The crappiest film in the history of all crappiest films was on again last night on Beeb 2. Yep, I'm talking about my favourite load of Hollywood bo**ocks, Genghis Khan. And no, I didn't watch it although maybe I should have done just to count the errors. Hmmm, wonder if Ma Subs put in a record for me. Get back to you on that one.

I still think the worst film I have paid good money to see (back in the 80s) is Raise the Titanic. Dire is too good a word for it.

Quote from: Subedai on 02 March 2015, 09:36:13 AM
The crappiest film in the history of all crappiest films was on again last night on Beeb 2. Yep, I'm talking about my favourite load of Hollywood bo**ocks, Genghis Khan. And no, I didn't watch it although maybe I should have done just to count the errors. Hmmm, wonder if Ma Subs put in a record for me. Get back to you on that one.

Maybe that would be your version of hell: Ghengis Khan on perpetual loop whilst you're forced to watch a la Clockwork Orange

Depending on which way you look at it but Ma Subs did put in a reminder for me for the fillum. I got 20 minutes into it, found a mere 25 glaring errors so purged the bl**dy thing before I threw something at the telly.

Quote from: Subedai on 03 March 2015, 06:36:44 PM
Depending on which way you look at it but Ma Subs did put in a reminder for me for the fillum. I got 20 minutes into it, found a mere 25 glaring errors so purged the bl**dy thing before I threw something at the telly.

I'm not sure anyone could make a commercial Mongol film which would appease you 

Quote from: getagrip on 03 March 2015, 07:02:50 PM


I'm not sure anyone could make a commercial Mongol film which would appease you 

What about Mongol?

Quote from: Fenton on 03 March 2015, 07:22:17 PM
What about Mongol?

You see, that I liked but you know Sub's going to find anachronisms:  "they didn't have cart wheels like that until after...." sort of thing 

When you become so knowledgeable it's difficult to ignore errors.

Cromwell is a classic for legions of historical errors, but it is still fun with some great (!?) performances from Frank Finlay, Richard Harris, Alex Guinness, and Timothy Dalton. 

Mollinary

Quote from: mollinary on 03 March 2015, 08:03:14 PM
Cromwell is a classic for legions of historical errors, but it is still fun with some great (!?) performances from Frank Finlay, Richard Harris, Alex Guinness, and Timothy Dalton. 

Mollinary

Love that film.  Glad I don't know as much as some of you guys do about arms; that way I can just enjoy.

Not impressed at all! Its taken me a long time to reply because I had written quite an in-depth synopsis of all four Mongol films that I have in my collection and then just as I was about to finish, feckin Opera crashed on another site I was looking at, so this is my second attempt..

Anyway, best of the lot by far is Genghis:The Legend of the Ten about a 10 man unit (a jagun everywhere else, aravt on the film cover), that is sent to find and bring back a holy man. Detail is excellent as you would really expect from a Mongolian film about Mongols.

Mongol -the 2008 version that was heralded as the mutts is long on mysticism and the part of his life where he may or may not have been a prisoner of the Chinese. The mangudai (god belonging) charge at the end with a sword in each hand is a bit of over-large artistic license. Not too sure about the masks of the Merkits either. Seemed to remember reading it was supposed to be the first in a trilogy. Action sequences are well done-as you would expect for this day and age- and I like the Mongolian throat singing and whistling music has a haunting fascination all of its own.

By the Will of Genghis Khan, a mostly Russian affair from 2009 is quite good as it is the only one that represents the chequerboard formations used by the Mongols as opposed to the 'let's go over there in a bunch and charge' tactics used by the other tribes.

A Japanese version, Genghis Khan: To the ends of the Earth and Sea, again, isn't bad. Most of them seem to get the details correct but tend to miss out bits of his life. Between the three 'biggies' they have most of it covered.

This is interesting in an Oh, God NOOOOO!!! kind of way. Mickey Rourke wants to play the G-Man.

http://screenrant.com/mickey-rourke-genghis-khan-ross-55819/

Obviously, either he or his people in Hollywood with their fingers on the historical pulse have, once again, got it totally and utterly wrong!

Article Writer person: "Rourke is definitely interested in Khan – and thinks he'll be a fascinating character to play. "Historically, if you read about the guy, he was a mystery," says Rourke. As many people are aware, Rourke is a dog-lover (specifically chihuahuas), an aspect of his life the actor shares with Khan:

Rourke: "One of the things I like about Genghis Khan was his love of dogs. The Mongols used dogs in battle, and dogs rarely made it out of the battle. But in one instance, in this script, he orders his men – 'Hold the dogs back.' He was looking out for the dogs. I like that.""

He feckin didn't like dogs, he was afraid of them!!! And nowhere, in any of the books and articles I have read does it say anywhere that the Mongols used dogs in war. He had his four 'Dogs of War' -Sube'etai, Jelme, Jebei and Qubilai whom he entrusted with his vanguard but no bl**dy Fido, Bullseye, Spot or Killer anywhere.

Quote from: mollinary on 03 March 2015, 08:03:14 PM
Cromwell is a classic for legions of historical errors, but it is still fun with some great (!?) performances from Frank Finlay, Richard Harris, Alex Guinness, and Timothy Dalton. 

Mollinary

Hmmm. For a film that was to have been researched for ten years...must have been researching Richard Cromwell by accident cos it's absolutely full of errors. Get past them and it's okay, I suppose (grudgingly).

Quote from: Subedai on 03 March 2015, 09:17:49 PM
Hmmm. For a film that was to have been researched for ten years...must have been researching Richard Cromwell by accident cos it's absolutely full of errors. Get past them and it's okay, I suppose (grudgingly).

Come on Sub; it's worth a better rant than that 

Quote from: Subedai on 03 March 2015, 09:17:49 PM
Hmmm. For a film that was to have been researched for ten years...must have been researching Richard Cromwell by accident cos it's absolutely full of errors. Get past them and it's okay, I suppose (grudgingly).

So we agree then, both on the errors and the OK-ness?!   

Mollinary

Quote from: getagrip on 03 March 2015, 09:19:06 PM
Come on Sub; it's worth a better rant than that 

Bearing in mind that I haven't seen it for decades and am working completely from memory. The two really in yer historical face biggies are:

Cromwell was at Edgehill in the film, in that case Colonel H. C. B. Rogers and Brigadier Peter Young, the nation's ECW buff and every other historian missed that one because according to them, Cromwell didn't arrive with his troop until after the battle. (Along with a couple of infantry units and the remainder of the artillery).
In the film he is in command at Naseby. Err, no he wasn't, Sir Thomas Fairax was, Cromwell only commanded a wing of cavalry. And I reckon they didn't mention Marston Moor because he got wounded and had to leave the field to get it dressed.

As an aside, when I was in the SK I heard that the producers were offered its services as extras who would have done it for nothing but they were turned down because they looked too professional. Can you imagine the producers of Gettysburg saying that to their historical re-enactors? Course they wouldn't. Honestly, you can't make it up.

The most egregious error for me was that Cromwell was made one of the five members of parliament that Charles went to arrest. Not only that , he was still there!   

Mollinary