>ridiculous heroes doing ridiculous things
Sound's quite Greek to me.
>it's amazing how a baby emperor had such a stable rule in china.
Puyi's reign was anything but stable. The writing was on the wall even during the Empress Dowager's time that the Empire was probably not going to survive. He's an interesting figure though and the movie treats his life very fairly and without bowing to Western-friendly revisionist history.
Love this film.
I also really enjoy "The Patriot."
Seeing the English defeated is comforting.
>Realistic is boring
>His work during the war is murky in the details. He worked as an ambulance driver and he stated that he worked in intelligence. Dean King has claimed that O'Brian was actively involved in intelligence work and perhaps special operations overseas during the war.
>p-p-p-p-/pol/s c-c-c-coming to get me!
>t-tttthey are in this very thread!
By your logic, Saving Private Ryan is racist because a group of white people decided to write and create a film about the Normandy Landings despite the fact that the actual racist people in that movie could be considered the antagonists.
How has Hollywood not made a film about the fall of Constantinople yet? It's one of the few historical events that could translate near perfectly and accurately to film and still be good.
I am aware there's a Turkish film but aside from it's obvious pro-Ottoman bias it also has some poor writing where characters are concerned.
I wouldn't have thought so, films didn't exist in the 17th century
Because white christians have to be good guys, but in this day and age its absolutely forbidden to portray muslims as bad guys. So you got a dilemma and obviously Hollywood is not the place where you can make a movie without a good guys vs bad guys narrative.
It only looks stable because the movie is shown from Puyi's point of view inside the palace before he gets thrown out.
If you get the historical background of the movie, and what the protests and things going on in the movie are about, then you understand why the makers of that movie portrayed it in such a way. They wanted to show just how isolated the emperor was to the political situation of China, until they started knocking on his door in the Forbidden City.
The books are great. The movie is great. They are two different mediums and, as such, have two different ways of telling the story. You can't expect the movie to be as in depth and as thought-provoking as the books without being annoyingly tedious. You can't expect books to be as exciting and as visual as a movie. There are some stories that do better in books versus movies or vice versa. But I really think they did an excellent job of adapting a realistic and engaging historical fiction story into an exciting naval war drama.
I personally think that issue could be easily resolved by portraying both Constantine XI and Mehmed II as noble and virtuous rulers (obviously the film would be from the Byzantine point of view).
Bad guys could be the Genoese cowards who fled the moment their commander got a boo-boo.
They just hated that saladin arab guy being Darius t.b.h.
I though the guy was great but well, diasporas are always autistic, specially in the new world. Nothing new under the sky.
I had fun with it. I mean, the part where the ottoman sultan fights him with money with just hilarious.
Great movie, it just needed different marketing. Nobody should take it seriously.
Not fully historical, but 100% fun. Still more accurate than 300.
iirc they're mayans.
The movie is not historically accurate though, and I've seen scholars getting really butthurt about it, so don't try to over-analyze it trying to understand who is who.
The writer of the comic was openly xenophobic against iranians, so it's not like the inaccuracies were naive or innocent either. If anything, not wanting to be accurate makes it worst this time.
Worst in the sense that people has an actual reason to be angry. I still enjoyed the movie t.b.h. (the first one, the second was crap).
Don't be fucking mean, we orc ninjas have feelings too.
By that logic, are all asian and latino histories lacking bias?
Films from the era contain many old racial stereotypes, but Zulu has none of them (except for perhaps those among the British). Everyone is depicted with dignity, and the film has nothing but respectful sentiments about the Zulus. There were even direct descendants of the original tribe who acted in the film.
it's pretty well done
I'm surprised more films aren't set in Colonial Virginia considering how the sets and background reenactors are readily available.
It is easy calling this movie racist.
You are right. It was made from the white perspective, but this is a good thing, it means it goes further in showing how unethical systems and behavior can become normalized.
If it were made today the white officers would be portrayed as mindless buffoons who unquestioningly believe in the "civilizing mission", a meaningless disney-style view of good and evil.
I just wish Malick would make more historical movies
Not really historical movie when it was made, but I think it should qualify as one now. It's a pretty good contemporary look into life after the war in Berlin.
I really enjoyed it. I think, however that it really suffered from the fact that it tried to cover the many different Alexander's presented in current/ancient sources.
Should have been a direct focus on either Alexander the conqueror or Alexander the human.
>first whole scene of the movie is describing the Zulu customs at home
>humanizes the Zulu king
>goes to great lengths to describe the tactical methods employed by the Zulu during their battles
>has a soldier explain the meaning of the Zulu war chants to the British officers during the battle
>this is racist
*Zionist bias against the Islamic Republic of Iran
Jews who reject Israel have no problem with Iran, especially how it has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. Not to mention the fact that the Bible literally calls Cyrus the Great "annointed of God", making him the only non-Jew to receive such a title. And both countries were pretty bro before the revolution.
Which in turn makes it even funnier, because dissing the pre-Islamic heritage of Iran doesn't hit the Islamic Republic as hard as it hits the diaspora, which for the most part hates Islam and clings onto the whole Zoroastrian thing.
>Ancient Greek bias against Persians
300 worked wonderfully once you realized it was Thermopylae as the ancient Greeks would have seen it. The Persians were intentionally portrayed as weird to reflect exaggerated Greek stereotypes of Oriental peoples.
>once you realized
It was pretty clear that it was meant that way, what with the framing device of that one-eyed dude telling the entire story to other troops before the battle of Plataea.