|
|
Post by timoneill on May 30, 2010 2:50:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on May 30, 2010 6:20:41 GMT
This review is the opposite of yours, that its better history than drama, concluding "It's the looting of the library, the burning of all those irreplaceable documents from the early years of human history, that really makes you cry" Unfortunately, I suspect that the biggest source of historical 'information' for most people is Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on May 30, 2010 7:24:57 GMT
This review is the opposite of yours, that its better history than drama, concluding "It's the looting of the library, the burning of all those irreplaceable documents from the early years of human history, that really makes you cry" Unfortunately, I suspect that the biggest source of historical 'information' for most people is Hollywood. I think Tim mentioned that same review in his review. |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on May 30, 2010 8:00:45 GMT
Yes, so he did. And there's this one which concludes "The movie is not only a tribute to scientists, it is a tribute to people who have that ability of promoting knowledge," added Amenábar. "The real heroes in the movie are not the ones who use their swords but the ones who use their mind." "It definitely has ideas in it that you don't normally see in blockbusters," said Weisz. "But why not? Why not have a blockbuster about science?" I looked at several to see if anyone else had noted the same historical problems that Tim has. Most seem to regard it as a documentary. |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on May 30, 2010 8:13:00 GMT
The irony of Amenabar's statement is just staggering.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 31, 2010 0:34:40 GMT
In the review at Slate.com, did anyone read the comments of "Historian"?
He seems strangely familiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 31, 2010 2:36:27 GMT
The irony of Amenabar's statement is just staggering. Merkavah, If you are referring to this comment. "The real heroes in the movie are not the ones who use their swords but the ones who use their mind."
I could not agree more. It is rather ironic. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on May 31, 2010 10:20:00 GMT
So, where do we think Amenabar et al DID get their information from?
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 31, 2010 11:35:16 GMT
In the review at Slate.com, did anyone read the comments of "Historian"? He seems strangely familiar. In the words of Tony Stark: "Okay - I am Iron Man."  |
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on May 31, 2010 14:38:56 GMT
So, where do we think Amenabar et al DID get their information from? There was a "historical consultant" mentioned in one of the reviews, but I've never heard of the person. I think they wrote a book called " The Rise and Fall of Alexandria"... Excellent and highly entertaining review Tim, as always! I was expecting this movie to be bad, but I'm truly mystified by the inclusion of the Galileo-style heliocentric stuff. One could easily make a fantastic political thriller movie about Galileo's misadventures, but he has his own story... why did they decide to rip if off here? I suppose that if they were really determined to go for the contemporary-creationist-analogy vibe I seem to be getting off this film, they should have culled something genuine from ancient Greek philosophy and made pseudo-Hypatia an Aristotelian who denies the world has a beginning in time... |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 1, 2010 14:43:29 GMT
Have you seen Robin Hood yet! It has the French using DDay style landing craft (Higgins Boats) in their invasion of England. It has to be the most one sided final battle i've ever seen. Not only are the French army stuck at the bottom of the cliff with archers at the top, they couldn't even get out of their boats properly without pitching them over (in fact it felt like the entire sequence had been staged principally so Ridley Scott could show the frogs getting shot by arrows underwater). The final straw was when Maid Marion showed up at the end with the 'Lost Boys' and they started laying into the French army like Ninjas. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 1, 2010 16:30:30 GMT
So, where do we think Amenabar et al DID get their information from? There was a "historical consultant" mentioned in one of the reviews, but I've never heard of the person. I think they wrote a book called " The Rise and Fall of Alexandria"... Judging by the movie, the historical consultant was one Edward Gibbon who once wrote a book called 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Best of all, he's been dead for centuries so his consultancy rates are pretty darn low. |
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Jun 2, 2010 9:34:10 GMT
Have you seen Robin Hood yet! Yes. It was one of the worst films I have ever seen, both in terms of plot and historical accuracy. The D-day boats and masked gnomes fighting in the silly final battle are nothing compared to Russell Crowe's bizarre Irish/Yorkshire hybrid accent, the terrible breathy Celtic music layered thickly over everything, anachronistic 17-th century Chartist barons, and the total lack of characterisation among any of the leads except King John, who gets the biographical equivalent of a drive-by shooting! But, all that said, in terms of recent bad blockbusters Robin Hood is as nothing compared to "Sex and the City 2", which is an atrocity which almost made me want to wish for the immediate destruction of the entire Civilisation that produced it. |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jun 2, 2010 11:05:24 GMT
Have you seen Robin Hood yet! But, all that said, in terms of recent bad blockbusters Robin Hood is as nothing compared to "Sex and the City 2", which is an atrocity which almost made me want to wish for the immediate destruction of the entire Civilisation that produced it. Oh please...if you think that's bad, you should've seen the two Micheal Bay "Transformers" movies: it's like being exposed to weapon-grade stupidity. I could actually FEEL my inner child being held down and bludgeoned with a dead parrot. |
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Jun 2, 2010 11:37:52 GMT
Oh, believe me, I have seen both, and I still stand by what I said! At least the Transformers films were an interesting psychological exercise, as I suspect that they accurately represent what's going on all the time inside Michael Bay's head, exposed for all to see. In contrast I have no idea what group of people SATC2 was produced for, other than perhaps as a piece of mindless indulgence on behalf of the cast. It was so spectacularly out of touch with the current economic reality it would have been cutting satire if the jokes hadn't been so crushingly unfunny and every single character being either unbearably boring or totally unlikeable, shrill harridans.
|
|
