Films tend to be more entertaining if you have not a clue about history. Seriously, knowledge just spoils them. Try some lobotomy next time and I promise you lots of fun.

I can go into a movie and suspend disbelief as long as the filmmaker goes to reasonable lengths to at least give the appearance of historical accuracy. I don't expect a documentary walking into a movie, I expect to be entertained. In the case of Kingdom of Heaven I've done a lot a reading about the crusades because it's a period that interests me, and from what I know Ridley Scott did one hell of a job getting the battle at the Horns of Hattin right. Others may disagree about the film's value as entertainment, but tradeoffs are always going to happen in a movie in regards to "historical accuracy" or "realism" because there's only so much you can cram into two or three hours of a movie and still tell a coherent story.

The Templar Master during this specific time is exactly considered a fool, so playing the fool was not a bad thing, but men running around in mail all day was really awful for a country that combined so many influences on fashion and so many French.

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is terrible. I'm willing to forgive a lot of anachronisms and errors if a movie has good production design and a good, well acted storyline. This latest Robin Hood had production design that was ok at best and the storyline and acting were very mediocre. Afterwards, my wife and I said "Should watched Kevin Costner"

Kingdom of Heaven, OTOH, while completley anachronistic in terms of armour, politics and character motivation is a visually stunning movie with decent acting all around and some real stand outs, like Eva Green, Edward Norton and Liam Neeson. The knightly vow, in particular, is a powerful scene. I like the longer "director's cut" better as it explains some of the holes in the theatrical release.

for those that didnt like Kingdom of Heaven, i suggest watching the Directors Cut. the extra 45 min makes a world of difference in the story...

Agreed, it was quite literally a different movie. As much as i disliked some of the inaccuracies, overall, it was one of best medieval type movies made in the last 10 years IF you're watching the Director Cut.


I finally saw Russell Crowe's Robin Hood. Wasn't bad. Wasn't great, but better than Kevin Costner.

The biggest drawback I had from when I start studing Historic Arms and Armour is that I couldn't enjoy a movie ever since. Recently Rete 4 transmitted "Prince Valiant (1954)"...

The only ones I can see are like 300: there isn't anything of historical value and they don't even think of present themself as an historical movie (what the journalists say is another thing). Often they are inaccurate as reconstruction, but they manage to capture the spirit of the fact: I'm very convinced that an ancient greek would have liked 300 more than an accurate movie of the battle.

To return OT, but the egression I made explain my choice, the best Robin Hood for me is Mel Brooks "Men in thights", with the king John (I haven't see the english version, but in italian has a very appropriated roman accent: not all the kings where gentle and noble), Latrine (the witch which is only a misunderstood chef with some knowledge) and so on.

"Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent!"

Actually I can't even watch 300 after reading Persian Fire by Tom Holland. Great book by the way. And it makes 300 horribly unwatchable.

As for the Ridley Scott version, why did they re-write well documented political events like that? I mean, messing with the Magna Carta of all things, for crying out loud!

Yes, kingdom of Heaven is one of the best fairly recent medieval movies. Not completely historical with some events being backwards but the directors cut was pretty good, even with the skewered timeline and too late period barrel helmets and other minor things. Like Orlando being typecast as blacksmith. At least he's in control of his rioting eyebrows in this one, his acting is actually good, probably his career best.