woman? Because that one was easily forgettable.

Guinevere, you mean, and yes.

Marian Guinevere whichever. I can never keep their names straight.

Thanas wrote:Compelling characters? WTF?

The 13th warrior was boring and an insult to the very idea of the vikings. You know, freaking neanderthals?

EDIT: Sorry for sounding like a raging madman. It is just that whenever I hear of that movie, I fly into some kind of blinding rage.

I'm confused: are you saying Vikings vs. Neanderthals is an insult to vikings, or did you completely misunderstand the movie?

Granted, The 13th Warrior has many, many other problems (you couldn't turn a longsword into a scimitar like that with a full forge, let alone by just filing it down; what exactly do the Grendel eat down in their caves all the time; etc.), but next you'll be telling us you don't like Ninja vs. Pirate or Zombie vs. Robot, and that's just madness.

My point is that it isn't a medieval movie rather a fantasy movie that happens to call their heroes vikings instead of Rohan or whatever.