Just got back from watching and thought that it was pretty damn good. I dont feel like I know enough about this time period or the original story to comment much on the accuracy of the weapons and armor. The intro at the beginning sets the time as the "Dark Ages" but I'm guessing its around 600 AD. The swords were mostly Viking type with some Celtic types thrown in too. There were also a fair a number of maces, spears and axes. Has anyone else seen it yet and care to shar an opinion? FWIW, the story was much more compelling than Kingdom of Heaven (theartical release) and I actually cared about what was going to happen to the characters--unlike in KoH.

Just got back from seeing the movie. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie was; but after seeing this film I honestly could care less about accuracy since it was so damn good. I agree, you actually care about these characters. It seems like we've had a slew of really bad sword movies (King Arthur, Troy, Alexander) and some mediocre ones (KoH), and it's so refreshing to finally have a good one come out. It was also nice to see some good swordplay, as recent movies have been a real letdown in that area. Again, no idea how historically accurate it was, but I enjoyed this one immensely.

Tristan and Isolde is one of the Arthurian legends, probably made up when Authur stories were flying around like comic books and later incorporated into the Vulgate Cycle. As a fiction, I'm not sure historical accuracy comes into play here, since the story was intended to be part of a magical fairy tale. There's even a love potion involved. I'm more dissapointed that they clearly either didn't read, or else read and disregarded the original story. That not the same kind of inaccuracy as you'd find in a supposedly historical movie with vikings running around in Gothic armor and carrying rapiers, but in a way I think it's worse. All that care going into making things period specific and you screw up something as easily fixed as the script. Sigh...

i heard it was a chick flick. ehhehe. ;)

no historical value at all.

Does Isolde wear any armor or get involved in any swordplay? Purely academic question, of course...

:eek: :D :eek:

Liked the film and yes it is a bit of a " chick flick " but it is a good story when judged on it's own merits.

Very little to no armour except for leather armour with some limited metal reinforcements and padded clothing that could be seen as early gambison at least in function. No maille observed at all which is a surprise as I would at least expect the Kings or a few elite warriors to have at least a sleeveless or short sleeved maille shirt. Don't remember seeing any steel helms or many helms at all except hardened leather ones.

The swords look late Viking or very early Medieval which is a lot better than 16th century twohanders or rapiers :lol:

One good thing is that most of the Castles are of the early wooden Keep and wooden stockades types with only one stone round Keep which is mentioned in the film as being exceptional: After the first wooden castle is burned down they rebuild in stone.

Now is it just that I know little of this periods history or the original story, but the Villains are the Irish who seem to have most of England under some sort of vassalage or at least receive tribute from the various English kingdoms that are mentioned as being Celts, Saxons, Picts and maybe a couple more :?: :eek: :lol:

Now I can see Irish raiders taking advantage of the power vacuum caused by the departure of the Romans but I don't think the Irish would have taken over Britain and been in a position to rule over the whole territory. ( Could be wrong or illinformed !? )

Oh, there is an interesting sword carried by one of the main bad guys that looks like a large Broken tip Falchion with the blade being at it's widest near the point.

Picking apart the film and evaluating the various aspects of it is a good after viewing activity but the bottom line is that the film was enjoyable and it is a good " date film " that you won't have to drag a girl friend to. ( Oh, no not another sword movie :p :lol: )

I knew I had seen Sophia Myles (Isolde) before. She played the blonde vampire in Underworld

And I had no trouble getting my date to go see it...she actually really liked it

Yeah, I have to concur....I really disliked Alexander. I felt no emotion for the characters and really felt like it was a waste of a couple hours. But, to each their own....it had my favorite actress in it but overall I didn't like it.


Now, King Arthur....I actually liked that one, too. I liked that they at least got it in the right century, I liked that there were some historical elements that made me think a history expert might have even been consulted once when writing the script. I'm a little fuzzy on the Sarmatians but I was under the impression that the Sarmatians were driven Westward by the Huns into the Roman empire and that they did a real job on the rather cavalry-poor Romans. In the start of the movie, though...they're shown a beaten and practically enslaved people. But, seeing Arthur lose his field plate and bright golden city was nice. And yes, I liked what they did with the woads/merlin, too. And yes, that leather "sports bra" thing they did with Guenivere was just...bad.

Finally, I enjoyed KoH but I didn't find it all that compelling. I mostly enjoyed the action but I didn't get inside the characters at all. So, emotional attachment-zero, fun factor-high.

Now that I've written about 3 movies that aren't the topic of this thread....I'll at least make a nod to the thread title by saying...haven't seen Tristan and Isolde yet...looking forward to it soon.

Just got back from seeing Tristin and Isolde. I must say I thought it was pretty good. I was surprised not to see any chain maille and I'm wondering about the accuracy of the armour in general. One character was wearing a scale armour shirt which looked like it was made of leather. Also there were numerous characters in open-faced leather brigandine type armour which gave me a little bit of a 14th century vibe. Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these armour types?

The swords seemed a few centuries late but besides a bit too much edge banging he fighting seemed ok. When Tristen is fighting in the tournament at one point he uses something like a flail which I've never heard of from the 6th century. Also, the Irish general's wheel pommeled, two-handed chopper/falchion felt quite out of place since I don't know of any two handed swords before the high middle ages.

Despite these accuracy questions I thought the movie was good. The story was moving and the characters weren't static, it's always refreshing to see characters who aren't perfect, not to mention Isolde is gorgeous. I am always glad to see any dark age/viking/migration era movies and I hope they start doing more.

i dunno, gonna wait till dvd. but the main guy is whereing a sweater for crying out loud hehehe

If I remember right, Kevin Reynolds directed this. I've always liked his films (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Count of Monte Cristo, others)

I had been planning on seeing Tristin and Isolde in the theater with my wife, but it already appears to be gone from the Orlando area. Must have bombed at the box office. If so, that doesn't bode well for Ridley Scott (Exec Producer with his brother Tony), after last year's Kingdom of Heaven.

This is a pretty good article, once you get past the author's sarcasm. It simultaneously answers both the people who love the new Authurian movies and the people who criticize them for not having enough historical validity.

http://www.twoheadedcat.com/content/article.php?articleID=1573