MovieChat Forums > Boudica (2003) Discussion > Yikes . . .

Yikes . . .

posted 21 years ago by Miriam626
15 replies | jump to latest

This is easily one of the worst historical films I've ever seen. (For the ABSOLUTE worst, see "Druids" -- made by a film-school flunky with an unfortunate propensity for trusting his own script-writing ability, hiring flunky actors, and . . . oh, forget being cute . . . it was just TERRIBLE.) "Boudica" was equally bad as far as acting, script, and plot flow were concerned. The only performances worth noting were those of Jack Shepherd (Claudius), Andrew Lee Potts (Nero -- a bit overdone), and Michael Feast (Seutonius), who did their collective best to work with a wretched script by Andrew Davies. It's unfortunate Davies' name has to be associated with this movie since he's usually so brilliant, but it is his own fault -- the dialogue is unrealistic, the facts are twisted, the plot line is intact but anti-climactic, and the ending just comes out of left field. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, this was a BAD MOVIE. I want my hour-and-a-half back.

[–] kerstyevans 20 years ago

I totally agree, at least one of the worst historical film ever made. I hope everyone reads your opinion (and mine) on this film instead of believing this was true history. Never known so many inaccuracies in one programme. I enjoyed the funny bits, though sadly I don't think they were meant to be funny.
The producers must be glad that you and i aren't film critics.

[–] Bagpuss42 20 years ago

I rather enjoyed it, I have to admit, although I did find various parts funny. One of my favourites was Nero's emulation of Kevin The Teenager with "It's so unfair!" (if you don't know what I'm talking about, watch Harry Enfield).

I'm not quite sure why some "historical" films have to change the story so much - especially the ending. It's something us Britons are fond of blaming the Americans for, but this film shows we're just as capable of doing it ourselves. Still, I suppose Shakespeare did it too.

"Lenny, you're very tall. Talk about that for a bit."

[–] Magnetta101 20 years ago

u obvisouly havent watched many history films. I thought personnal it was rather good and what do u mean by ureal scripts. How do u no wat it was like. were u alive then???

[–] guava_art 19 years ago

No, but neither were the makers of this movie.

With this sort of movie, it's probably more reliable to go with the historical story rather than something made-up.

[–] sophie_lou21 18 years ago

Neither was GoodAngel1 either.

This film was terrible and wasn't right at all, right down to the clothes they wore. It was bad acting too and bad everything. I wouldn't watch this again any time soon, if it came free with a blockbuster hit I enjoyed... Actually, I'd take the DVD cause it's free, but wouldn't watch it.

-

Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/

[–] ulht1 18 years ago

With no offense, "you weren't there" is not much of a pointed comment - or a meaningful one - as none of us were. The point is, rather, were there people who were there and who left records? (Yes) If so, how do these records match what was shown? If the answer is "Not very well!!" (as it was for this film) then you do not have a historical film as this purported to be, you have, based on events mostly in the last 20-30 minutes, historical fantasy at best. This was, being kind, in the tradition of the King Arthur films involving Merlin ,et.al., and having nothing to do with a character who may or may not have actually lived doing things with little, if any, relation to the stories.

That said, you and any other persons who enjoyed the film have every right to do so - I have enjoyed many films whose research/accuracy on topics widely known were woefully incorrect/inadequate/misleading etc. but were still fun to watch. Just try not to confuse entertainment value with accuracy - there is little connection between the two most of the time.

[–] daggers-1 17 years ago

I'm assuming from your typing that English isn't your first language.

There are substantial historical documents from two Roman analysts and writers. There are numerous other reports on how people of that time and place dressed and lived. From all accounts, the movie got all this wrong.

That would make it a "loose historical fantasy," not a "history film."

http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magnetta101 16 years ago

Maybe it was wrong but don't say the film was terrible because of that. Did you ever watch Braveheart, Gladiator or Marie Antoinette? Did like those films. Well guess what they got practically everything wrong especially Braveheart. That film had the most factual errors ever!!! Yet it was still a huge blockbuster hit and still is very famous. The acting was also good in Boudicca. Emily Blunt is now a hugely known actress around the world. So don't say all the actors can't act. Just some.

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR!!!

[–] negativec07 16 years ago

I'd say it was terrible for the fact the script and acting are the worst I've seen in quite some time. For example the motivational speeches given before the end were supposed to have been inspiring but instead were laughable. The Roman general's line (along the lines of 'it will be hard, but it will be their deaths and not hours) just made me laugh. Another thing I noticed in the battle scenes is how the extras don't even seem to be doing anything except pushing eachother a bit

[–] BadgerBollocks 16 years ago

The first time it was shown on TV I was sat watching it in company, so after a couple of bottles of Wine I thought it was decent, but having watched it last night sober.. my impression was just "Braveheart with Tits", poor effort.

[I'd rather be an Aboriginie's Underpants than Himalhomoyithian]

[–] The_Eleventh_Doctor 16 years ago

My question is why did we have to have the incest scene instead of more violence? The film needed more graphic violence.

porci parvi, porci parvi, videoum vestrum corripere venivimus!

[–] BadgerBollocks 16 years ago

Speak for yourself, personally I thought the incest scene was the highlight of the film, she had a cracking pair of knockers for an old Bird

[I'd rather be an Aboriginie's Underpants than Himalhomoyithian]

[–] norbs 16 years ago

do i dare say i actually enjoyed the film??
watched it on itv4 a couple of days back, i really enjoyed it! it's not that i havent got standards when it comes to films....im very picky, but you gotta enjoy it for what it is, the acting was gonna be a bit hammy, but lighten up!! it wasnt made to be a blockbuster hit, so just appreciate it for what it is!
i agree with Magnette101

[–] Dream_Demon 10 years ago

I wasn't expecting any historical accuracy nor any high-quality dialogue, research, etc. I was just expecting a fantasy based on history and a decent made-for-TV movie. I got what I wanted and that's all I have to say.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger