Keep in mind that "immersive" and "historically accurate" aren't the same thing, a point touched on in the video. For th
-
She's Got Marty Feldman Eyes — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 08:48 PM)
I'm gonna comment because I've seen a few of these…
Quest for fire is really an incredible flick!
Rome is one of my favorite hbo productions…wish it could have been fleshed out more like the creators intended.
Lighthouse is an odd flick that had me wishing the entire time that I had some LSD to drop.
Das boot is the reason I stopped wanting to live on a submarine as a kid
For my list id probably say raging bull and
Gangs of New York…but im kind of an idiot and may not truly understand the topic lol -
sheetsadam1 — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 08:55 PM)
Gangs of New York is a good one… Immersive, for sure.
Raging Bull wouldn't have came immediately to mind for me because it would have seemed too recent when it was made to be "historical." But that's also true of the two WWII-related movies on his list.
Draft Barron Trump -
-
sheetsadam1 — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 09:08 PM)
One major one that he is missing is
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
, Werner Herzog's masterpiece imo.
And since you mentioned two Scorsese movies, I'm assuming you've watched
Silence
? That one was super underrated, in my opinion.
Draft Barron Trump -
sheetsadam1 — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 09:36 PM)
Sure, although I'd have went with
The Witch
. Robert Eggers is the best director of historical fiction in the current generation and there isn't even a particularly close number two. The fact that he also happens to be a highly effective horror director has no bearing on this. Horror stories have, after all, been a part of human culture for millennia.
Draft Barron Trump -
sheetsadam1 — 5 months ago(October 13, 2025 10:01 PM)
After giving it some thought, my list would be…
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972, Werner Herzog)
Barry Lyndon (1975, Stanley Kubrick)
The Witch (2015, Robert Eggers)
The Devils (1971, Ken Russell)
Ran (1985, Akira Kurosawa)
Matewan (1987, John Sayles)
Gangs of New York (2002, Martin Scorsese)
The Name of the Rose (1986, Jean-Jacques Annaud)
Downfall (2004, Oliver Hirschbiegel)
Lincoln (2012, Steven Spielberg)
Draft Barron Trump -
Paul P. Powell — 5 months ago(October 14, 2025 02:25 PM)
Ermm? That list is bizarre and even slightly clownish. Interesting discussion topic though, so …bravo for that.
But I see only one historical epic listed, which can accurately be called a historical epic.
"Barry Lyndon"
The rest do not belong. Allow me to explain why.
~'Quest for Fire' is a caveman film.
~'Apocalypto' is wilderness survival (unoriginal –plot stolen from "
Naked Prey
").
~'Rome'(?) A cable TV series. Immediate forfeit. But also because, it's Roman Empire. Not even Kubrick's epic "
Spartacus"
counts as 'historical'
~'Ran' is a Japanese movie. Scratch that from the list.
~'Lighthouse' (?) recent-release boohjwaah.
~'Das Boot' is a WWII movie.
~Russian productions don't count at all (with possible exception of Eisenstein)
What does count as 'historical epic'?
~The first criteria should be that the production is American or English.
~The time period depicted in the film, must be relevant to western civ in the 1700s or 1800s. Earlier settings are 'colonial' or 'Easterns'. Later films (1900s onward) are modern, made in the age of cinema.
~The events in the story must be significant and influential (Waterloo, etc)
~The nation depicted in the story can either be French or English. Occasionally a little leeway (Swedish, Greek, medieval, Brit Raj, New World conquest, etc) but not much.
~'Epic' means a sprawling story with wide swathes of society depicted. Rich men, poor men. Not little bands of hominids clad in loincloths.
~Cinematography should be lush; luscious. Or else gritty, B&W, chiascuro.
~Purely military movies are almost all excluded. Example:
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"
by Tony Richardson.
~Roman Empire doesn't usually count. That is either the 'Bible epic' category or 'sword n sandals' category.
Bearing these principles in mind, if I was to rattle off some titles it might be some of these:
"Ben-Hur"
(dir by George Stevens)
"Tom Jones"
(dir by Tony Richardson)
"Doctor Zhivago"
(dir by David Lean)
"A Man for All Seasons"
(dir by Fred Zinnemann)
"Gone with the Wind"
dir by Fleming)
"Napoleon"
(dir: Abel Gance)
"The Earrings of Madame de …"
(dir: Max Ophuls)
"Lola Montes'
" (dir: Max Ophuls)
"Chimes at Midnight"
(dir: Orson Welles)
"Barry Lyndon"
(dir by Stanley Kubrick)
"The Leopard"
(dir: Luchino Visconti)
"Aquirre, the Wrath of God"
(dir: Werner Herzog)
"The Duellists"
(dir: Ridley Scott)
"The Three Musketeers"
(dir: Alex & Ilya Salkind)
"The Return of Martin Guarre"
(dir: Vigne')
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame"
(dir: William Wellman)
"Children of Paradise"
(dir: Carne')
"La Nuit Da Varrenes"
(dir: Scola)
"Around the World in Eighty Days"
(dir: Todd)
"The French Lieutenant's Woman"
(dir by Reisz)
"The Mission"
(dir by Joffe, written by Bolt)
"The Taming of the Shrew"
(dir by Zefferelli]
"Jezebel"
(dir by Stevens)
Some of these are really, really obvious-essential-fundamental. They should be on any such list whereas most of the others mentioned in this thread are loony.
But even this quikref above leaves out a lot of B&W classics by guys like Josef Von Sternberg and Erich Von Stroheim. I even left out the 1926 version of "
Ben Hur"
.
Also omitted: Rod Steiger in '
Waterloo
' and all versions of '
War and Peace
'.
Paul P. Powell, Pool Player -
Paul P. Powell — 5 months ago(October 15, 2025 05:55 PM)
Caligula?
Good one. Bravo.
The only issue is that it is not a competent movie in terms of audience satisfaction, audience reward. No one watches it more than once.
But the production values are certainly present. I salute you for recalling this title to mind.
Peter O'Toole in
"Masada"
is a similar, except in that is a TV mini-series. Bears no comparison to a feature-film.
Or: Alec Guinness in
"The Fall of the Roman Empire"
. Superb location shooting but characters no one cared about.
"Quo Vadis
" –Martin Scorcese secretly likes this dog but it failed for just about everyone else. One of the costliest flops ever.
Liz and Dick in
"Cleopatra
" is yet another Biblical epic which everyone naturally assumes was a disaster –and maybe it was –but the fact is, it did recoup all it's investment cost.
Still …who ever re-watches it these days? Lush though it may be, it doesn't deserve a spot on any 'best-of' list.
Paul P. Powell, Pool Player -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 15, 2025 06:31 PM)
I saw Ridley Scott's
Kingdom of Heaven
, director's cut, lately on the big screen and that was pretty immersive. I would also add
Zulu
to the list.
I would certainly recommend
Come and See
one of the finest of all war films, imho.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
Paul P. Powell — 5 months ago(October 16, 2025 01:09 PM)
I would recommend Come and See one of the finest of all war films, imho.
I'll take your word for it.
Reason: because to my way of thinking, who would I root for in a war movie like that?
Bolsheviks vs Nazis, is a lose/lose situation. Those scum can all speed directly to hell straightaway, as far as I'm concerned!
I've seen some excellent Russkie movies –and I'm a fan of Eisenstein, Stanislavsky, etc –but I'm probably not adding this one to my list.
Paul P. Powell, Pool Player -
filmflaneur — 5 months ago(October 16, 2025 06:47 PM)
who would I root for in a war movie like that? Bolsheviks vs Nazis, is a lose/lose situation. Those scum
Without wishing to get into a political discussion, IMHO Klimnov's grim masterpiece shows the sheer horror of war more, and its effects on the human than any other film I know, rather than make a patriotic statement about the Stalin regime. I know though that, due to the power of the piece, it was in the past used for propaganda purposes. (As it happens I must admit that I like Soviet and Russian WW2 films though, of which plenty can be found on YouTube) It puts the over-lauded and sentimental
Private Ryan
, for instance (which, incidentally, contains a clear reference to the Russian epic at one point), quite in the shade. I think you'd be missing out on quite an experience.
At the risk of blowing my trumpet too much, and in case anyone is interested, I wrote an extensive review of the film here:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/review/rw0987277/?ref_=tturv_perm_6
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
Paul P. Powell — 5 months ago(October 16, 2025 12:01 PM)
Good thread so far.
The OP could easily make a companion discussion to this one for "period pieces"
It's a fine distinction I'm drawing here; but a "period piece" is not quite a "historical epic".
I'd toss these immediately into the hat
"Chariots of Fire"
(I forget who directed this)
"The Great Gatsby"
(adaptation by Ford Coppola)
"The Sand Pebbles"
(Robert Wise)
"The Garden of the Fintzi-Continas"
(Berdolucci)
"Berlin Alexanderplatz"
(Fassbinder's 9? 13? hour long blowout?)
Paul P. Powell, Pool Player -
PygmyLion — 5 months ago(October 16, 2025 08:51 PM)
I tend to go for war movies and their slice of history
WWI:
Gallipoli
1981
All Quiet on the Western Front
1930
WW II
Saving Pvt Ryan
1998
Battleground
1949
Civil War
The Red Badge of Courage
1951
The Horse Soldiers
1959
Braveheart
1995
Dealing with American Indians
Drums Along the Mohawk
1939
The Big Sky
1952
Of course, there are some good Naval and Air Force movies out there too.