MovieChat Forums > Flesh+Blood (1985) Discussion > Best Medieval Movie Ever

Best Medieval Movie Ever


I rank this as the best and most realistic Medieval movie I have ever seen. Who else agrees?

reply

I'd have to say I strongly disagree. There was very little attention to detail as far as the period goes. And the setting was Western Europe? Come on. This movie would fit better in the historic-fantasy catagory.

In the end, there were far too many unrealistic things in this movie, simply from a historical standpoint.

I fart in your general direction.

reply

yes I agree. When this movie is compared with other so called medieval movies it is far more realistic. As being set in the late middle ages most of the clothing, weapons etc is reasonably correct.
It's also the period I like most as an reenactor. I see absolute no fantasy elements!

reply

You guys have to see Kingdom of Heaven...

reply

Kingdom of Heaven is perhaps one of the worst movies ever made in the genre. Overacted, bullcrap. That movie would have been better if Bloom's character got decapitated a half hour in.

"In our wings that bark, flashing teeth of brass, standing tall in the dark" - David Bowie

reply

Are you kidding?! Okay, Bloom was not good at all. But the rest of the cast was great, Jeremy Irons was fantastic as Tiberias, Eva Green did a fine job (as always) as Sybilla, Liam Nielsen was okay (usually a bit better though, Ghassan Massoud was great as Saladin, Ed Norton as Baldwin. The supporting cast was great. Plenty of research went into that movie and the fights were so awesome. Too bad it was only in the last half hour of the film. I would argue that Kingdom of Heaven was better than Scott's other excuse for a movie Gladiator... he fcking restores the Republic at the end... wtf is that?!?! In terms of historicity, Kingdom of Heaven is probably the best in its genre. Well with the exception of HBO's Rome.

reply

HBO's Rome...not as good as PBS's I Claudius...unless you prefer flash over acting.

"In our wings that bark, flashing teeth of brass, standing tall in the dark" - David Bowie

reply

The film is set in 1501. That means it isn't medieval at all; it's early Renaissance.

reply

I agree with the OP; this is a good film, but it's not medieval. 1500 is technically the beginning of what is called 'the early modern period'.

reply

I don't know if it's the best but it's a definitely 10 out of 10 for me.:0) And because someone mentioned it, I also like "Name of the rose" madly. These two are brilliant. I'm speechless I would watch them a hundred of times and wouldn't be bored. I prefer them over a lot of movies of nowadays.

reply

Why are so many people's understanding of time frames in history so skewed? Why can't the Renaissance be a portion of medieval history which is a portion of the Dark ages. Which started around 600ad and went until 1500-1600 by many accounts.

Noone is wrong, they are all sections of time as described by our history tellers. Sections can overlap. You can have a whole civilization using stone, clay, and fire in one geographic location and one using iron, steel, etc. In a different location both coexisting silmultaneously.

Therfore you can have Enlightenment or whatever in part of Italy and mayhem and chaos anywhere else.

reply

It's kind of funny how this movie is often cited as proof that Hollywood can make realistic medieval flicks when it is but another exaggerated take on the era.
Until the 1990s everything medieval which American film studios made was nice and shiny and romantic; beginning with Flesh + Blood they went to, well, flesh and blood, dirty mugs and brown rags.
Here's the thing, though: Flesh + Blood is to be taken with a pinch of salt. If it does depict any given era in a somewhat accurate manner, it would be about the time of the Thirty Year's War i.e. the early 17th Century. When it comes to the actual Middle Ages, which by scientific consensus began about the time of the Vikings' rise (i.e. the definite end of tribal migration and the re-emerge of cross-border trade) and ended with the Year of Reformation in 1517 (at the utmost), "nice and shiny and romantic" is all in all a more accurate version than brown rags*.
The dark image of that period of time was by and large painted by protestant authors seeking to discredit the previous sovereignty of the Catholic Church as an era of violence and hatred. While famine and disease indeed cost many lives in medieval times, ecclesial registers of death offer proof that in some centuries actually less people died from violence than do today.
It wasn't until the ~1550-1650 centenary of religious conflict and peasant revolts that every war in Europe would turn into one giant massacre.
Another contributing factor to that kind of development was the emerge of mercenary armies, by the way. While a liege lord could simply command his vassals' loyality and they would often try not to lay destruction to everything in their path (which is a stupid thing to do for a conqueror, as a burnt countryside and slain peasants won't generate income) mercenary armies were often paid with promises — and unleashed to vent their anger on a hostile population whenever said promises could not be fulfilled.

What I'm saying is, if you want a realistic portrayal of the actual middle ages your search can't stop with F+B, at least you shouldn't take every image as rock-solid historical accuracy.
If you want a somewhat gritty atmosphere and fair degree of accuracy, I can only say that my HEMA instructor (Ph.D. in history and politics, 30 years of experience) thinks one of the most accurate "sword 'n' shield"-movies image-wise is Luc Besson's Joan of Arc (minus the fact that the French filmmaker decided to exclude guns and cannons from featuring in his film).

*) A funny thing about brown rags: Most of those joyless peasants we see walk about in the movies clad in brown couldn't have ever existed. Brown leather was and is rather expensive to come by, and brown linnen or flax even harder. People most likely looked like they do on actual paintings and book illustrations from the middle ages, i.e. they dressed in lively colors. Blue, red and green dyes were fairly easy to produce and acquire.

reply

I think the Name of the Rose is the best for the medieval period too.

But Flesh + Blood really is Very good. I loved every second of it. What i liked most was that every character deserved to die and at the same time i could be satisfied with any of them living through it all too. Because they were all human characters (very rare in "action" films these days) i loved and hated them all in equal measure.

I noticed someone was bigging up Kingdom of Heaven for its historical correctness but as far as the story regarding many of the Characters is concerned it isnt very accurate at all. Read the KOH board if you want to know more about its "hollywood" fictional elements.

Thats why I love Flesh+Blood. As far as i know it isnt trying to be based on any true historical events or characters and it isnt trying to sermonise about modern values of right and wrong. I think that this is the best way that hollywood should do films set in the past, rather than make films that lie about history.

This film made me feel like i was with them in those days which is the most you can ask from a history based movie. Although I did laugh a bit at the Roman siege engine that they built.

If there was a hero in this film then it was the Mercenary Captain who rides off and (i hope) lives happily ever after with his Nun bit of stuff ;)

Overall Id give a 10 out of 10 for this film i think.

reply

I thought this film was great, however I think 'The Seventh Seal', 'Virgin Spring' and 'Robin Hood' (the other 1990s version, not that junk with Kostner) are better, though it's subjective.

I have always been interested in mercenaries of the early modern ('renaissance' is such an incorrect and biased term) period so I had to like this.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply

[deleted]