Title: movies-msg
Subject: Movies of interest to SCA folks.
Author: Edited by Mark S. Harris
Last saved by: Mark S. Harris
Keywords: movie, SCA, medieval, review, film, plot, rating

movies-msg - 3/17/08

Reviews of medieval and renaissance movies.

NOTE: See also the files: info-sources-msg, med-letters-msg, publications-msg, videos-msg, masks-msg, puppets-msg, theater-bib, theater-msg.

KEYWORDS: movie review medieval period renaissance

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca (Donna Hrynkiw)
Date: 3 Jan 90 18:15:00 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism
Subject: Movie Review: Henry V

I can't believe that nobody else has posted about this yet...

Went to see the new Henry V movie on New Year's Day with some other SCA
folks (in our party of 4 there were two Laurels and two Knights - and I'm
not a peer).

Overall impression: Excellent. An SCA must-see. Don't wait for the video,
see it on the big screen.

Diverse comments:
- remembering that this is Shakespeare and not necessarily real history...
- a young welshman (who's name escapes me at the moment - d*amn!)
  adapted the play for screen, directed AND starred as Harry.
  Did an excellent job.
- costumes are not magnificent/opulent/glittery, but IMHO fairly accurate
  and probably very close to what a nobleman would wear day-to-day. They
  reminded me very much of SCA-wear. (Especially the cloaks and surcoats.)
- effective use of narrator ("Chorus").
- Too many close-ups of Henry's face during his speeches.
- good to see Henry and other nobility wearing heraldic surcoats. I wonder
  if the mundanes realized the significance? Also: watch for French nobility
  in their fancy-quilted gambezons.
- armour is a bit sparse, but according to the Laurel-for-Armour in our
  party: "Wow! I want that!" Watch for the brass stars and trim.
- helps to know a little French. Used in two scenes: Catherine,
  Princess of France in conversation with her Lady-in-Waiting and near the
  end where Henry is asking Catherine for her hand. (Both scenes very
  amusing, understanding French or not.)
- Agincourt battle scene: awesome. If for no other reason, you *must* see
  this movie for the battle scene. Don't wait for it to come out on
  video - this deserves the big screen.
- Personally, I think they placed too much emphasis on the showers of arrows
  from the English longbows. But then again, it *is* an English production.
  (And Knight in our party claims that the English didn't charge at
  Agincourt.)
- I'm not familiar with Shakespeare's Henry V - does Part I really end
  with the humorous scene of mostly English-speaking Henry asking mostly
  French-speaking Catherine for her hand in marriage? I found the contrast
  between the desperation, violence and gore of the battlefield with the
  light love-banter a little jarring.
- Effective use of humour. In one scene, the night before the big battle,
  Henry dons a cloak and goes among his men anonymously to hear what they
  have to say. One soldier, in the course of his discourse, strikes the
  "stranger" with a glove. His reaction when the King returns the glove
  is priceless.

But after all is said and done, I want to see this movie again before it
leaves the theatre. And then I want a copy for my video library and maybe
I'll even look for the soundtrack (great welsh chorus).

Elizabeth Braidwood                       Donna Hrynkiw
Barony of Lions Gate, Kingdom of An Tir   Kwantlen College
donna at envy.kwantlen.bc.ca                 Surrey, B.C. 
*/   Things won are done; joy's soul lies in the doing.
                                   -Troilus & Cressida   /*

From: inmet!justin at UUNET.UU.NET (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks)
Date: 4 Jan 90 15:07:16 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism

Elizabeth Braidwood asks why no one else has posted to recommend the
new film of Henry V. Good question; I'm not sure how I overlooked doing
so myself. (I've only been telling everyone in Carolingia (at some
length) to go see it for the past two weeks!)

Well, I'll echo her recommendation: this is a *marvel* of a movie, one
of the best adaptations of Shakespeare to film I've seen yet. The director/
producer/adaptor/star is named Kenneth Branaugh, as I recall (spelling
probably mangled); his acting is quite good, the production and adaptation
are excellent, and the direction is top-notch. (The only fault in the
direction is that he isn't as good directing himself as he is the rest of
the cast.)

Lessee; little points...

The heraldry is *really* neat, and looks quite authentic to my half-
trained eye; I suspect that the heraldry used is generally historically
accurate.

Brian Blessed is marvelous playing Essex. (Granted, he's playing Essex
playing Brian Blessed, but he's always *so* entertaining...)

I have mixed feelings about the Agincourt scene. It's very ... realistic.
That is to say, it's *very* long, and *very* bloody. On the other hand,
it's quite dramatic, and seemed pretty true to what history I know about
the battle. Yes, they put quite a bit of emphasis on the archery; on the
other hand, those arrows *were* pretty important in the battle. (Of course,
I went to see it on a Carolingian Company of Bowmen field trip, so it's
a tad hard to be impartial in this matter...)

As for buying the tape when it comes out: yes, yes, yes! This is the
fourth movie I've ever decided is worth full price, *whatever* the full
price is, out of my fairly huge tape collection. (For reference, the
other three are Knightriders, Lion in Winter, and Fantasia.) Definitely
a film worth keeping for posterity...

Ah, I'm missing it already. Fortunately, I'm running another trip to
go see it tonight...

                                -- Justin du Coeur
                                   Fan of good medieval cinema

From: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Goldschmidt)
Date: 4 Jan 90 20:04:01 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

I saw the film in Berkeley before Christmas.  The Agincourt scenes are
definitely a must-see, but I found the dialogue quite difficult to
understand, (esp. the heady dialects and French parts).  Perhaps it was
partly the acoustics of the theatre.

The Herald (Montjoy) and the heraldry were extremely well done.  The
St. Crispin's Day speach should be memorized by every King who ever
hopes to lead troops in battle.

Those were my impressions.

mka: STephen Goldschmidt 
aka: Juls Siwaldsen
net: aluko at portia.Stanford.EDU (If your mail bounces, don't post it!)
geo: Palo Alto, California USA
phone: (415)494-1748

From: joshua at paul.rutgers.edu (Joshua Mittleman)
Date: 8 Jan 90 17:50:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Greetings from Arval!

My lady and I went to see Henry V last weekend, and loved it.  It is
grand, splendid, spectacular, and good Shakespeare.  Derek Jacobi
makes a fine chorus.  The interpretation is different from Olivier's
version, but quite valid.  BTW: If anyone out there HASN'T seen
Olivier's Henry V, Shame on you!  Rent it & watch it.  It is better.

However...  Any medievalist seeing the new Henry would have some
quibbles.  If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to skip the rest
of this posting.  It has a few minor spoilers

Did anyone else notice the following, positive and negative?

Negative:

...The only full suit of armor in the movie was 3 or 4 hundered years
out-of-period? 

...Why don't warriors in movie wear helmets in battle?

...Why did they all get off their horses to fight in the mud?

...Why didn't they show us the French charge.  I know it would have
been expensive, but after that build-up, it would have been WONDERFUL!

...In the scene after the battle, did you notice that two of the dead
bodies twitched?

...Are we really supposed to believe that the King of England lives in
such Spartan surroundings?

...Phooey.  They cut the scene where Fluellen makes Pistol eat a leek.
Olivier's version did that so well.

...There were only two pieces of heraldry used before the battle.
Seems odd to me.

...Where was the English herald?  He's in the script, and should have
been there (Professional jealousy).  And, they cut my favorite line,
when, after one of the scenes between Henry & Mountjoy, Henry tooses
him a bag of gold, saying "Here's for your troubles."  :)

Positive: 

...Did you notice that the treaty signed in the last scene has an
illuminated capital?

...The heraldry in the battle made up for lots of the negatives.  Wow!

...Period tennis balls!!

...I love that they made all the noblemen young, just like they should
be!!  A lot of the play is much more believable when Henry, the
Dauphin, etc. are in their twenties, rather than their forties.

...Was the actor who played Essex REALLY the same guy who fought Danny
kaye in the Court Jester?  No, not really, but he sure looked the
same!

Awaiting your flames :)

        Arval.
========================================================================
Joshua Mittleman (joshua at paul.rutgers.edu or mittle at ibm.com)
H0-E12 T.J. Watson Research Center
PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

From: WAXY at CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (Wendy Alberg)
Date: 8 Jan 90 16:57:58 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism

William de Corbie mentions Polanski's Macbeth, which appeared here in
late '72 or early '73 and then vanished.  It's a very real-feeling film,
not stagey or self-conscious; it was so real I found it terrifying.  It
is a very good film nonetheless.    -Gwdiauwen

Gwdiauwen ferch Gwdolwyn                            Wendy Alberg
Dominion of Myrkfaelinn                             Ithaca, NY
BITNET:   WAXY at CORNELLA
Internet: waxy at cornella.cit.cornell.edu

From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Edward Fitzgerald)
Date: 22 Feb 91 08:32:24 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

Mercy,mercy ME! My dear, hast thou not heard that "Henry V", new version, is
now available? And what about Ladyhawk, Dragonslayer, and Highlander? 
(Admittedly the last three have a strong streak of fantasy/SF...but my friends
all have copies! :) Oh, and despite the terrible fantasy armor, Excalibur has
some good points...certainly no worse than Black Shield of Falworth!

(And to soothe the nerves of us high-strung Gaels I very strongly recommend a
little thing by Tapestry Productions/Paramount called "Portrait of Ireland" with NO dialogue...just swooping vistas of Ireland accompanied by music by Enya, James Galway, and The Chieftains. May be hard to find, but very lovely!)

For the smalls..."Castle" and "Cathedral", educational partly animated videos by the same fellow who drew the books of the same name. (Look in your local library for these last three if you're lucky enough to have one that has videos like ours does!

Oh, and in the same vein as "Portrait" is a video of "Prague Castle" with some
lovely, spooky effects as the camera plunges and swirls through the huge castle
and its many chapels, accompanied by music. Whoever the Czech film crew were,
they were true artists! Distributed in the US by Kaw Valley Films.

Happy hunting, and enjoy! :)

Elaine NicMaoilan, who hopes you are as thrilled with Henry V, Portrait, and
Prague, as she!   :)

From: Colin_Hart at mindlink.UUCP (Colin Hart)
Date: 21 Feb 91 13:47:59 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

One more movie not to forget or miss is REVENGE OF THE BARBARIANS, despite its
title an excellent movie on the Norse and a raid on Ireland by some Vikings and
the problems that it leads to. This is a Swedish film and really good. On the
other hand their is Lee Majors starring in the Norsemen. This should be junked
for starters! Norsemen in furry bikinis horned helms etc! It gets even better,
the leader Lee Majors often dons his armour, looks suspiciously like Italian
Renaissance Parade Armour! also the Longship has a cabin below deck with a
least at a guess a 12 foot ceiling! One of our local Norse types would like to
buy every copy in existance and destroy them! Great movie for all the
Hollywood Cliches, but definately not period!

Colin Mackay of Balmaghie, Lions Gate An Tir

From: david at twg.com (David S. Herron)
Date: 25 Feb 91 21:32:37 GMT
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA

Jabberwocky     -- humorous, yes, and at the same time rather accurate
                   in some more gruesome period aspects. (Monty Python)

Pathfinder      -- An old Lapp legend about a kid who returns home from
                   hunting to see his family be murdered.  Runs away &
                   has adventures & eventually revenges the murder.  The
                   acters & producers & everything is by native Lapp Landers.
                   *GOOD*

                   It was circulating about the bay area last summer

Cyrano          -- George Depardieu playing the ultimate fop.  It's
                   waaaaaay out of period for me, so it wasn't so
                   interesting.  But still very good and gave me a
                   good chance to practice listening to French.  It
                   is currently circulating about the bay area.

Knight Riders   -- Er.. well, it's not period.  But is SCA-related ;-).

        David
-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david at twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david at ms.uky.edu>

From: lefaivre at lclark.UUCP (Rick Lefaivre)
Date: 27 Feb 91 00:43:46 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

 A really good movie that seems to have been overlooked is "The
Return of Martin Guerre."  It is a French movie with English 
subtitles and does a most fantastic job of recreating a French
medieval village and has a captivating plot line to boot.  I
highly recommend this film to everyone.

-- Rick LeFaivre

From: CONS.ELF at AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg)
Date: 28 Feb 91 22:28:01 GMT
 
Greetings from William de Corbie!
 
If you aren't determined to see all films in a cinema, there is a
very good Ivanhoe on Video. It was made for television, as far as
I can see from the text on my copy, but it has the format of a
real movie theatre film. Starring James Mason, Olivia Hussey
and several other stars. Contains VERY GOOD jousting scenes
and has very good, authentic equipment (though at least parts
of it is a little later in style than the 12th century, but
nothing that sticks out as out-of-period).
 
I recommend this wholeheartedly if you can find it over there.
I believe it was made around 1980.
 
There is also a very long video film entitled "The power of
the Sword" in Swedish -- original title unknown -- which comes
on two cassettes and tells the life and times of William the
Conqueror. This has a lot of fighting and very good costuming,
but rather poor actors. Worth seeing, though.

William

From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)
Date: 27 Feb 91 18:52:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

One more to add to the list is a VERY hard to find film,
*The Sword and the Dragon*
  This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of
the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale!  The
movie was wonderful!  Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it,
it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also...  Costuming was great, story
was charming, acting was of the "Larger than life" style that one finds in the
Kalevala or Mabinogian type of tales.  My squire and I got it because it had
"cast of dozens, ten thousand horses!" on the credits, and it was correct.
The ten-thousand horses part came towards the end during what looked like a 
real Mongul horse-charge!  The story is kind-of an Ivanhoe sort, I can't 
really explain it, I guess that I'll need to see it again!

Kevin - Outlands

From: 0002853615 at mcimail.COM (William Linden)
Date: 5 Mar 91 02:37:00 GMT

Reply-to: Alfgar the Sententious (0002853615 at MCIMAIL.COM)
  In <9040005 at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Dennis Clark <dlc at hpfcso.fc.hp.com> writes:
>*The Sword and the Dragon*
>  This movies had some american nonsense tacked onto the front and the end of
>the film, but the middle was a very obviously dubbed slavic fairy-tale!  The
>movie was wonderful!  Slavic may also be misleading, because as I think on it,
>it seemed to be somewhat Finnish in nature also...  Costuming was great, story
 No, Russian! It is a very loose adaptation of the sagas of Ilya Murometz and 
the Golden Table champions of Kiev.

From: CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")
Date: 16 Apr 91 03:47:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Greetings from William de Corbie.

I just got home after seeing a really good movie which
should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's
"Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who
cares.
The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with
the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful.
The photography is masterly, there are great battle
scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and
Hollywood could never have made it.
See it.

William

From:_Hollie Domiano
Subject: A great film
Date: 18 Apr 91

On the <Apr 16 20:13>, "]ke Eldberg" (1:114/15 at v_p) whispered in my ear: 
 "E>Greetings from William de Corbie.

 "E>I just got home after seeing a really good movie which
 "E>should suit most of us SCAdians. It is Gerard Depardieu's
 "E>"Cyrano". This is 17th century, i.e. not period, but who
 "E>cares.
 "E>The story is about Cyrano de Bergerac, the fencer with
 "E>the enormous nose. It is fun, tragic, moving, beautiful.
 "E>The photography is masterly, there are great battle
 "E>scenes, wit, poetry, duels. The film is French, and
 "E>Hollywood could never have made it.
 "E>See it.

 Greetings, m'lord William.
 I saw Cyrano myself and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Gerard Depardieu was ìfantastic, and the nose was very convincing makeup.  As for the period, well, ìthere is some controversy about it, but I like cavalier costuming.  Our barony ìhad a cavalier event last year.
Four stars!

Ysabeau Madeleine deRouen
Axemoor, Meridies

From: esp at cup.portal.com (Emily Sue Pinnell)
Date: 16 Apr 91 04:56:21 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Another great film for SCAdians starring the same actor is "The
Return of Martin Guerre."  Also French, it is period, and is fantastic.
Everyone should see it.  (My own humble opinion.)

                        Amelie d'Anjou

From: klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Karen Williams)
Date: 4 Jun 91 20:56:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

CONS.ELF at aida.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes:
>From the latest Robin Hood movie (the one with Patrick Bergin)
>I quote:
 
>(Will Scarlet berating a Norman baron:)
 
>       "A land ruled by thieves, robbers, murderers and autocrats!"
><snicker>

I got a chuckle out of that one, too.

I saw this movie last night (through the magic of videotape), and I was
impressed. When I first saw Robin Hood, I thought, "Hey, he's dressed like
a Saxon!" And the Normans were dressed like Normans, and had Norman haircuts,
and carried Norman kites and spears, and had Norman helms. And the Saxon 
clothes were different from the Norman clothes, and everything. 

Of course, I wasn't surprised when I saw in the credits that the historical
advisor was Professor Sir James Holt, who is the premier Robin Hood scholar
around.

Branwen ferch Emrys
The Mists, the West
--
                                                   Karen Williams
                                                   klw30 at duts.ccc.amdahl.com

From: mittle at blinn.watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Date: 14 Jun 91 20:05:14 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw.  Better to rent the Errol Flynn
version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home.

        Arval.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1)

by Vincent Canby

If you let a bunch of unskilled carpenters loose in Sherwood Forest, don't
be surprised if you wind up with a load of kindling.

That's about the only coherent response to Kevin Reynold's "Robin Hood:
Prince of Thieves," starring Kevin Costner as that once-merry man Robin of
Locksley, aka Robin Hood.  The new movie is a mess, a big, long, joyless
reconstruction of the Robin Hood legend that comes out firmly for civil
rights, feminism, religious freedom, and economic opportunity for all.

...

It's a measure of hwo muddled the movie is that the only two entertaining
characters are subsidiary: Robin's beloved Marian, a beautiful,
intelligent, strong-willed woman played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and
the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman
with a wit and humor that are otherwise not found in the film.

Mr. Costner and his associates seem to ahve approached their subject
without a clear idea about the kind of move they wanted to make.  In the
production notes, there are jokey references to the classic 1938 version
and the fact that Mr. Costner refused to wear the sort of green tights
sported by Errol Flynn's Robin Hood.

It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters.

...

It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have
their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20
pounds heavier than he does that same evening.

With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem.
He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his
fans.  He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself...  This Robin Hood gives
the impression of being lethargic and dull.  Sometimes he may be
under-acting.  At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all...

From: dlc at hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)
Date: 19 Jun 91 22:33:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

/ badorion at watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian A. Dorion) / writes:

>In article <9106171724.AA20900 at inmet.inmet.com> justin at inmet.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks) writes:
>>
>>The cast was fine, except for a minor annoyance named Kevin Costner. Having
>>the only really conspicuous American accent in the cast, he managed to mouth
>>pretty speeches in a rather lifeless manner. 
>
>???????????????????????????????????????????
>
>I have to ask, wasn't Christian Slater in the movie you saw?  Every time
>"Will Scarlet" opened his mouth, it was like getting kicked in the teeth.
>I thought his american accent was much, much worse than Kevin Costner's.
>
>Overall the best comment that I heard was that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
>was a live action cartoon, and the actors who did best were those like the
>sheriff who recognized that they were in a cartoon.

  I agree completely.  Azeem, the Sheriff (and his cousin), Marian, and several
others overplayed their parts to the larger-than-life theme quite well.  Rather
like the job that Kurt Russel did in _Big Trouble in Little China_.  Costner
_underplayed_ his part, he almost seemed embarassed to be Robin; he would have
done better to ham it up for this movie.
  Still, it was a fun movie.  Good action, good characterization, even the 
majority of the garb was period, though not all of the same period, rather like
the SCA...
  I had hoped for better, but for the price I payed it was worth it.  I and 
about 50 other SCA-types got in for free by doing a demo for opening night.
The theatre asked us back in the fall, to do one for this movie in the fall!?

>Brian Dorion                   Konrad Matthias Jager
>----------
Kevin MacKinnon - Unser Hafen - Outlands

From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair)
Date: 17 Jun 91 02:15:19 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

> So much for this summer's big SCAdian draw.  Better to rent the Errol Flynn
> version, and Connery's 'Robin and Marian", and do a double feature at home.

    I had a somewhat better appraisal of the film, but that IS a damn good time
at home.

> 
> (excerpts from The New York Times, 14 June 1991, p.C1)
> 
> by Vincent Canby

> the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by Morgan Freeman

      Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend prior to
the Douglas Fairbanks film.
      I found the more fully fleshed Will Scarlet intriguing, and Alan Rickman
( the Sherrif) gives a typical good performance (mixed w/ off-center humor).

> It takes chutzpah to look down upon your betters.

  True enough.

> It is just one of the film's oddities that when Robin and Little John have
> their initial encounter on the bridge, Mr. Costner's Robin seems a good 20
> pounds heavier than he does that same evening.

        Trivial.

> With or without the extra weight, Mr. Costner is the film's big problem.
> He plays Robin as if the character were a movie star being gracious to his
> fans.  He is polite, but he doesn't exert himself...  This Robin Hood gives
> the impression of being lethargic and dull.  Sometimes he may be
> under-acting.  At other times, he seems to be doing nothing at all...

    True. But, perhaps the view of Robin not a charismatic Hero, but as
(roughly) highly-motivated Everyman is the look he was after.

            I recall your review of HENRY V. What do you think of the actual
LOOK of the film (Grimy castles, costumes, etc.)?

                  -J

From: Ioseph
Subject: Re: Arval's Robin Hood review
Date: 21 Jun 91 

 TU>From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair) 
 
 TU>> the screenwriters' own invention, Azeem, a Moor, played by 
 TU>Morgan Freeman 
 TU> 
 TU>      Wrong. Azeem (Azim) appears rather frequently in the legend 
 TU>prior to the Douglas Fairbanks film. 
 
???????????? Would you tell me -where- he appears? As a -rabid- Robin Hood 
fan <grin> I would remember such....and such a person appears nowhere in the  ballads (to my knowledge) nor in the published versions of the story (of which I prefer Howard Pyle's)..... 
 
                                                -Ioseph of Locksley 
                                                  (the -original-) 

From: jakos at DPW.COM (Ceilene Jakos)
Date: 19 Jun 91 13:49:07 GMT
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY

Rented "King Arthur--Young Warlord" last night and thought it
was murky, messy and muddy enough to be an accurate accounting
of an 'historical' legend!  To my untrained eye, it was GOOD.

                              Thea

From: artemis at hlafdig.stonemarche.ORG (Diana Goldsmithe)
Date: 14 Jul 91 06:00:47 GMT

        In all this talk of period matches and movies I had to
share this one: we took out an old movie called *Knights of the
Round Table* starring Robert Taylor and (I think) Ava Gabor.
It said on the box it was a classic, and I certainly think
everyone in the SCA would enjoy it- especially the tournament
they have for Lancelot when he comes back from Scotland ("the
Scots are revolting" says Lancelot, "The Scots are always revolting"
says Arthur. Well, `in revolt', but my mind turned it around the
right way) I won't tell you why you'll like the tourney- when
someone goes out and rents it and sees, they can tell you.
        But anyway, while Lancelot is up in Scotland he is caught
by a Pictish ambush, and his archers use this nifty little 
gadget with a tiny bellows attached to a fire box to light 
their flaming arrows. If someone could tell me whether the 
producers made it up, or whether they really had something like
that, it would ease my mind considerably.
        
        Thank you                       Arastorm

From: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko)
Date: 26 Jul 91 23:09:21 GMT
Organization: Benden Weyr, Saskatoon Sk. (306)-382-5746

Greetings from Werewulf of London! Yes, that's documentable! Seriosly, 
though, an excellent period movie is Lion in Winter. It stars 
Elizabeth Taylor as Elenor of Aquitaine. Peter O'Toole plays King 
Henry. a much more recent one is called Sorceress. It is in French 
with English Subtitles. It is a true story based on a manuscript in 
the French equivalent of the British Museum Library. There is Erik the 
Viking, if you want something silly. It stars John Cleese as Halfdan 
the Black.
These are the only ones I can remember right now. There is an early 
film about Henry and Elenor. I can"t remember it's name right now. 
Avoid it like it was plutonium- laced plague rats.
By the way, my persona's name is actually Layamon of York. Werewulf is 
my alter ego persona.
--  
Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22
UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko
Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG
Standard Disclaimers Apply...

From: moss at cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Date: 27 Jul 91 15:42:41 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

Elizabeth Taylor as Eleanor of Aquitaine in Lion in Winter? It was Katherine
Hepburn and she got an Academy Award for it. Still a great film, though!

Aell Aethelwita, called Ellethel
Bergental, East Kingdom
--

                J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor
                Department of Computer Science
                Lederle Graduate Research Center
                University of Massachusetts
                Amherst, MA  01003
                (413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss at cs.umass.edu

From: rhe6 at quads.uchicago.edu (mindy miriam rheingold)
Date: 27 Jul 91 16:34:47 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

_Lion in Winter_ stars Katherine Hepburn, not Liz Taylor, as Eleanor.  It
also features Timothy Dalton and the actor who played Arthur in Excalibur.

Another great movie is _The Return of Martin Guerre_ (French, with subtitles),
which is based on actual 16th century French court documents.

One caveat about Lion in Winter: even though it has some of the best lines
in cinema history ("I made Louis take me on a Crusade, etc...), some of them
are rather anachronistic.  I do not think, for example, that Eleanor of
Aquitane would really have said "It's 1193, we're all barbarians," a)
because seh would have felt no need to mention the date, and b) because
she wouldn't have thought of herself as a barbarian (The English, on the
other hand...)

Mindy/ Madeleine

From: rick at olivee.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Rick Meneely)
Date: 30 Jul 91 01:21:55 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

An excellent non-historical fighting scene is in "The Princess Bride"
Staged between Cary Elwess ('The man in black') and 
Mandy "... Prepare to die" Pankin (sp???).  It does an excellent job of
playing with the audience.  First it starts out as a simple line fight as
in modern fencing but bursts into evermore complex exchanges.  I would
not say that it is the most realistic fight scene but it is certainly one of
the best staged.

Romeo and Juliet:  There is an old version with Basil Rathbone (no - not as
Romeo).  He does an excellent rapier and dagger duel (and loses of course).
This is no surprize as Basil I believe was an international fencing master.
Unfortunately he made too good of a bad guy and always had to lose to that
Errol Flynn guy.  Errol Flynn by the way - was a very poor swordsman.

Robin and Marion:  This is simply an all around great film.  It has
Sean Connery (Robin), Audrey Hepburn (Marion), Robert Shaw (Sheriff) and
Nicol Williamson (Little John) - remember him from "Excalibur" (Merlin) and
"The 7 percent solution" (Sherlock Holmes).  The armor is real 
(yes - even the mail) and correct for the time period.  The fight scene
between Robin and the Sheriff is excellent.  It demonstrates the weight of
the armor well, they even take a break during the fight to recover
their wind.  Probably one of the more realistic fight scenes I've seen.
This film also does something that is very hard - it actually adds to the
Robin Hood legend instead of simply retelling it.

Some other good historical films:
---------------------------------
The Conqueror:  Charlton Heston, Tony Curtis (blaah!), Richard Boone (I think)
Very good film of the Norman era in England - even the haircuts are right.

El Cid:  Charlton Heston
The screenplay is a bit to much like a stage play but it's still worth watching.

The Return of Martin Gueirre (sp??):  Someone has already mentioned this film.
It is very well made and based on a real person.

                                        - Anatar Mael Duin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rick Meneely                        | Internet: rick at .ATC.Olivetti.Com    |
| Olivetti Advanced Technology Center |                                     |
| Cupertino, Ca 95014                 | When in Rome, do as the Visigoths...|
| Disclaimer: The buck stops...There! |            SACK IT!!!               |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Date: 1 Aug 91 05:26:30 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

In article <416.28965438 at weyr.FIDONET.ORG> Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Boyko) writes:
>Greetings from a much repentant Layamon of York! Terribly sorry to get 
>Katherine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor mixed up.
>another good period movie is The Name of the Rose, Starring Sean 
>Connery as a 13th or 14th century Franciscan who solves a series of 
>murders at an italian[?] monastery. Several caveats, though. I don't 
>think that monks ewre quite as depraved and lecherous as Umberto Eco, 
>the Author, woul like us to believe. Second, the theory behind 
>witchcraft was not as well developed in the forteenth century as it 
>was portrayed in the film. F. Murray Abraham plays an excellent 
>Inquisitor. Another strongpoint is that the various theological, 
>philosophical, and social currents of the time are accurately 
>portrayed. It is a "heavy" film, in the sense that it helps to have at 
>least some idea what the nominalist/realist debate was all about.
>Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every 
>person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be 
>wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The 
>Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it. 
>I can't remember his name offhand.
>--  
>Richard Boyko - via FidoNet node 1:140/22
>UUCP: ...!herald!weyr!Richard.Boyko
>Domain: Richard.Boyko at weyr.FIDONET.ORG
>Standard Disclaimers Apply...

Milord, you will find the movie a good deal less confusing (though no less
"heavy") if you read the book, which does give some better clues as to which
heresy was which. It also makes a lot of the motivation easier to understand.

(I recommend *both* forms.)

NicMaoilan
trifid at agora.rain.com

From: cctimar at athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles de Mar)
Date: 1 Aug 91 07:18:46 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt U. Student of Numerology

To all the fisher folk upon the Rialto doth Charles de Mar send his greetings!

Layamon of York hath written:
> Please stay away from Arthurian movies. If I had a dime for every 
> person who thinks that Excalibur is the Sword in the Stone, I would be 
> wealthy indeed. The Sword in the Stone was named Clarent. Read The 
> Sword in the Stone by the fourteenth century french poet who wrote it. 
> I can't remember his name offhand.

Is it not trouble enow to correct errors of historical fact, without
trying to make others know the same myth thou dost, with the same details
thou knowest?

The sword in the stone, to the best of my knowledge, was not a historical
fact, so its name is also not historical fact.  The best we can do is say
what the various authors say.  In the English tradition, Sir Thomas Malory
is probably the most "authoritative."  

Almost every author is agreed that Excalibur was the name of the second
sword - the one that the Lady of the Lake told Arthur to take from the hand
sticking out of her lake.  Some authors use the alternative version,
Caliburn, for the first sword, drawn from the stone, but this probably
shows a desire just to name it something.

The confusion of calling the first sword Excalibur is quite understandable:
it is the only widely accepted name of Arthur's sword.  In fact, the
mistake is made by Malory himself, making it a documentable, period error.

Arthur receives the second sword at the end of Book I, entitled, "Merlin."
Prior to that point, he uses the sword he drew from the stone.
Nonetheless, about a third of the way through this book, when Malory
describes Arthur's battle against the six kings (on p. 19 of the Vinaver
version, representing p. 9 of the Caxton edition, and probably the eighth
leaf of the Winchester manuscript (the first eight leaves are missing)) we
find:

    Syr said Merlyn to Arthur fyghte not with the swerde that ye had
    by myracle til that ye see ye go vnto the wers.  Thenne drawe it
    out and do your beste. ... and euer sir Arthur was in the formest
    prees tyl his hors was slayne vndernethe hym.  And therwith kynge
        Lot smote doune kyng Arthur.  With that his four knyghtes rescowed
        [receyved?] hym and set hym on horsback.  Thenne he drewe his
        swerd Excalibur but it was so bryght in his enemyes eyen that it
        gaf light lyke thirty torchys and therwith he put hem on bak and
    slewe moche peple.

Incidentally, the movie, _Excalibur_, remained very close to the tradition
of Malory.  Not exactly authentic, but otherwise good.
-- 
    -- Charles de Mar, Vanderbilt University student of numerology and geometry

From: KGANDEK at mitvmc.mit.EDU (Kathryn Gandek)
Date: 5 Nov 91 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet

The other day I picked up The Black Arrow by Walt Disney in the children's
section of the local video store.  The background of the movie is supposed
to be the War of the Roses.  It has lavish costumes, okay fighting (there's
only one actor who appears to have had any serious training, Oliver Reed,
and I'm told the archery was awful), a nasty villian, a spunky heroine and
a happy ending.  The number of costume changes was actually quite amazing.
I don't know if the style of clothes all belonged in the same time period, but
they were quite lavishly constructed.

The plot is a frothy one (minimal substance) about an evil man with innocent
wards and an avenging figure from the past.  A thoroughly enjoyable no-brainer.

Catrin o'r Rhyd For          Kathryn Gandek
Barony of Carolingia         Boston area
East Kingdom                 kgandek%mitvmc.bitnet at mitvma.mit.edu

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU
Subject: Russian garb (was Polish garb sources <was Re: Headdresses & Colors)
Organization: New York University, NY, NY
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 20:49:20 GMT

Genevieve asked after Polish and Russian costume sources.
Soviet movies often did an incredible amount of historic research.
I hardily recomend "Andrey Rublev" - a movie about the life of an
important 15th cent. artist (it's also got lot's of blood and gutz
and quite a bit of philosophy). Aside from Russian costume it's got
a few Mongols running around.
   Incidentally, since both Polish and Russian clothing has a strong
Persian influence I'll mention this:
Look at clothing on DuraEuropos synagogue paintings (Persian 2nd cent.)
and that worn by some of the more traditional Hasidim (based on Polish
18-19th cent.) - not much difference, ius there?
Also, some of the Russian peasants still have not changed their clothing
(since the 15th cent.).

Nahum haKuzar       <FNKLSHTN at acfcluster.nyu.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark)
Subject: Re: Mailed feet (again...)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 03:33:18 GMT

	OK, I'll bite.  I didn't see your original post, but I take it
you're looking for references to armoured footwear.  I'm not
an armourer, but I have seen a terrfic video called "How a Man
Schall be Armed"...it's put out though the Tower of London musuem,
but I got my copy at the Metropolitan Musuem of Art in New York. I'm
sure you could order it through one of these museums.  Anyway, there
are nifty close-up shots of a man putting on 16th century armour, including
sabotons.  BTW, there is a nother vido on the tape called "Masters
of Defence"  which describes the beginnings of fencing.

Hope this helps...
Nicolaa

From: odlin at reed.edu (Iain Odlin)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights
Date: 2 Aug 93 06:33:33 GMT

  And to Moreach's note of "Robin Hood: Men in Tights"'s existence, I add a
  rousing:  Grab your friends and see it!  It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and
  it's great fun!  And a bloody good laugh.  It helps if you're a movie trivia
  buff (There're dozens of sight gags referring to other movies -- I love
  being the only person in a theatre giggling at certain moments!), but that's
  only for the (sometimes not-so-) subtle stuff -- there's plenty of slap-
  stick, too.

  Besides: Cary Elwes almost does Errol Flynn better than Errol did!  And he's
  cute to boot! ;)

  [And for those of you wondering about my 'orientation' right about now:
  I'm straight, but I'm able to appreciate beauty where I find it.]

  Your mileage may, of course, vary, but I've met noone who didn't at least
  find the movie amusing.

  Enjoy!
  -Iain Odlin, a man in tights
   "Are my seams straight?"
------------------------- Iain Odlin, odlin at reed.edu -------------------------
                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
 --------------------- N is for Neville who died of ennui ---------------------

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu (Joshua Brandon)
Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights
Organization: Brown University Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:28:26 GMT

Dixit Vincent: 
>
>A bunch of us at Canton Skraeling also went in garb (six atomic bodices,
>several tunics, 2 men in tights, everyone else in mundanes) and enjoyed
>the movie.  Lots of groans at the jokes, lots of laughs at the slapstick,
>no complaints about authenticity (yeah, like, who expects authenticity
>from Mel Brooks?).

Note: this is *not* a complaint about authenticity.

Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie going
around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!?

It *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when
Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England!  (Okay, it wasn't
perfectly consistent --- Prince John's throne had France on it.)  I was in
hysterics!  My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you,
dear...."  

Great movie.  :):):)

			---Simon
--
Joshua Brandon	    Brown Math Department	  brandon at gauss.math.brown.edu
	"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"  ---Cutter John
YAZ/socrates

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Robin Hood; Men in Tights
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:54:41 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!  Simon wrote:
> Did anybody else notice that Prince John's men spent the entire movie
> going around with the arms of Castile and Leon on their chests?!?  It
> *must* have been on purpose --- it was perfectly consistant, and when
> Patrick Stewart came in, he was wearing England!

It gets weirder: Stewart, as Richard, was wearing France quartered with
England, the form of the English royal arms during the Hundred Years War.
The answer is simple. Captain Picard travelled back in time twice: Once to
take the English throne as Henry V and again to take the throne as Richard
I.  Which further explains why I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting
for Richard to bless Robin & Marian's marriage with "Make it so!"

PS: I'm not sure when Castile and Leon were first quartered together, but
I'm fairly certain it was after Richard I.

> My girlfriend said "they must have put that in just for you, dear...."

If it makes you feel better, everyone with whom I went noticed it, and only
half of us were heralds.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.org.sca
From: Alexx at world.std.com (Alexx S Kay)
Subject: Re: Three Musketeers movie
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 18:51:08 GMT

There have been a number of people making reference to the current
version of the Three Musketeers in comparison to the 70's version.  I
would just like to remind or inform you all of the truly excellent
1940's version, with Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan.  Many of the stunts in
the current version which were done with tricky camerawork and stunt
doubles, Gene Kelly just *did*, and with more grace than I would have
believed possible if I hadn't seen it.  Go down to the video store and
check it out!

Alexx
Alexx at world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 22:29:07 GMT

	The Return of Martin Guerre (15th c. French Peasants)
	Anne of 1000 Days (Anne Bolyn)
	Romeo and Juliet (Fellini 15th c. Italian)
	Blackadder (English War of the Roses comedy)

	All of these have their problems from a historical point of view
(except maybe Martin Guerre) and all of them will have something that
the Authenticity Police will gripe about, but they're good films in
their own right. They also don't butcher history and grind the carcass
into mincemeat like Robin Hood: Dances with Bows or some of the more
dreadful 50's costume dramas. 
	Romeo and Juliet has some duello, but since I'm not a light
weapons fighter I don't know how good it is. 

	Lothar (who's STILL waiting for a decent film set in the 14th c.
                to come out. The Navigators was O.K. but hardly
                 distinctively 14th c.)

From: julifolo at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (watkins julia k)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations
Date: 26 Feb 1994 11:49:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I missed the original thread, so I don't know how late is late. I
would like to recommend
	NAME OF THE ROSE (14th century)
	THE BLACK ROSE (17th century)
	Richard Lester's THREE MUSKETEERS (17th century)

Yrs, Folo

From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Need Late Period Video Recommendations
Date: 27 Feb 1994 02:15:17 GMT
Organization: EPAS Computing Facility, University of Toronto

	This isn't a feature film, but it is germane to the
discussion.  The Metropolitan Museum of Art puts out an excellent
film called _Masters of Defence_ which discusses the evolution of
personal defence (fencing) from the early 16th-18th centuries.  I
highly recommend it.

Cheers--
Nicolaa/Susan
Canton of Eoforwic
sclark at epas.utoronto.ca
P.S.....lots of nifty swordplay, too!

From: faust at ace.com (Faust)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: thought experiment
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 13:00:51 EST
Organization: Argus Computerized Exchange

Just to insert a small aside.

The movie ARMY OF DARKNESS  (nee' Evil Dead III)   reads as a very silly
version of A CT. YANKEE.  With all the attendant problems being
discussed here.  (gunpowder, cars as battlewagons, etc.)
Thomas of Berwick     faust at ace.com     

From: UDSD073 at DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike Andrews)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Costumes: 6 Wives of Henry the Eighth
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 10:05
Organization: The University of Oklahoma (USA)

MMS6824 at tntech.EDU writes:

>I have been watching "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" and I am wondering if
>anyone has any comments on the Costuming?  It looks rather good to me, but I do
>think that in at least one case (The Countess that dies with Catherine Howard)
>the actress should have had more than one costume.

>MArian of Clann Kyle.

They're rather interesting close-up, too. My Lady Wife and I were
privileged to see all the costumes for this film on our second
voyage to England, where they were on display in the crypt of (?)
Canterbury Cathedral, I think. They were still impressive close at
hand, but it was obvious that some shortcuts had been taken in
construction. As an example, the Archbishop's golden pectoral
cross, so impressive in the film, turns out to have been made of
some hundreds of the very smallest cup-hooks, all glued together
and then spray-painted gold.

Sic transit gloria mundi.
--
  Mike Andrews
     udsd007 at ibm.okladot.state.ok.us    (192.149.244.2)

From: melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: 29 Jul 1994 16:22:33 -0400

Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:
: What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?  
: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.

my votes:

the lion in winter
(and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?)
lady jane
henry v

and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress').  
it's pure schlock.

Lady Angharad Melys
Sacred Stone, Atlantia
-- 
melys at cybernetics.net

From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 07:09
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

melys at jabba.cybernetics.net (many waters cannot quench love) writes:

>Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:
>: What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?
>: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.
>
>my votes:
>
>the lion in winter
>(and who was it who had the "knowledgeable family" quote in his sig, anyway?)
>lady jane
>henry v 
>
>and *don't* get 'the king's whore' (also known as 'the king's mistress').
>it's pure schlock.
>
>                      ...melys, looking forward to seeing
>                                   other people's favorites...

Alfred the Great (Good battles nice period feel, characters are rather
60's ish)
Robin Hood (No not the silly one but the one with Patrick Berghan sp?
once again nice period feel and this time fun characters)
The Crusades (C.B. deMill at his gaudiest)
Robin and Marian (Very good Richard cameo by Richard Harris)
Ivanhoe (There are two versions in most video stores both are good for
different reasons rent them both and you decide which you like best)

Well this is a short list for now, More to come.

Siohn ap Govannan
Caid
(Who is butting in on someone elses conversation but I'm a celt so
its natural)
>Lady Angharad Melys
>Sacred Stone, Atlantia
>--
>melys at cybernetics.net
>that which does not kill me had better run like hell...

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: RE: movies
From: Mary Catherine Miller <D982 at ACADEMIC.NEMOSTATE.EDU>
Date: 01 AUG 94 18:20:09 CST
Organization: Northeast Missouri State University MUSIC System

>What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?
The Name of the Rose
The Seventh Sign
A Lion in Winter
Any Robin Hood movie not matter how cheezie
Much Ado about Nothing  1993
That's all I can think of for now.  I look forward to making a
checklist of of SCA folk's opinions on this matter.
Slaine ni Cieran

BTW I have a professor who says that Monty Python's The Holy
Grail is one of the best medieval movies ever made.

From: mabr at sweden.hp.com (Morgan "the Dreamer" Broman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: 3 Aug 1994 10:49:26 GMT
Organization: HP/SCA/SKA/FSTS/AMTS/SLRP/ETC Sweden

Dwight Kraai (dak at inel.gov) wrote:
: What are your favorite medieval movies out there?  The Warlord?  El Cid?  
: Henry V?  Going to buy some and am wondering what to get.

El Cid w. Charlton Heston (nice athmosphere, great masses of soldiers etc)
Excalibur..;) (I know it is romantic fantasy...but then so is SCA..)
Robin and Marion (Good clean fun...;) )
Ivanhoe (Simple and heroic...)
Robin of Sherwood (TV-series w. Michael Praed(sp?) )
Monthe Python & The Holy Grrrraaiiil...

Ciao
Morgan//
....too many videos...sigh...;)
--
HP   : Morgan Broman				mabr at sweden.hp.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
From: jvincent at eagle.wesleyan.edu (The Ulair)
Date: 4 Aug 94 07:58:27 EDT

Henry V (Branagh) is excellent, esp. as Agincourt reminds me of the Pennsic 18
	field battle.
Hamlet (Mel Gibson), especially the clothes and artistic direction.
The Lion in Winter. Just darn good.
The Vikings. Go figure ;-)
A Man for All Seasons 

Assorted silliness:
Erik the Viking
The Black Shield of Falworth
The Court Jester

and for those in later period:
The Three Musketeers (Richard Lester)
The Four Musketeers  (Richard Lester) -Splendid examples of '70s costume films.
Richard III (Olivier)
Much Ado About Nothing (Branagh)
Elizabeth the Queen (Bette Davis)
The Sea Hawk (Errol Flynn)

From: mchance at crl.com (Michael A. Chance)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: 3 Aug 1994 20:22:12 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access

Kvedjur fra Mikjal!

Here are some of my favorites that haven't been mentioned yet:

Becket (the first movie in which Peter O'Toole played Henry II)
	Has some scenes that rival _Lion in Winter_ for memorability.

Ladyhawke (not exactly historical, but good, none the less)
	Also has (IMO) the best choreographed bastard sword fight in film.

Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect)
	Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the
	grittier side of the Renaissance.

Pleasant watching!

Mikjal Annarbjorn
-- 
Michael A. Chance          St. Louis, Missouri, USA    "At play in the fields
Work: mc307a at sw1stc.sbc.com                             of St. Vidicon"
Play: mchance at crl.com
      mchance at nyx.cs.du.edu

From: goddess at access3.digex.net (Louise K. Rogow)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: 4 Aug 1994 04:33:07 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

In article <31pmt4$fle at crl4.crl.com>,
Michael A. Chance <mchance at crl.com> wrote:
>Blood and ??? (another Rutger Hauer film, he play Martin the Landsknect)
>	Some fairly realistic combat scenes early on, good look at the
>	grittier side of the Renaissance.

Flesh and Blood.  I first saw that movie at a party where almost
                  all the viewers started commenting on the garb.

Keep the Faith,
Louise

From: Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan      POLI SCI)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: movies
Date: 3 Aug 1994 21:30:16 -0400
Organization: the internet

One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from
1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no
business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along
with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the
SCA.

A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman
England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.
My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,
standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone
have an idea what movie this might be?

Jonathan (Iban)

From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 07:08
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

In article <2E403FD7 at courier.sscnet.ucla.edu>,
Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan      POLI SCI) writes:

>One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from
>1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no
>business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along
>with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the
>SCA.
>
>A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman
>England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.
>My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,
>standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone
>have an idea what movie this might be?
>
>Jonathan (Iban)
>
Sounds like Alfred the Great, David Hemmings as Alfred and Michael York
as the king of the Danes, directed by Richard Donner I believe, but
am not sure, made in the 60's. I taped it off of the TV late one night
and have never seen it in any video catalog or at any video store.
Siohn ap Govannan
Caid

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: delint at meena.cc.uregina.ca
Subject: RE: movies
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 12:36:14 GMT
Organization: University of Regina, Regina, Sask., Canada

In a previous article, Valdez at polisci.sscnet.ucla.EDU (Valdez, Jonathan      POLI SCI) wrote:
>One movie which I haven't seen mentioned so far is _The Vikings,_ from
>1957/8 with Kirk Douglas.  Great movie, even if Tony Curtis really had no
>business being in any movie set before about 1900 . . . And _El Cid_ (along
>with a timely Ren Faire) was what really inspired me to get back into the
>SCA.
> 
>A related note -- I distinctly remember seeing a movie set in pre-Norman
>England (I think) which had great battle scenes between Vikings and Saxons.
>My most vivid recollection is of the Vikings in a shield wall on a hill,
>standing in the rain, pounding on their shields before the battle.  Anyone
>have an idea what movie this might be?
> 
>Jonathan (Iban)

That's probably _Alfred the Great_, silly show of the '60's.  The battle
scenes are GREAT (to give the viewers an idea of the horror of war, and 
thus protest Viet Nam, no doubt), but the plot development rushes past like
a politburo funeral.  Well suited for video, since you can compress some of
the tedium (although it's generally historically accurate).

Cedric van Kiesterzijl
(Real life? Never use the stuff...)

From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: movies
Date: 5 Aug 1994 00:12:09 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS

	I'm feeling late period today. How's about:

	A Man for All Seasons (about Thomas More)

	Elizabeth R.  (the six part series w/ Glenda Jackson)

	And of course, Blackadders I and II (no, they're not movies, but...)

	For those of you heading towards the 17the century, there's
	The Last Valley (30 years War, loads of famous people)
	and Cromwell (he looks WAY too good, but the costumes are nice)

	What's that movie about Michaelangelo and Pope Julius II?

Cheers!
Nicolaa/Susan
Canton of Eoforwic
sclark at epas.utoronto.ca

From: sco at mchr.nteltec.com (Stephanie)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Movie Review - Rob Roy
Date: 29 Mar 1995 05:20:12 GMT

My lord and I just returned from a preview of the new film "Rob Roy".
Although this film is about 100 years OOP, it was absolutly stunning.
The story of one Scotsmans fight against the system, it is a brutal,
passionate, and visually stunning portrayal of rural life in the 1700s.
Liam Neeson stars as Robert Roy MaGregor, a Scottish land holder who
risks everything for his honour.  Jessica Lange stars as his wife who
must live with the consequences.

The film is filled with wonderful dueling scenes, highland panoramas,
castles where I would love to hold an event or two, and some costumes
that I thought were lovely (but I am no expert in that field).

If you have the oppertunity, I would recommend that you see this film
and if you have an easily stirred heart, make sure you pocket some kleenex
before you go.  Rob Roy is currently set to open on April 12th.

Lady Isabel d'Estella
Baronial Scribe
Barony of Twin Moons, Atenveldt
--
Stephanie Valencia
NTT
sco at mchr.nteltec.com

From: errickii at aol.com (Errick II)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Braveheart,a review...
Date: 27 May 1995 08:57:51 -0400

Braveheart the Movie!

>" Has anyone seen this movie yet?"

I've started seeing that question and already I've read the answers
with the usual picky responses.

Well today I saw it...and it's time for my review.
( Drum roll please...)
(Soapbox mode on...tongue in cheek ;-) )

On a 4 star scale......

 I rated this MOVIE ******

 A 6 ?? U betcha!!! Best $1.25 an hour I've spent in a long time.

Let me repeat, this MOVIE was excellent. Running time is 3 hours, you
really get your moneys worth. I thought the acting, scenics, battle scenes,
weapons, armor, in fact just about everything about the MOVIE was..., 
was..., spine tingling!??!. (words just  fail me, gasp...).
 
When you buy your ticket enter" SCA event mode" and ignore the minor
things. Things like 1100AD personas interacting with 1500AD personas
or an exposed plastic cooler laying next to a shield reenforced with mans
greatest tool "Duct Tape" at a local event. In the MOVIE..., things like a
hand and a half claymore in half sheath, blue painted men with kilts, unusual
armor combinations, you know the usual things EVERYBODY bitches about.

This is entertainment, not a historical thesis, sit back, relax, enjoy the leisurely pace of the first hour. Be prepared to cringe, cheer, laugh, and possiby shead a tear or two in the last couple of hours. Graphic violence is very much in evidence, and the battle scenes are awesome.

This is a movie for stick jocks and stick jock wannaabees. I feel Mel
Gibsons "persona" in this film could easily fit into the SCA, in fact it
could be used as a guide to what it takes to makes a knight.

Ok... have fun ripping on this one!
As always, reprint rights are granted free. Donations of mead, etc. gladly
accepted.

(Soapbox mode off ).

Errick
errickii at aol.com

From: salley at niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Anyone seen Braveheart yet?
Date: 27 May 95 15:42:47 GMT
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

Better still, did anyone catch Mel Gibson on _The Tonight Show_ Thursday?
Jay announces Mel, waits by wings, nothing happens for about twenty seconds,
and then suddenly dozens of bagpipers start marching into the studio from
stage left, stage right and the back of the audience all playing _Scotland
the Brave_.  Suddenly the camera zooms in and Mel is in the middle of the
bagpipers wearing a tux from the waist up and a kilt from the waist down!
The screaming of the women drowned out the bagpipes!

It was wonderful.  Mel brought canned hagis with him and Jay couldn't eat it
while Mel was munching and eating.  Jay was trying to find out what Mel had
*under* the kilt.
	"Jay, why are you trying to look up my kilt?"
		"I want to know what's worn underneath."
	"Nothing's worn, the parts are in perfect working order!"
The audience went wild!  Mel brought out a live-steel claymore.  My wife
told me to stop drooling on the couch!  "You're not even looking at me, how
did you know I was drooling?"  "I married you, now stop drooling!"  

                                                       - Dagonell

SCA Persona : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, CSC, CK, CTr
Habitat	    : East Kingdom, AEthelmearc Principality, Rhydderich Hael Barony
Internet    : salley at cs.canisius.edu  (Please use this, reply may not work.)
USnail-net  : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029

From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (John Doing)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: OK another Braveheart review
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 15:04
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

Ok I saw Braveheart last weekend. This is not a work of historical
fiction but of historical romance (and I don't mean the torn bodice
school). In my humble opinion the film owes more to its Hollywood
anticedents then to its historical ones.

This is very much in the vein of Errol Flynn and Charlton Heston.
Costumes which look good to a modern eye no matter what they wore
in period. Changing fact to fit the fiction instead of the other
way around. On these terms it is a good film. Much romance without
mush or crassness, plenty of action, heroic characters, dasterdly
badguys, and a sense of humor.

Fans of Robert the Bruce will not like how he is treated in this
film, nor will fans of Edward.

As to the much discussed gentle thrown from a window scene, in my
humble opinion, his murder has less to do with his sexual nature
than in his common sense. In the scene, Edward arives from France to
find and army destroyed, Scotland lost, and York and most of Northumbria
taken by the Scots. The chief military adviser to his son (the person
responsible for the current state of affairs) then proceeds to
lecture the king on military affairs. It seemed to me, that no matter
who this gentle was or what his sexual preference he was going out
the window.

All in all I enjoyed the film, especially the battles (which were
remeniscent of a few SCA battles I've been in), and I have to admit
it has the best scene of blue painted, screamming celts, running down
a hillside of any film I've seen this year. I'd see it again, on the
big screen, especially if I could find a showing with a quite
audience.

Just my t'pence

Siohn ap Govannan
Barony of ALtavia
Kingdom of Caid

From: justin at dsd.camb.inmet.COM (Mark Waks)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Braveheart
Date: 1 Jun 1995 11:37:41 -0400

General opinion: very nicely done film.

One this whole historical-accuracy thing -- Braveheart is *clearly* a
deliberate melding of fact and legend. It's even self-conscious of
that; while it isn't omnipresent, there are a number of very careful
and well-done references to the nature of legend in the film. (Eg,
Wallace being told that he *can't* be *the* Wallace, since the real
one is seven feet tall.) I suspect that Gibson deliberately took the
historical record and blended it with the best legends.

Frankly, I think it works. Several times, I was struck by how Robin
Hood-like the whole thing was, and I am rather impressed by the way it
managed to combine the *scale* of Prince of Thieves with the *flavor*
of the Patrick Bergin version. That is, it managed to be grand and
powerful, while still *feeling* right. Yes, there are lots of details
wrong, but they just don't jar you the way Prince of Thieves did.

And the pacing is, IMO, magnificent. It never goes rocketing along,
but it proceeds in a *very* careful, measured way throughout. Getting
through three hours without ever really dragging is an accomplishment
any director could be proud of.

Worth the money, and maybe worth watching a couple of times...

                                -- Justin
                                   Who has to concur that the battle scenes
                                     sometimes looked *just* like Pennsic,
                                     except with quite a bit more blood...

From: dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Movie: Queen Margot
Date: 22 Jun 1995 12:47:30 -0400

  Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering 
how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history 
(I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were 
the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri, 
Catherine, etc.) what they really did? 

The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie, 
even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were 
simplified). 

Estrill Swet
Mooneschadoweshire, Ansteorra

From: ej613 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Maureen S. O'Brien)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Movie: Queen Margot
Date: 25 Jun 1995 04:46:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

In a previous article, dssweet at okway.okstate.EDU (Deborah Sweet) says:
>  Has anyone else seen Queen Margot? I've just seen it and was wondering 
>how the history as presented in the movie relates to the actual history 
>(I'm really terrible on French history). Or to be more accurate: were 
>the motivations/actions of the people in the story (Margot, Henri, 
>Catherine, etc.) what they really did? 
>
>The costuming itself looked reasonably authentic. I did enjoy the movie, 
>even though it was necessary to read the subtitles (which I'm sure were 
>simplified). 

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book (Dumas' MARGUERITE DE
VALOIS).  It was based on folklore about the period (Catherine de'Medici
as a poisoning, plotting evil genius behind the Huguenot massacre, whereas
actual evidence shows that she and most of the royals weren't too pleased
by it all (riots are _so_ messy!).  Or at least so I understand.

I know about English history. Or Irish.  Or Japanese.  Surely somebody
knows something about French history around here!
-- 
Maureen S. O'Brien		We are like the roses ---
ad451 at dayton.wright.edu		We are forced to grow.

From: CUYR15B at prodigy.com (Joe Mariani)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: First Knight
Date: 10 Jul 1995 14:31:02 GMT

*** A long rant-n-rave with spoilers! ***
I know this is all just nit-picking, so if you're offended by that sort 
of thing, don't  read this!  Some of this is about anachronisms <G>, but 
most of it is about divergences from legend...

I have never been so offended by a movie as I was by "First Knight".
I ignored the cheesy title and figured I'd give the film a chance.
This proved to be a mistake.  The title may have been the best thing
about it.  The dialogue was awful and the costuming more reminiscent
of bad space movies than bad fantasy movies.  At the end of the film,
the people behind me were crying.  My friend told me later he wanted
to turn around and ask them why they were crying -- was it tears of
joy because the movie was over, or were they crying because they were
so upset at throwing away money better spent renting "Excalibur", "The
Sword in the Stone", or even "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?  When
the end credits began to roll, I said "You hear that whirring noise?
That's Sir Thomas Malory spinning in his grave".  This is a list of
SOME of the things that I felt were so wrong about this movie.  All in 
all,
the BEST thing I can say about it was that I went to a matinee instead
of seeing it at full price.

 1. Lancelot was a commoner, a wandering showman.  He was not knighted 
until more than two-thirds of the way through the film.

 2. Guinevere was the Lady of Lyonesse.

 3. Prince Malagant's men (Arthur's main foe) used tiny hand
crossbows with the power to put steel bolts (!) right through
armor.

 4. Malagant wielded a sword like none ever seen in a museum, with a
blade that widened halfway down and a serrated edge!

 5. The armor worn was not chain mail, but resembled hundreds
of the pop-tops from soda cans sewn together.

 6. Arthur's men wore tight-fitting blue uniforms that would have been
more at home on the Battlestar: Galactica set.

 7. Even priests in Camelot wore blue!

 8. Guinevere's father was dead before the movie began.

 9. After Lancelot just happened to be around to rescue Guinevere from
abduction (the first time), he sleazily tried to force himself on her.
Richard Gere showed more class and style propositioning a hooker in
"Pretty Woman".

10. When he married Guinevere, Arthur was an old man, having already
been king for many years.

11. Camelot was a huge walled city, bigger than 17th-century London!
Actually, it looked like woodcuts of 17th-century London, with all the
Tudor houses...

12. The only one of Arthur's knights mentioned by name was Agravaine.
Where were his brothers, and all the rest of the Knights of the Round
Table?

13. Arthur's sword was just another blade.  The name Excalibur was
never mentioned.

14. The symbol of Arthur Pendragon was a gold dragon.  No dragons,
gold or otherwise, were seen in the film.

15. No mention was made of the Grail, Merlin, or Mordred, either -- all 
central to the Arthur legend.

16. The bizzare machine called the Gauntlet -- wasn't that just a
little beyond medieval technology?

17. The one and only time Lancelot and Guinevere kissed, they were
caught in the act by Arthur himself.

18. During the public trial of Lancelot and Guinevere for treason (?),
Camelot was surrounded by the enemy and taken.  

19. King Arthur was killed by 4 of Malagant's steel crossbow bolts,
shot by Malagant's soldiers.

20. King Arthur left his kingdom, and his wife, to Lancelot.

21. Arthur's body was set adrift on the (remarkably calm) ocean on a
barge, which was then set afire with a flaming arrow.  Before the
arrow was shot, smoke was rising from the barge, exactly where the
arrow would hit...

Now, as I recall the story (Reader's Digest version), King Arthur
became King as a very young man with the help of Merlin and
the sword Excalibur.  After subduing those who opposed his 
ascendancy, he sent his best friend and favorite knight,
Lancelot (the son of a French King), to bring his promised bride,
Guinevere, whom he had never seen.  Lancelot and Guinevere fell in
love during the trip.  For years, Guinevere and Lancelot tried to hide
their love, but it was an open secret, and the King forgave them
completely until his half-sister, Morgause (or Morgan), caused
Agravaine (one of her sons) to catch the two in flagrante delicto, as
it were, and force the matter into the open.  Lancelot fled, and the
Queen was accused of adultery.  Lancelot rescued her and held off the
rest of Arthur's knights in his castle...  to make it short: Mordred,
Arthur's son by his half-sister, took over the kingdom while Arthur
was in France.  In a huge battle, begun by accident (a soldier drew
his sword to kill a snake while Arthur and Mordred were discussing
peace), Mordred mortally wounded Arthur, and was killed by him.  After
Arthur died, he was taken away in a barge by his half-sister (now a
nun).  Lancelot became a priest, along with the knights that were left
(Bedivere and Percival, I believe).  Guinevere became a nun.  Maybe I'm 
wrong, but I think the story's good enough to be filmed as is.

  CAVALIER         CUYR15B at prodigy.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: a-mikem at ac.tandem.com (mckay_michael)
Subject: Re: First Knight
Organization: Atalla Corporation - San Jose, CA.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:57:42 GMT

   As predicatable as day, the "accuracy" tear-down starts on First Knight.  
It is not worth bothering, since it never said that it would be accurate.  
Our local group did a demo in front of the theater, and than saw one of the 
showings.  Overall we enjoyed the movie (I give it 2 out of 4 stars).  I
pondered the director's decisions to use the names from the Arthurian mythos.  
On one hand, it set very strong tones, and allowed a lot of credence for certain
feelings (like the unity of the knights, the type of king being protrayed,
etc.).  The biggest drawback was that after using these archtypes, the 
characters and story line were not consistent (actually Arthur and Guenevere 
were passable, but Lancelot was very different).  The ending was very weak, 
typical Hollywood last minute re-write I'd bet.
   I don't have so much trouble with the story, the costuming (like the absurd
lock on the dye market that "Blue-Robe" TM must have had ;-)   My problems are
where the story ignores the arch-types that it used to build the background.
If you go and see the movie, accept that this is not an Arthurian myth, and 
take it as a story on it's own.  I must say that having just completed reading 
Mallory a few weeks before the meeting, I would have much prefered seeing the 
real Lancelot on the screen (instead of the somewhat unsavory character named 
Lancelot that Gere protrayed).

Seaan McAy   Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West  (Santa Cruz, CA)

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:48:49 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: SC - Fetal Rabbits as "fish", et al.

> From: "Anne-Marie Rousseau" <acrouss at gte.net>
> Subject: Re: SC - Lenten foods

> The more I learn about the real middle ages, the more I realize that most
> of the stuff I thought I "knew" was a bunch of urban legends and
> misinformation propogated by undereducated (and underpaid) fifth grade
> teachers and bad Errol Flynn movies.

The only bad Errol Flynn movie I'm aware of is "Cuban Rebel Girls", but
if you were referring to historical inaccuracy, I'm inclined to agree. I
saw, within the last couple of years, the 1938 "Adventures of Robin
Hood", complete, uncut, in a large-screen theatre. I was with a couple
of friends from the SCA, and we spotted, in the scene where Robin busts
in on the Norman feast, a large platter of cubes of blue Jello. When
Robin slams that stuffed deer down on the table, the Jello quivers
dangerously, which prompted one of my companions to shout, "There's
ALWAYS room for Jello!", and another to shout, "It's alive!"

So much for Mystery Science Theatre 1190...

Adamantius
troy at asan.com

Subject: ANST - bad period movie alert! ....
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:16:57 MST
From: "j'lynn yeates" <jyeates at bga.com>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

if you like Monty Python (and who dosn't) and bad humour (and who
dosn't)check out a tape rental i stumbles across last night ... "The High
Crusade" ...

sounds familiar, no?  as it should, it's based *very loosely) on the Poul
Anderson novel of the same name (alien invasion scout sets down in
england ... taken over by a medieval army ... attempt to use it to get to
Jerusalem for a Crusade ... double crossed by pilot .. end up elsewhere ..
the barbarians wreck all kinds of havoc in the process ...)

... cheesy special effect, bad dialog, plot?  what plot?, see the points
where the money for special effects ran out and they just went ahead and
used the blue-screen backgrounds ....

we have ....one silly frenchman, two smashed ponies (damage report!),
three skewered saracens, alien roasted rabbit, alien lovefest with the lead
singer from motly crew, clone-fu, ale fu, arrow fu, garbage-fu, male
chastity
belts, knitted fabric mail, clueless male virgin, medieval industrial rap,
...
pay particular attention to who is playing brother Parvus (how far the
mightly have fallen ... )

one the "groaner scale" we'll give this one a 4.5 ...

'wolf

Subject: ANST - EVER AFTER
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 12:36:52 MST
From: jhartel <jhartel at net-link.net>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

 Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I
 know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie
 was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn
 drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the
 entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is
 marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful.

 Moriel***

Subject: Re: ANST - EVER AFTER
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 06:41:19 MST
From: njones at ix.netcom.com
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

Greetings Moriel!

> Just returned from the movies and saw EVER AFTER, A Cinderella Story. I
> know NOTHING about Renassiance clothing but the clothing in this movie
> was gorgeous!!! Some of the props were good too, I liked the horn
> drinking cups at the table setting. It is a very good movie to take the
> entire family to see...good story, sweet romance...Angelica Houston is
> marvelous as a "baddy" and Drew Barrymore is wonderful.

I second the recomendation.  I saw it last night.  It's not quite the "MTV"
story that the TV trailers might suggest.  It's a delightful diversion.

Like any good fairy tale, it requires some suspension of disbelief, but it's
quite enjoyable.

Angelica Houston is wonderful, fabulous and incredible, of course.  Her best
role since Morticia Addams. She is quite evil, yet manages to portray the
character with a human side as well.  She brings some depth to the "wicked
stepmother" that could very easily have just been a caricature.

I'm not really a costumer either, so I can't vouch for all the clothes,
however, there were one or two mens outfits that were wonderfully done, and
I could point to the paintings that they can be found in.

All in all, a good date movie.

Gio,
Northkeep.

Subject: ANST - movie
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 21:21:50 MST
From: sabella <sabella at gte.net>

Good gentles, on the local pbs station I just discovered
a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas.
A movie entitled ''kiss me kate.''
the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming
of the shrew'' the costuming especially the males
its truly interesting.  Gives one some great ideas
for tights.
the woman's costuming is not far off, of course
those hysterical green eyelids are unique....but
hey its the movies.  not truly period - but like I
said some great ideas.
anne

Subject: Re: ANST - movie
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 08:11:43 MST
From: Amberglyph at aol.com
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

sabella at gte.net writes:
<< a wonderous source for Italian Renn ideas.
 a movie entitled ''kiss me kate.''
 the couple in the movie are actors doing ''taming
 of the shrew''  >>

Ackk!!! NO!!!  This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but
the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track
down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton
instead.

HL Oriana Corbizzi

Subject: Re: ANST - movie
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 98 08:49:02 MST
From: zarlor at acm.org (Lenny Zimmermann)
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 11:03:14 EDT, HL Oriana Corbizzi wrote:

>Ackk!!! NO!!!  This is a wonderful movie, one of my personal favorites, but
>the costuming is Broadway musical, not the least little bit historical. Track
>down the "Taming of the Shrew" starring Liz Taylor and Richard Burton
instead.

For fantastic costuming (and general details as well) in late 16th
Century Venice (that's getting into the Early Modern Era, for Italy)
try "Dangerous Beauty". It is based on the life of the famous Venetian
Courtesan, Veronica Franco. Phenomenal settings, backgrounds, props
and costumes  and an exceptionally good movie to boot. I highly
recommend it.

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg
(mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)
zarlor at acm.org

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:27:17 -0500
From: Melanie Wilson <MelanieWilson at compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu" <sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Cadfael - Costume Accuracy

I have to agree here, but I'm afraid that's the Media for you !

I was unfortunate enough to agreed to go with my group to the making of the
recent BBC Ivanhoe series as an extra, we were told to have the correct kit
etc etc. We arrived most of us in newly made stuff for the event (as we do
13th C) only to be taken out of it and put in nylon and polyester rags,
have our faces smeared in mud and all traces of headresses removed. My poor
daughter was in the most aweful rag (literally) WE then got to stand out in
the hottest day that year with little offer of water or other refreshment.

The pesant clothes were naff, rags mainly, we all had to be dirty. The
'stars' costumes were far too late mainly fantasy creations that appeared
to be based on 15th kit or later.

Never ever again.

I'm sure there must be some Media costumiers who know their stuff, but
nearly every production I've seen recently had glaring errors, which is sad
when the UK production companies were once well know for their great
productions !

Anglia's Hornblower, the  Sharp series and Bramwell, though not without the
odd error were in general pretty good I thought.

Mel

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 01:39:10 MST
From: "B.Byers" <phantom at camalott.com>
Subject: ANST - Gladiator: the movie
To: "Ansteorra" <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>

Greetings unto the populace

On a mundane note, after a long day of building prints at my mundane 
occupation of projectionist, I was rewarded. The reward was screening 
Gladiator. Well, It was quite a movie. I enjoyed it immensely. Although 
a work of fiction, based on history, it was a movie I would happily see 
again. As a whole, I think that we the public being more informed than 
ever before has forced Hollywood to at least have a basis in research. 
I'll not give away anything! :) But It was grand to see the Coliseum for 
what it was historically, a Wonder of the Roman Empire and a Marvel of 
Mechanics for it's time period. On a personal note, I am still vexed as 
to why we think it is acceptable in playing Romans to have an English 
accent? Immediately we think "phony" when we hear an american accent in 
such a role. Hmmmm..... Guess it's Shakespear's Legacy that all Romans 
have an English accent. :) I have gotten off track....

The movie...... Must see, I felt it marched (not plodded) toward an 
interesting climax, sparked with action. The characters I felt were
believable and human, helping draw us into a world that remains only 
through study and research.

Well, enough of this non-essential opinion. I thank you for your time

Ld Magnus
Shire of Mendersham

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:15:35 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall?

Olwen the Odd wrote:
> At the risk of sounding like I live under a bushel--
> What is Blackadder II?

This a group of related BBC historical comedy series, starring Rowan
Atkinson, based on the premise that Richard III was a kind man and a
good king, painted as a rotter by his eventual sucessor, Henry Tudor,
a.k.a. Henry VII. Seems he never killed his nephews in the Tower of
London (which he probably didn't anyway), and his nephews grew up to be
big, strong boys.  Seems Richard _won_ the Battle of Bosworth Field,
only to be killed in the aftermath by his sinister but incompetent
grand-nephew, Prince Edmund, all of which places Richard's nephew, who
was not killed in the Tower, on the throne of England in the brief,
glorious, and entirely fictional reign of Richard IV of England. The
rest of the series focusses on the machinations of evil Prince Edmund,
The Black Adder (but originally styled The Black Vegetable) to take the
throne of England over the claim of his virtuous, pinheaded elder
brother, Prince Harry. 

There's a second (and to my mind, superior) series, in which the
great-grandson of the original Prince Edmund, Lord Edmund Blackadder, is
an impecunious courtier to Queen Elizabeth I, and in one episode
Blackadder finds himself strangely attracted to his servant, "Bob", who
is secretly a girl in disguise, fleeing the poverty of her childhood
home to seek her fortune in London.

Future series focus on Mr. Edmund Blackadder, butler to Prinnie, a.k.a
The Prince Regent, later to be George IV of England, on Captain Edmund
Blackadder, scheming to avoid the impending order to go Over The Top of
the trenches in France, c. ~1916 C.E., and on excessively kind and
generous banker Ebenezer Blackadder, taken advantage of by one and all,
until being visited by three spirits who teach him the true meaning, and
value, of being an S.O.B. 

There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never materialized.

Adamantius

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:35:29 -0000
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nanna_R=F6gnvaldard=F3ttir?=" <nannar at isholf.is>
Subject: Re: SC - OT - "Bob" and the Black Adder - was, Master of the Hall?

Adamantius wrote
>There was talk of a Cavalier Era series, but I believe it never
>materialized.

No, but there is a new show, originally made to be shown in the infamous
Millenium Dome in London, called Blackadder Back and Forth, in which
Blackadder and Baldrick travel through thime. It will be released on video
in November of this year, I believe.

For more information (and summaries of each episode of every part of the
series), try:
http://www.blackadderhall.co.uk

Nanna

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca,soc.history.medieval
From: djheydt at kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Subject: Re: Period (Medieval & Renaissance) Movies
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:51:01 GMT

David <drorer at fuse.net> wrote:
>> Oh, I'll happily defend _Ladyhawke_ as medieval any day of the week 8-)
>> The main plot line is medieval romance, and the rest of it is more
>> authentically medieval than many and many a "historical" I've seen.

Do you know the side-story about that plot?

When the film came out, the studio's publicists put out a
statement that its plot had been based on an old medieval legend.

The scriptwriter sued.  "*I* invented the plot!" he said.  "How
dare you suggest that I got it from some old story?"

The case did come to trial.  Harlan Ellison came in as a sort of
amicus curiae, looking after the rights of the screenwriter just
on general principle.  And various professors of medieval
literature were called in, to testify whether the story was old
and medieval or not, and of course what *they* all said was "No,
can't say I've come across a medieval legend with that kind of
plot, but then in the Middle Ages a writer never claimed to have
made up a story himself, he always said he had found it in some
old book somewhere, even if he really had invented it and the old
book too."

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin                         Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West                               Albany, California
PRO DEO ET REGE                               djheydt at kithrup.com
                 http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt

From: alchem at en.com (James Koch)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Movie Review: King Arthur
Date: 29 Jun 2004 21:16:29 -0700

I have just returned from an advance showing of King Arthur.  I am not
quite sure as to why this movie was made, aside from the potential to
rake in a large amount of money.  I believe this is why our local SCA
group was invited en masse for a free showing.  We are expected to
apprise all our on line friends and get them out to the theaters in
their thousands.  I shall not reveal any plot points.

This movie was a total surprise since it bears absolutely no relation
whatsoever to any of the Arthurian legends with which I am familiar. 
If you saw Troy and were annoyed by the way it veered from Homer's
story, then you will absolutely hate the movie King Arthur.  On the up
side the movie does present a new twist on an old tale.  I mean, in
the middle ages people made up these legends, what's to stop Hollywood
from doing the same today?  So don't go in expecting Mallory, go in
expecting Gladiator.

Everyone in the SCA who sees this movie is going to get into the usual
argument over authenticity, and there are plenty of anachronisms to go
around.  Enough said.  Aside from the issue of authenticity there was
the greater problem of believability.  Some objects were beautifully
made, like the Roman carrus and carriage driven in an opening scene. 
Then there were the villages which appeared to be built just so that
marauding Saxons would have something to burn.  These movies always
have too many villagers and too few cows, sheep, and crops.

On the up side the individual characters of the knights were presented
and developed.  The actors also did a great job of portraying
believable fear prior to being sent off on one last dangerous rescue
mission.  These are characters who bleed and die.  Think Seven
Samurai.  This movie also contained plenty of archery, which made
sense since Arthur's knights were all Sarmation heavy cavalry.

On the down side, this movie was one of the most anti-Christian
propaganda pieces I have ever seen.  All of the Christians in
positions of authority, with the exception of Arthur, were portrayed
as cowards, self serving opportunists, and insane sadistic fanatics. 
Of course the pagan Saxons were worse.  But the most glaring
anachronism of all was Arthur's constant cry of "freedom!".  It just
didn't make any sense in the context in which it was being shouted. 
When Mel Gibson cried "freedom!" in Braveheart, at least you knew he
was talking about Scotland's freedom from the the English yoke.  In
this movie it would have made more sense for Arthur to have shouted
"victory!", "Britons unite!", "senatas populusque Romanos", or "death
to the Saxons!".

Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: Zebee Johnstone <zebee at zip.com.au>
Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:34:30 GMT
Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia)

In rec.org.sca on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:56:47 GMT
Frank  Thallas <hardcorps at earthlink.net> wrote:
>    I thought it was just me thinking that...<G>  I understand that costumers 
> have to play to the director's
> "vision", etc, but if we're spending that much time and money to make the 
> thing, why couldn't they afford hairpins?  Frenchoid hoods, gable hoods, (at 
> one point Anne had a "first communion" veil/tiara combo), all sorts
> of headwear - and hair dangling out from under it...

I expect because they wanted a look they thought worked for the
audience.

WHich is why modern cowboy movies have such a different look to 50s
ones.  Long hair and stubble, in the 50s not even the villains looked
like that.

Neither the 50s movie cowboys nor the ones of the last 10 years looked
like the pics from the 1880s,  but that's not important to the makers of
the show.  They want something they think resonates with modern ideas of
what's "young" or "handsome" or "tough".  Modern makers of plays or
films about are period want the same thing.  As long as the gear worn
suggests the audience's idea of what the period dress was, that's as
much period as they need, the main idea is to give the modern audience
cues for "pretty" or "young" or "rich" or whatever.

It's like stage combat - it isn't *supposed* to be accurate.
It's supposed to be visible from the back seats and make the point
the director wants it to make.  Whether that's "The villain's a slimy
cheating bastard" or "The hero is angry" or "we have to get the hero
to stage left so the heroine can walk into him at the right moment".
With minimal rehearsal time and badly balanced weapons that can still
hurt an actor and cost the production a lot of money if that happens. If
the fight director can make it sorta close to what swordwork is like
while doing that, good oh!  But don't expect it...

Same with costuming.  The costume designers job is to give modern cues
about character and social position and position in the movie, while
fitting in with the set designer and with the director's idea for set
pieces and moves (eg flowing vs tight makes a difference to a
character's appearance and therefore affect on the audience).  If they
can do that while getting close to period, good oh!  But that's well
down on the list.

Silfren

From: "Michael Grossberg" <geejayem at earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: YKYITSCAW
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:29:19 GMT

"Peter Grooby" <peter.grooby at airwayspants.co.nz> wrote
> hardcorps at earthlink.net says...
> >    There are worse.  What was the Viking movie with the "Six Million Dollar
> > Man" guy? <G>

The movie was called "The Norseman".  It wasted the (admittedly not great)
talents of  Lee Majors,
and even more so of Jack Elam.  I shame to admit that I actually _paid_ to
see this stinker.  The errors
in accuracy were absolutely howling!  Norsemen using crossbows?  No wonder
they couldn't seem to hit
anything with them!  Incidentally, the movie is immortalized in the old SCA
filk song, "Freaking the Mundanes"
--Went to "The Norseman"/ To hear Lee Majors shout "ODIN"
    The price was right/ we got in free
    And we sang as we sat and barfed into our paper bags
    You'll come a freaking the mundanes with me!

Gardr Gunnarsson
Barony of Settmour Swamp

From: tmcd at panix.com
Date: January 12, 2005 3:34:38 PM CST
To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>
Subject: [Bryn-gwlad] Braveheart (hochkhkhk PTUI)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 Brian_Martin at dell.com wrote:
> [tmcd at panix.com, Daniel de Lincoln]
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 kmarsh at cox-internet.com <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Re: "Bravesmith"...good one.
>>
>> The word "good" doesn't belong anywhere near an allusion to
>> _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI).
>
> And I thought that I was the only one who felt that way about
> Braveheart. Freeeedooooomm!!! Give me a break.

To address the second point: I suspect that "freedom" was a potent
word in the Middle Ages, even if they weren't nationalistic in the
same way as today.

But as for loathing _Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI): there's a reason
why soc.history.medieval calls it TFWNSNBU, or "That Film Whose Name
Shall Not Be Uttered".  Sharon Krossa discusses / disses it briefly at
<http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/braveheart.shtml>.

     Basically, as an historian, my opinion of Braveheart is that it is
     a work of fantasy, not history. Any resemblance to actual persons
     or events, in other words to real history, appear to be purely
     accidental. My best advice, for anyone interested in the real
     story of William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and the Scottish Wars of
     Independence, is not to believe anything, whether major or minor,
     depicted in the film, but instead read some reliable history books
     about the period. Enjoy the film as a fantasy film, by all means
     -- just as one enjoys Star Wars or any other work of the
     imagination -- simply do not mistake it for history. The events
     aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't
     accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate
     -- in short, just about nothing is accurate.

     Admittedly, the film does have a few elements that coincide with
     real history. However, there isn't one of these elements that I
     feel I can mention without having to explain all of the many
     associated elements leading up to and/or inextricably intertwined
     with it that do not coincide with real history. And once started
     explaining the inaccuracies, there is no stopping -- they are so
     very numerous. (See Braveheart Errors: An Illustration of Scale.)
     And, of course, unless one already knows the details of the true
     history of William Wallace and the Wars of Independence, there is
     no way from just watching the film one can determine which aspects
     of which elements are those few that coincide with real
     history. It is far safer, and far more efficient, to just ignore
     the whole film, as regards history, and read a good Scottish
     history book instead.

She then goes on to link to some bibliographies.

<http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml> is
four pages (on my screen) of explanations with

     So, in the [first] two and a half minutes (of which a full 50
     seconds is nothing but movie title graphics and a further 45
     seconds is nothing but aerial scenery), the film manages to cram
     in the following errors:

and lists 18 errors, some major.  "The sons of knights did not dress
in rags."  "Edward I was a Christian."  "There is no reason at all to
think that late 13th century Scottish men had 'mullet' haircuts from
the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their
hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or
feathers in their hair. Further, there is no reason at all to think
they hadn't ever encountered a comb..."

_Braveheart_ (hochkhkhk PTUI) is just another hatchet job by Mel
Gibson, who has a massive hate-on against the English and is willing
to lie through a nine-inch plank to blacken them.  If you're going to
be bigoted and hate the English, at least hate them for things that
they actually did.

Daniel de Lincolia

From: Brian & Pam Martin <twinoak at cox-internet.com>
Date: January 12, 2005 6:00:35 PM CST
To: 'Barony of Bryn Gwlad' <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven

<<< I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was 
wrong with Braveheart?  I'm not very well up on my Scottish history.

Lai-Han >>>

Well, from an historical stand point there are a lot of things wrong with
it. Like Princess Isabella (or was it Isabelle?) was about nine years old,
and therefore not a possible love interest of anyone let alone William
Wallace. Her nickname later in life was the "She-Wolf of France" if that
tells you how well liked she was by the English. Much of what was attributed
to Wallace in the movie was really done by Bruce, and the movie version of
the Battle of Sterling Bridge didn't have a bridge in it. (I'm still doing
the math on that one.) Then there was the blue face paint, bad armor, bad
costumes and, oh I could probably go on for a while but you get the idea. By
the way; one thing the movie did get right was the Scots' nickname for
Edward I - Long Shanks. But they failed to mention his more famous nickname
in the move: The Hammer of the Scots. Edward only lost one battle to the
Scots, and he didn't win because of Bruce's treachery. Edward II was a weak
and lousy king which was another thing that the movie got right.

Pendaran

From: Marlin Stout <ldcharles at ev1.net>
Date: January 12, 2005 10:46:20 PM CST
To: Barony of Bryn Gwlad <bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Bryn-gwlad] Kingdom of Heaven

Ryan Saathoff wrote:

> I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but what all was 
> wrong with Braveheart?  I'm not very well up on my Scottish history.
>
> Lai-Han

Well, let's start with 5:

-William Wallace wasn't a farmer. He also wasn't a Highlander. The film 
depicts him as both.
-Edward I wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk. If memory serves, he was 
dead by the time the battle was joined.
-Not only did Wallace not sleep with the Princess of Wales, he likely 
never even met her.
-Edward I didn't kill his son's lover by throwing him out a window.
-Robert Bruce wasn't the wishy-washy non-entity the movie makes him out 
to be. He was, in his younger days, considered one of the five best 
knights in Christendom. His main reason for not fighting Edward I 
wasn't that his father told him not to, but because he realized that 
Edward II would be a much less formidable opponent.

Randall Wallace, the guy who wrote Braveheart, says in the author's 
notes of the book that it's not an attempt at an accurate history. That 
pretty much says everything about it: when the author admits it's 
fiction, what more needs be said. I found it telling that the only 
'historical' piece that Wallace has gotten right is We Were Soldiers, 
which also starred Mel Gibson. Of course, when he did We Were Soldiers 
he had the real Col. Moore looking over his shoulder, and in position 
to thump him severely if he didn't get it right...

Charles

From: mmagnusol <MMagnusOL at nc.rr.com>
Date: January 6, 2007 9:19:43 PM CST
To: - Adrian Empire - NC - Shire of Galloway <Shire_of_Galloway at yahoogroups.com>, - Austlend - Vikings-NA in NC List <Austlend at yahoogroups.com>, - Authenticity List <authenticity at yahoogroups.com>, - BARONY of WINDMASTERS' HILL <keep at windmastershill.org>, - IrgenTLA <IrgenTLA at yahoogroups.com>, - Manx <TheManx at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Beware! Grendel Cometh

Next Saturday, Jan 13, at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time
will come the Sci-Fi Channel premiere of Grendel.
 This looks to be the one they have been filming in the
States [I know they did some at Fork Union, VA.] Instead of being
a big budget Hollywood type movie, it apparently was one of the
SC)I-FI Channel Clones.  Which can be OK at times.

If you like Vikings in helmets with huge horns on their helmets
working a  trebuchet a few centuries out of their time-line
boy/girl is this the movie for you.  The rest of us will grin and bear it,
well probably not the soapeaters, but the rest of us. Ben Hur it ain't.
Personally I am waiting for the new season of Rome.

Magnus

Reminding all those Atlantians out there to program the VCR before
heading to Twelfth nite...........

<the end>

Edited by Mark S. Harris	movies-msg	Page  of