Hey, Nick, I recently watched Ridley Scott's Napoleon. And I hated every second of it. If you could make a video talking very briefly about it's inaccuracies, I would appreciate it. But I have one question I hope anyone could find the answer to: Did Napoleon and Josephine have their marriage signed in Gregorian calendar instead of the official state revolutionary calendar?
How William Marshal heard word of the French fleet is in the Channel, is because a messenger approached him, whilst Robin Hood was talking to the King in front of the crowd. You would notice this at 28:23 of your video.😉
Still better than that more recent version with Jamie Fox though. That scene at the beginning where they were running around wielding longbows like they were playing Call of Duty was unintentional comedy gold.
Some of the landing craft dropped their occupants off too far from the shore. There were a few reenactors who sank and had to walk through neck high water to get to the beach.
I can't see why everybody get's it wrong. It's the coast of England and therefore these are the Roman boats from Astérix. It's so funny that the Romans in Astérix just made the same fault to attack at the most difficult position when you can have a more easy landing not far away. 😀
The part that gets me is that he also did the Duelist, Somehow I cannot reconcile that a same man did both movies. Especially when the Duelist seems much more interested in the era, the vibe than the popcorn fantasy schlok Nap was.
@@murciadoxial8056 As someone who loves Gladiator just because I grew up with it, I was SO excited for an exciting Napolean movie that didn't care about history for action and excitment. Napoleon was just boring, not accurate and almost intolerable to watch.
“When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.'" Ridley Scott was clearly there himself and knows everything.
Russell Crowe managed to keep every Robin Hood scholar happy by doing every English accent (including Scouse, Nigerian, Mancunian, Northern Irish, Geordie, Jamaican...) all at the same time.
@@molochz Hi mate, hope you're well. Just stopped by to say you're confusing the English language with the English nationality. Northern Irish English is a dialect of English. When we're talking about people who speak Gaelic in Northern Ireland with a Northern Irish accent, we'd call that an Irish accent. Russell Crowe is speaking English and we're talking about his bizarrely accented English. Hope this makes things clear for you.
I'm absolutely dying at the fact that the gaggle of orphan boys are all riding, not ponies, but miniature horses perfectly proportioned to their own sizes. As if that was something easy to come by.
And honestly they'd get slaughtered at first contact, they don't even have steel weapons... The view of dismembered children might have changed the rating of this film !
@@Cancoillotteman A single knight or maybe two so they could aid each other would have completely destroyed that whole "squad" and Marion with them. Films really do seem to not appreciate how deadly a knight was during these periods and how utterly fucked a commoner would be in a fight with one.
Don't forget that the knights that they loot the equipment from after the ambush were presumably those of the King's inner circle, meaning their heraldry would've most likely been recognized by multiple people at court when they arrived in England.
They'd also know the difference in the way they talk and ride their horses. The Norman noble he was impersonating would have spoken French and been in the saddle from a very early age. The yoeman English archer that he was in the movie would have been very obvious from the moment he rode up.
@@RockoBam1 I'm honestly surprise not one of the court nobles didn't take 5 minutes too verify. Which house all each of them belong to and their names and titles. I mean the last thing they want is one of them to fumble and say im from house Sauce of Worcestershire.
Well, the only thing they wanted was to find a ship to carry them over the sound, because they had no money to get there. I don't remember anyone falling for their ruse at the actual docks which they planned to never show up at.
On his death bed he called on Little John and stated " Bring me my bow, where ever this arrow lands this is where you shall bury me! " His men stayed true to his request and thats why Robin was buried ontop of his bedroom wardrobe.
Not that it makes a difference in this situation, but I thought the switch over came around the time of Richard the second? I’ll have to look into that again
I am very upset that the stories of Robin Hood and Little John running through the forest was NOT done in the company of a singing, lute playing rooster. This is an outrage.
My medieval history professor told us one thing that was spot on in this film was John pausing as he gave Robin the ring and knocking it on his head, saying, “This crown costs money.” John wasn’t stupid, he was just a real jerk and had no idea how to communicate with people. In general, the film captures John terrifically.
Pretty much and its completely by accident, cause Ridley Scott seems to have not researched anything besides how King John was relatively bad as a king. He saw the villain and went "how can I make him unlikable" and surprisingly hit the nail on the head by accident
Their a sense of pity I get from Prince john. The guy had to fund his brother's war campaign while everyone scapegoat him for higher taxation. Sure he a asshole, but his older, Richard could also be one at times
@@starmaker75 People will put up with a lot if they're backing a winner. But John wasn't a great soldier, murdered his nephew (who had a claim to be King), betrayed his friends and was just generally a jerk to pretty much everyone. He earned his rep
"People will putup with a lot if they're backing a winner" Richard was not really a winner either, he never managed to take back Jerusalem, and was imprisonned for two years in the HRE and had to pay an enormous ransom to be free ˆˆ'
@@krankarvolund7771 Yes cause Richard didn't have a career as a successful warrior in France and Aquitaine BEFORE he went on Crusade or after he was released from the HRE...
This movie shows that Scott's ability to make historically accurate movies has always been a problem. And when he was called out on it for NAPOLEON, he straight up had a temper tantrum and attacked everyone who criticized the movie.
He thinks history is his bitch that he can change and warp as he wants to tell HIS story. He doesn't understand that if he just wants to tell his story unimpeded, he simply shouldn't involve actual history in it. And if he wants to make a historic movie, his story needs to take a backseat.
Don’t forget kingdom of heaven. Which is arguably worse because it required knowledge of the actual history and character to have gotten it so wrong. Sad really. Basically used as an anti Iraq war film or anti religion film. Which Id have no problem with if it didn’t bend history to fit it.
TLDR; You probably aren't pointing out anything Scott doesn't know he just chooses to write and direct interesting movies and says anything deep using literary and film devices for subtleness and not to get in the way of the entertainment. He probably is purposely retelling history wrong in way similar to how Tarantino does. It's a cathartic retelling of history that is similar to propaganda in the way that it wants to inspire or create a mythology that people of the current era can then use to create a more desired future. It's not a documentary it's a dramatic film so the fact that he is playing fast and loose with facts usually is some sort of intentional or unintentional commentary originating from the director/writers beliefs and worldview. Gladiator is the perfect example of this, it is a what if the great stoic and last of the 5 great emperors who ruled at the pinnacle of Rome decided to try to turn Rome back into the Republic that built the empire back to a government system people in western nations prize and value as the best, since this would be the last chance knowing what happens after that, it is arguably the last time Rome could have turned back the clock of empire and reinstall a senate for the people. I haven't analyzed Robin Hood but from what I have seen it is probably commentary of the rise of the middle class and the magna carta leading to modern republics and the waning power of absolute monarchy. The wild wrong geography could just be a hint that this is a made up england but is still talking about england.
Look at 1492, Kingdom of Heaven, Napoleon. Scott's problem is that he doesn't care about telling THE story, he wants to tell HIS story, and he'll fuck about with the history in order to do that. Any studio worth their salt should ban him from making historical movies, because if you don't care about the truth, then why bother?
I would love to see an April fools video on a historical parody like men in tights, history of the world pt 1, or Monty python and the holy grail, and do a full on historical breakdown!
i hope he does video on Medieval, historically its probably the worst movie ever made, it makes Braveheart and 300 look like the most perfect historical documentary.
AI is a possibility but I believe it's one of the many impersonators available on Fiverr. There's one English standup comedian with a TH-cam channel who does impressions of celebrities such as Attenborough and famously Morgan Freeman.
There kind of is one with a movie called Ironclad. We get a magnificently hammy depiction of King John by Paul Giamatti. Unfortunately, the main plot is essentially a Seven Samurai rip-off where a knight sworn to a vow of silence starts talking and immediately becomes much less interesting as he and Brian Cox gather a small band of 5 other knights and barons to hold off King John's forces at a castle. It's an entertaining movie, if only for Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox.
I believe there is one more element to why the early Robin Hood was a yeoman. Since the English army strongly relied on archers during the Hundred Years War, many commoners came back from the battlefields of France richer and with significant military training, making Robin a perfect mirror of the time. There is a short documentary by Mike Loades detailing how many families of north and central England were founded by these veteran archers.
@@MsJaytee1975The making of Robin Hood documentary goes through the decision making behind the film. The yeomanry was becoming more prominent during this time and bringing home a lot of ideas from the crusades, also being able to freely join and profit from the crusades, plus having a character with no obligations related to land gives more freedom to play with the character
I heard that an earlier version of this Robin Hood's screenplay was that it followed the Sheriff of Nottingham's perspective, depicting him as an overworked law enforcer in Prince John's borderline anarchic England, and Robin was both an impoverished nobleman-turned-bandit that refused to bow to John AND suspect number one for a spate of cold-blooded murders around Nottingham, despite only admitting to killing to a few of the victims in banditry raids, but several of his merry men were killed in cold blood too, meaning there's a Jack the Ripper-type lurking about... A cat-n-mouse crime thriller set in 12th-13th century England with Robin Hood and the Sheriff becoming reluctant allies to catch a serial killer would've been so interesting.
This is genuinely one of those “what could’ve been” movie plots that’s never left my mind from the minute I first read about it years ago. They could’ve even kept the casting they ended up with (namely Matthew MacFayden as the sheriff) and it still would’ve worked so well. Such a shame that one actor’s ego had to ruin what could’ve been a truly original take on this beloved folktale.
That's not a "fun fact" because it's not even a fact. Whether John was a good king is debatable, but what is sure is that he wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. So what you said was not a fact, just an unrelated coincidence.
Had to pause the video and comment... the David Attenborough section was brilliant! I love it! I really want to believe that was actually Sir David Attenborough doing that bit 🙂Timestamp 30:22
If I recall correctly, this film began as a movie from the Sheriff of Nottingham’s respective, before the director and Crowe were brought onboard. Sounds like all the rewrites and changes took their toll.
Yeah I remember reading about it when Scott first signed on to do it, a police procedural from the Sheriff's perspective sounded really interesting. I still hope we'll get that movie some day
@ytviewer1274 I think at the time Ridley Scott seemed to be pretty obsessed with making an “English braveheart”, that would explain the changes he made. For example a few years before Robin Hood he made Tristan and Isolde which had similar themes to RH and braveheart.
It’s incredible how long this channel has been producing quality content. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people (myself included) have gained an interest in history thanks to your work!
The Ridley Scott Robin Hood, gives strong 'Braveheart' vibes in the scene with the King, Robin Hood revealing himself, and giving his speech dialogue about rising up & freedom.
I as German who as a Teenager (2010) did Not really have any knowledge of the english History must admit that despite the obvious historical inaccuracies the Film did Spark my interest in it. Now 13 years later im quiet thankful it did. Never the less great Episode as usual. Thanks for your passion.
I think it’s hilarious how King John is portrayed as a greedy villain but in reality he was raising taxes specifically to free King Richard who wasn’t dead when he had to take the place of King.
I was a young history major when this movie came out, and you hit all the major points that I had issue with in the movie, especially riding the horses off the ww2 landing craft.
You forgot something. Part of the Robin Hood legend is that the forests were owned by the King, and to trespass was a death sentence. The appeal of the legend were guys able to trespass without giving a f---. In fact, the most famous film acknowledged that by having Robin Hood bring in a hunted deer to the King.
While we're on the subject of Ridley Scott's grasp of Medieval history, I would love to see The Last Duel get the History Buffs treatment! I am very curious how the film aligns with real events!
First of all, this is History Buff's funniest review yet. The extra work that went into the editing and voiceover jokes absolutely paid off. Second, I love the fact that Nick is annoyed with this movie's bad history but is also equally annoyed at it just being a terrible movie.
This channel can be a bit of an education at times but you have a really energetic sense of humour. I love how you do have a sense of balance for filmmaking, being critical about inaccuracies but still forgiving when certain aspects have to be altered for forgone for pacing.
He's become a self satisfied sanctimonious prick. It's sad that he knows so much history but has to be so angry about inaccuracies that it blinds him to half the films he watches.
I see a lot of channels that do this type of thing. Having someone that know about something review a film about that. And I always like when they take into consideration that is a movie at the end of the day not a documentary, but a ton of them just glance over the real history too much.
You know what's underrated? The 1991 Robin Hood with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. It's not bad at all and has the best sense of the period as any Robin Hood film.
@@JumpCutThis Confusingly, this one, called simply "Robin Hood", was also released in 1991. Directed by John Irvin, it starred Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman in the lead, with JUrgen Prochnow and Jeroen Krabbe and Brit TV mainstays Edward Fox and Danny Webb in supporting roles. Hard to find, but worth a watch.
Quick correction. Literacy in medieval times was actually much higher than most people think. The reason it’s so low is because the way it was measured back then was by if you could read the Bible which was exclusively in Latin. Now it is true that only the clergy and nobility could read Latin. However there were significantly more people who could read English. Maybe about 1 or 2 per household.
On the subject of Pepper Harrow being chosen as the name, I have some family members who live near there. A large part of the film, as well as the intro section of Gladiator, was filmed nearby and local gossip was that Ridley Scott liked the village and the name of it so much that he incorporated it into the film.
Firstly I wanna say that I love your channel. A great way to present crash courses in history. Secondly, you are aware of the fact that movies are for entertainment purposes and all Hollywood cares about is attracting an audience. Thanks again.
The 1938 version with Erroll Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Olivia DeHavilland is still the best by far. The classic sword duel between Robin and Gisbourne is one of the greatest scenes in cinema.
"How do you know the knights you see walkin' about, are actually knights at all?" The fact most of them spoke French as a first language was a big clue... certainly those close to Richard the Lionheart would have been Franks rather than English, so would have spoken either French or Occitan.
Yeah, Richard even debated selling the city of London to the highest bidder, I was quite shocked when in Robin of Sherwood he turns out to be a rotten b*****d. But then the rumour was that the Plantagenets were descended from the Devil - they were called The Devil's Brood...
They would also have been physically more imposing than the vast majority of men at the time due to their better diet, and years of weapons training in armour.
@@rustomkanishka If this were the 11th century I would agree, but the late 12th century would have been early Middle English, which was more of a fusion between Old English and the Francophone language of the Normans. It wouldn't be remotely close to what you'd recognise as Early Modern English yet, but it would have lost quite a bit of the Germanic sounding nature.
My Mum met Russel Crowe once. Crowe went to the little town of Dorrigo with his kids to The Plateau Cafe, and ordered: a Vegemite sandwich. The Plateau cafe, where my Mum worked at the time would close and is now a small museum that is open during the markets, but at least it is open unlike the Antique show thats never open, the bottom pub(we have 2) or the Railway Hotel that has been “closed for renovations” for 7 years and the motel part was only open for a short period of time, and the train’s, which is the biggest train museum in the Southern Hemisphere, but the Trains and carriages have been sitting there rotting since the track closed in the 1980’s
My favorite detail about this film is that Alan-a-Dale is portrayed by Alan Doyle (coincidence with the name?), who is a real-life folk singer from Newfoundland. :)
Each time it happens it just makes that one scene from Men in tights that much funnier. Prince John: And why should the people listen to you? Robin Hood: Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.
This movie is eye-wateringly gorgeous visually - and eye-wateringly bad with history. I'm so glad to see your take on it, Nick. It makes me feel validated, kinda like how it feels to share stories between trauma survivors.
I'm fairly indifferent to the historicity of a robin hood story anyway, like Gladiator itself. Scott does historical fiction so fictional it's nearly historical fantasy, and to me that's fine becuase we know the score, so the question just becomes how good of historical fiction/fantasy is it? Gladiator? Incredible. This one? Not so much but not awful. While I know it's the point of this channel and I like this channel, I actually don't really agree that the history has to be accurate in a historical fiction film.
20:02 Wrong, women in England could inherit property. In fact this was the reason for the 100 years war, as any Shakespeare buff of Henry V will know, Sallic Law (ie French Law) doesn't allow the inheritance to be passed to Women, but English Law most definitely does. To check this out read up on the Anglo Saxon Laws from the Laws of Aethelbert of Kent 600AD onwards. And William Duke of Normandy, made sure English Law was still enforced, after 1066, this is laid down in the Domesday Book (1086), which refer to the Laws of Edward (the Confessor) and the Land owned in 1065.
I kinda have a very soft spot for this version of Robin Hood, despite being historicaly inaccurate. I need to revisit it, since it's been a long time, the last time i watched it. Thank you for covering this movie, and wish you happy holidays Nick.
I have to admit, that I do like this film, just for it's yarn and action, but listening to Nick give it the once over, I think this is one of the best reviews you have done to date, I love the brutal honesty and glib British humour you added along with it. Epic!
yeah i always go back and watch/rewatch whatever movies on the chopping block before watching the video and honestly, even while watching its obviously very ahistorical and unrealistic, but i found it quite enjoyable regardless.
Its really dumb to watch these movies expecting historical accuracy tbh. These are movie directors and writters they want epic romanticized narratives. Of course real history would be too boring for them and they are not interested in it
Two Robin hood actors are both supermans dad in Man Of Steel!! Kevin Costner was Jonathan Kent and Russell Crowe was Jor'el. No wonder Clarke Kent became a superhero instead of being a supervillan!!!haha
Before they got Errol Flynn to play the part , the forerunner for the role was James Gagney , no matter how hard I try (and believe me I`v tried) I just cant imagine him as Robin Hood , a year later in 1939 he made a western the Oklahoma Kid in which he was so miss cast that it would be another 16 years before he would make another western , as for Errol Flynn he was Perfect for the part , not surprising that even today he is the first one that a lot of people think of when you say Robin Hood....
I just want to say that your sponsorship from War Thunder is a perfect pairing. You don't only cover war films but I think many players of War Thunder have a love of history. And I'm just glad to see your channel grow. I love your videos.
They r nude doing so in court (in the movie). Both Morant and the person the Bryan Brown played admitted to the killing of Visser (the clergyman) to the third person in trial but not in court. They did refer to an order that allowed the execution of Boers wearing khaki (which were taken from the British dead).
My understanding is that the original script was for a medieval murder mystery with the Sheriff of Nottingham as the central character. Trying to solve a murder that easily points to Robin Hood and the Sheriff grappling with his emotions because he has reason to believe it's a frame job. Then Ridley Scott got involved and tossed the concept.
That Attenborough spoof voiceover was ruthless! You REALLY didn't like this one and take no pains to conceal your displeasure. Great review! Can't wait for you to behead and eviscerate Mr. Scott's "Napoleon"
24:27 to be fair, this is pretty much what happened about a hundred years later during the English Peasants Revolt under Wat Tyler. Tony Robinson (who also did a great documentary on Robin Hood which I think the filmmaker must have seem, since they reference Robin originally being from Barnsdale in Yorkshire like the earlier ballads, though they leave out the ballads being set during the reign of Edward II) did a great documentary on the Revolt which showed that the rebels were pretty well organised, used coded written messages and were pretty sussed on the politics of the time, given that they knowingly targeted the buildings that held tax records and went after both tax collectors and the financial elite (including the archbishop of Canterbury, who was chancellor at the time).
The production value and depth of research in your videos is so high that I’m legitimately surprised you haven’t been picked up by a major network or streaming service yet. You and the Gaming Historian, I swear by these channels lol. Both you guys have higher quality episodes than a lot of bigger budget doc series out there. You deserve to get picked up already!
If the geography of this movie shocks you, you should watch Season of the Witch with Nicolas Cage, where in one scene they ride along the coastal region of Steieemark, completely ignoring the fact that what is todays Austria doesn't have a coast at all.
I live in Nottingham and every time my dad and I pass a Robin Hood statue or sign (there's an estate agent here that has Robin Hood as their logo, so we see them quite often), we boo and comment knowlingly to each other that Robin Hood was actually from Barnsdale (my dad is also from Yorkshire).
I haven't watched a ton of these videos, but every single one I have watched, the verdict has been "pretty accurate to history." I have a sneaking suspicion that will not be the case with this one.
I've been reading the King Raven series by Stephen Lawhead, and he sets Robin Hood in Wales in the 1100s. He argues that the root of the Robin Hood legend lies in Wales because the longbow originated with the Welsh, Wales was covered in old growth forests while most of England's old growth forests had been destroyed (making them harder to hide in for long periods), and the legend was most likely an oral tradition before it was written down, which means is probably originated well before the written account in the 1300s. It seems like a really interesting argument.
I am honestly convinced that Ridley Scott lost a girlfriend to a history student at university, and now uses his filmmaking to ruin public understanding of historical topics for revenge.
Wow, this is twice (to my knowledge) that England denied itself of having an actual king named Arthur. First being King John's nephew Arthur, Duke of Brittany, and the other was Henry VIII's elder brother Arthur Tudor. I mean there are people who ask "Was there really a King Arthur?" and to that I say, there was almost one not once but twice. I guess it really is only a model.
I have to point out that the earliest Robin Hood stories were not set during the time of King John, or even in the Sherwood Forest. The original stories feature King Edward (probably Edward I) and Robin's main haunt is the Barnsdale Forest. Also, the name Robin Hood seems to predate the legendary figure by centuries and has been associated with outlaws and wilderness well before the Norman era.
A great Robin Hood story is the Outlaw Chronicles by Angus Donald, told from the point of view of Alan of Dale. Covering all elements of the legend and time period (with the few inaccuracies discussed by the Author at the end of each book) with the kind of gritty realistic feel that this film was probably attempting.
This is one of those "Yeah... but I like it" movies for me. Historical Inaccuracies aside, it has cool fairly historical armor (the lamellar is a bit out of place, but not unbelievable for a force that has recently been in the Crusades) and great battles and locations. As a modern retelling of Robin Hood, complete with a new backstory, it is actually my favorite. I want a whole tv-series with this film as it's starting point.
Same here. I can get behind historical fiction, especially movies based on a legend rather than an actual person from history. Not every period piece has to have historical accuracy for me to enjoy it. I guess it’s more about the feel of the times rather than getting every minute detail correct. For example, I enjoyed Vikings despite the glaringly obvious historical inaccuracies. It was a cool series but I wouldn’t use it as source material for a term paper on the Norse raids on Britain. To be honest, if I want to learn about history I will watch documentaries. These type of movies are entertainment plain and simple. That being said there are some awesome movies based on real events that are as accurate as they possibly can given time constraints for making a movie, such as Schindler’s List, Downfall, Lincoln, etc.
Good note on the lamellar armor, but to be honest the movie lost me with the first scene with William Marshall wearing that g*damned "ring-mail" armor! Arrgghh! I hate that sh!t! Whenever I see that in a movie or tv show I'm like "the producer was too f*%king cheap to hire an actual armorer"...
I also enjoyed the movie, despite the inaccuracies. Nick does bring up a good point about the plot being a bit overloaded. Perhaps the Magna Carta bit would have been better left for the sequel that never happened. I still enjoy this movie, regardless.
13:00 He was also french by birth, was a french duke, talked Poitevin french and Chalus was one of his own castles... Richard died in a bed inside Chalus castle. The castle had surrendered when learning the duke Richard himself was present at the siege and wounded.
I will say that this movie does actually features some other actual historical figures of the Angevin era England of the typical Robin Hood setting aside from Richard Lionheart and Prince John such as their mother Elenor or Aquitaine, John's wife Isabella and Sir William Marshal the most well regarded English knight of the era. And it does hew closer to history than most Robin Hood stories. The biggest fiction is King Phillip Augustus invading England when he actually was more interested in taking the Angevin's French territory such as Aquitaine and Gascony
Yup, but explaining that Philippe was taking a territory he technically owned as king would not seem as so much of an invasion to Scott's mind, he needs his scheeming badies....
It’s funny hearing Richard I talk about ”putting the French to bed” considering he was French basically. Mark Strong didn’t play a baddie on the Kingsman films. He was actually quite likeable there. This is the first movie I ever saw Lea Seydoux in, been a fan ever since. It was cool to see them include William Marshal in this film. He was a fascinating guy.
@@PaulMcElligott Richard didn't give a shit about England, he was barely there (though the money it got him was nice). Now Aquitaine in France, that's where his heart was. After all, he had spent most of his life there. Most of Western France was his when he went on crusade but after he was ransomed, all but Normandy had been conquered by the French king. So did he settle with that and happily spend the rest of his life in England? Nope, he was there for two months, then he went back to France to regain those lands. Until he died five years later. If you disregard all the Robin Hood-built romance, Richard was...kind of a dick. To everyone, including French nobility, his own father who he rebelled against, the whole English population, etc. It's only because John was so universally hated that people started to see Richard through rose-tinted glasses.
What makes it more ironic is that tensions between the Saxon’s and the French speaking Norman ruling class was a sticking point in the old Ivanhoe story
Watching this reinforces everything I've thought about this film and Ridley Scott. He can make a good film, but he needs an awesome script, and even then he can stuff it up (e.g. Martian ending).
As a fellow British Bald-y, I'm confident in saying that Mark Strong being villainous so often, most likely comes from the slight taper of his skull shape. Animation has long taught us to associate roundness with friendliness and joviality, sharpened angles with villainy and deviousness.
Not true AT ALL. No, his story does NOT need to take a "backseat" AT ALL, he's making a MOVIE, not a documentary. You shouldn't be going to movies for pure facts, if you were writing a history essay, you should never cite a movie as a source, only use articles, books, and documentaries. He needs to make a combination between the story AND the real life history but you're able to change aspects of history for your story like for pacing or for brevity, or to higlight something for the sake of your themes that you're trying to display. There's been numerous movies that's done that and it's worked wonders. You can have a movie that's nothing but pure historical facts but if it's presented in a REALLY bad and poor way that intervenes with entertainment than it can come off as a film that fails at it's job. So you need to know to do BOTH in a overall excellent balance. Messing with history is fine as long as you are making sure to the audience that it's NOT meant to be one for one in real history, Gladiator is praised and beloved as an iconic movie to this day because it's just having different interpretation of events with historical characters and people are overall fine with that as people know it's just have it's own version of events. And it being in much more ancient times it able to give it more of a pass for interpretation of it's story Napoleon on the other hand is much closer to modern times and it's trying to be more of a one for one in history that you would see in a history book or taught in history class, so people have much more expectations for it to be accurate with real life history in it's events so that's why some people were pissed off at the movie and ridley scott for doing it's own thing in history. Messing with history is fine as long as you make it clear what exactly you're doing with it and the kind of expectations with it, the trailers and promotions were making the napoleon movie be a showcase of his life story and EXPECTING people to come in and see his accomplishments and explain HOW he was become who he was. But what we got wasn't entirely that as promised as the trailers were showing the movie TO be. There's where some people's problems start with the movie from HOW it was promised to be and what people ultimately got.
Loved this review. Look I've said it before and I'll say it again as entertaining as your reviews are of the movies you find historically accurate they are even better when you review the ones that aren't. LOL. Nick you're the best!!
Very well done Nick. However, I was disappointed that you failed to mention the possibility of William of Cassingham (or Willikin of the Weald) being one of the inspirations for Robin Hood. I've done some research on him and there are definitely some similarities between the events of his life and those of the legendary bandit from Sherwood Forest. Also, despite the great historical inaccuracies of the movie, I did note that Ridley Scott's version mentioned the Massacre of Ayyadieh when the "good" King Richard the Lionheart had more than two thousand Muslim prisoners of war beheaded. This is a gruesome detail that has been sadly overlooked by numerous versions of the Robin Hood myth. Keep up the good work. I am really looking forward to your reviews of Napoleon and The Last Duel!
Have you ever considered doing a historical review of the “Horatio Hornblower” TV mini series from the late 90’s? When I was in high school, my best friend had all the DVDs so we ended up binging it. I don’t remember there being any glaring, facepalm-inducing inaccuracies, but it has been over a decade since I watched the show, so I freely admit I could have forgotten something.
Sponsored by War Thunder. Click playwt.link/historybuffs to get your bonus pack of vehicles, boosters and more. Download War Thunder today.
Love your content 🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Do Greyhound with Tom Hanks. And Lincoln with Daniel Day-Lewis. PLEASE! Your videos are awsome!
Hey, Nick, I recently watched Ridley Scott's Napoleon. And I hated every second of it.
If you could make a video talking very briefly about it's inaccuracies, I would appreciate it. But I have one question I hope anyone could find the answer to:
Did Napoleon and Josephine have their marriage signed in Gregorian calendar instead of the official state revolutionary calendar?
How William Marshal heard word of the French fleet is in the Channel, is because a messenger approached him, whilst Robin Hood was talking to the King in front of the crowd. You would notice this at 28:23 of your video.😉
Oh cool, a new history buffs video! I love these things, they're always worth the wait. Like good food.
The knock-off D Day landing was just unreal, complete with underwater shots of trailing arrows like the bullets in Saving Private Ryan
That's what got me in the end. It was over the top. And that cavalry charge onto beachhead.
Epic, yes. Spectactular, yes too.
Historical... nope!
Still better than that more recent version with Jamie Fox though. That scene at the beginning where they were running around wielding longbows like they were playing Call of Duty was unintentional comedy gold.
Some of the landing craft dropped their occupants off too far from the shore. There were a few reenactors who sank and had to walk through neck high water to get to the beach.
@@MrNegativecreep07im ngl if you just pretend its some weird post apocalyptic re imagining its kinda badass
I can't see why everybody get's it wrong. It's the coast of England and therefore these are the Roman boats from Astérix. It's so funny that the Romans in Astérix just made the same fault to attack at the most difficult position when you can have a more easy landing not far away. 😀
Ridley Scott not knowing the proper locations of things in England explains how badly he's screwed up Napoleon.
honestly, I would go as far as to call that napoleon movie anti historical
The part that gets me is that he also did the Duelist,
Somehow I cannot reconcile that a same man did both movies. Especially when the Duelist seems much more interested in the era, the vibe than the popcorn fantasy schlok Nap was.
@@murciadoxial8056 As someone who loves Gladiator just because I grew up with it, I was SO excited for an exciting Napolean movie that didn't care about history for action and excitment. Napoleon was just boring, not accurate and almost intolerable to watch.
Being a history fan of Napoleon, I could go on a three hour rant about how much that film got the famous general/emperor wrong.
“When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.'"
Ridley Scott was clearly there himself and knows everything.
Medieval French troops storming the beaches in WW2 era landing boats is something I never expected see and I love it.
Saving Private Robin
I guess someone had to love it...
I watched this movie in the theater with another history PhD student, and we both literally laughed out loud at the reverse Normandy.
@@0giwan well, they had to get the boats to England so during D-day they could get the troops back to France... LOGIC!!!
Vive le inaccuracie!
Men in Tights will always be Canon Robin Hood to me
"A black sheriff?"
"It worked in blazing saddles"
Kevin Costner will always be Canon Robin Hood to me. He has Muslim Freeman and Sheriff Snape
Absolutely - He can speak with an English accent!
@@mat7083 Unlike him Cary Elwes could do an english accent
@@mat7083 Snape got immortality I suppose
The addition of "David Attenborough" narrating a wildfire started by Robinhood and referring to him as a prick was an evil stroke of genius
Is it really David Attenborough??????
@@princeranjan3439 No, it's an AI that sounds like him, but it was still hilarious! :D
@@princeranjan3439 As cool as it would be, it isn't. I went ahead and added quotation marks to help avoid confusion
Woah. Thank you.@@GODzilla_FH
@@aldotorres1983how do you know it’s not?
Russell Crowe managed to keep every Robin Hood scholar happy by doing every English accent (including Scouse, Nigerian, Mancunian, Northern Irish, Geordie, Jamaican...) all at the same time.
He's really scouse (i'm from the Wirral).
@@molochz Hi mate, hope you're well. Just stopped by to say you're confusing the English language with the English nationality. Northern Irish English is a dialect of English. When we're talking about people who speak Gaelic in Northern Ireland with a Northern Irish accent, we'd call that an Irish accent. Russell Crowe is speaking English and we're talking about his bizarrely accented English. Hope this makes things clear for you.
The one thing missing was an actual Nottingham accent for Goodness sake!
@@Mark.Andrew.Pardoeaye mi duck that’s rite!
None of which existed at the time
Ridley Scott: "Excuse me mate, were you there?"
Historian: "We have numerous historical accounts of-"
Ridley Scott: "WERE YOU THERE?!"
My response to Ridley has always been "I was not there... but neither were you."
And Ridley answers, "Are you a famous wealthy director? No, so shut up!" @@bateriayvr8988
Writer: So, how should we portray Napoleon in the-
Ridley Scott: Make him lame and cucked!
I was there 🗿
Yes Mr. Scott. And you have no proof that I wasn’t
I'm absolutely dying at the fact that the gaggle of orphan boys are all riding, not ponies, but miniature horses perfectly proportioned to their own sizes. As if that was something easy to come by.
And honestly they'd get slaughtered at first contact, they don't even have steel weapons...
The view of dismembered children might have changed the rating of this film !
@@Cancoillotteman A single knight or maybe two so they could aid each other would have completely destroyed that whole "squad" and Marion with them. Films really do seem to not appreciate how deadly a knight was during these periods and how utterly fucked a commoner would be in a fight with one.
It's just a mount they can summon. Haven't you played World of Warcraft?!?!?
"Can't say I've ever met a literate stonemason" - Tywin Lannister.
Don't forget that the knights that they loot the equipment from after the ambush were presumably those of the King's inner circle, meaning their heraldry would've most likely been recognized by multiple people at court when they arrived in England.
They'd also know the difference in the way they talk and ride their horses. The Norman noble he was impersonating would have spoken French and been in the saddle from a very early age. The yoeman English archer that he was in the movie would have been very obvious from the moment he rode up.
@@RockoBam1 I'm honestly surprise not one of the court nobles didn't take 5 minutes too verify. Which house all each of them belong to and their names and titles. I mean the last thing they want is one of them to fumble and say im from house Sauce of Worcestershire.
Well, the only thing they wanted was to find a ship to carry them over the sound, because they had no money to get there. I don't remember anyone falling for their ruse at the actual docks which they planned to never show up at.
@@keenoled did you watch the movie? It's about a common archer impersonating a nobleman.....I'm unsure how you missed that bit.
On his death bed he called on Little John and stated " Bring me my bow, where ever this arrow lands this is where you shall bury me! " His men stayed true to his request and thats why Robin was buried ontop of his bedroom wardrobe.
Fuck this made me lough out loud and nearly wake my kids :-D Well done!
Also, another minor point was that the king was not called "Your Majesty" until Henry VIII, who thought the phrase sounded better than "Your Grace."
Good to know.
Not that it makes a difference in this situation, but I thought the switch over came around the time of Richard the second? I’ll have to look into that again
I am very upset that the stories of Robin Hood and Little John running through the forest was NOT done in the company of a singing, lute playing rooster. This is an outrage.
Ooo de lally oooo de lally golly what a day!
“Sir David Attenborough’s” narration of the cremation scene was THE best part of this!
"What a prick!..." Sir David Attenborough, 2023.
Time stamp?
@@BENI-ye4nx30:32
That part had me dying. Safe to say, I did NOT see that one coming... ^_^
I grew up watching Robin of Sherwood on Saturday afternoon telly and for me that will always be the definitive version of the Robin legend.
Great program!! Ray Winstone as Will Scarlett. “Prince John, you slag!!!” 😜
@@tonybartlett6567 He was written as a sort of (for the time) West Ham supporter.
My medieval history professor told us one thing that was spot on in this film was John pausing as he gave Robin the ring and knocking it on his head, saying, “This crown costs money.” John wasn’t stupid, he was just a real jerk and had no idea how to communicate with people. In general, the film captures John terrifically.
Pretty much and its completely by accident, cause Ridley Scott seems to have not researched anything besides how King John was relatively bad as a king. He saw the villain and went "how can I make him unlikable" and surprisingly hit the nail on the head by accident
Their a sense of pity I get from Prince john. The guy had to fund his brother's war campaign while everyone scapegoat him for higher taxation. Sure he a asshole, but his older, Richard could also be one at times
@@starmaker75 People will put up with a lot if they're backing a winner. But John wasn't a great soldier, murdered his nephew (who had a claim to be King), betrayed his friends and was just generally a jerk to pretty much everyone. He earned his rep
"People will putup with a lot if they're backing a winner"
Richard was not really a winner either, he never managed to take back Jerusalem, and was imprisonned for two years in the HRE and had to pay an enormous ransom to be free ˆˆ'
@@krankarvolund7771 Yes cause Richard didn't have a career as a successful warrior in France and Aquitaine BEFORE he went on Crusade or after he was released from the HRE...
Editing in this one was on another level. Attenborough narration was a perfect touch.
That was the creamy center of a delicious cupcake.
"what a prick" priceless xD
You can only run from Napoleon for so long, Nick. It might kill you, but you know it must be.
This movie shows that Scott's ability to make historically accurate movies has always been a problem. And when he was called out on it for NAPOLEON, he straight up had a temper tantrum and attacked everyone who criticized the movie.
He thinks history is his bitch that he can change and warp as he wants to tell HIS story.
He doesn't understand that if he just wants to tell his story unimpeded, he simply shouldn't involve actual history in it. And if he wants to make a historic movie, his story needs to take a backseat.
Don’t forget kingdom of heaven.
Which is arguably worse because it required knowledge of the actual history and character to have gotten it so wrong.
Sad really.
Basically used as an anti Iraq war film or anti religion film. Which Id have no problem with if it didn’t bend history to fit it.
TLDR; You probably aren't pointing out anything Scott doesn't know he just chooses to write and direct interesting movies and says anything deep using literary and film devices for subtleness and not to get in the way of the entertainment.
He probably is purposely retelling history wrong in way similar to how Tarantino does. It's a cathartic retelling of history that is similar to propaganda in the way that it wants to inspire or create a mythology that people of the current era can then use to create a more desired future. It's not a documentary it's a dramatic film so the fact that he is playing fast and loose with facts usually is some sort of intentional or unintentional commentary originating from the director/writers beliefs and worldview. Gladiator is the perfect example of this, it is a what if the great stoic and last of the 5 great emperors who ruled at the pinnacle of Rome decided to try to turn Rome back into the Republic that built the empire back to a government system people in western nations prize and value as the best, since this would be the last chance knowing what happens after that, it is arguably the last time Rome could have turned back the clock of empire and reinstall a senate for the people. I haven't analyzed Robin Hood but from what I have seen it is probably commentary of the rise of the middle class and the magna carta leading to modern republics and the waning power of absolute monarchy. The wild wrong geography could just be a hint that this is a made up england but is still talking about england.
Look at 1492, Kingdom of Heaven, Napoleon. Scott's problem is that he doesn't care about telling THE story, he wants to tell HIS story, and he'll fuck about with the history in order to do that. Any studio worth their salt should ban him from making historical movies, because if you don't care about the truth, then why bother?
Napoleon's brief cameo in The Count of Monte Cristo is better than the whole movie.
I would love to see an April fools video on a historical parody like men in tights, history of the world pt 1, or Monty python and the holy grail, and do a full on historical breakdown!
Funny enough Holy Grail is a pretty accurate portrayal of the time
I want a vid on the life of brian and have him break down that biggus dickus was, indeed, not a real Roman name
@@dazednotconfused1503how did I forget that one!! Probably my favorite Monty python. “How then shall we fuck off lord?”
i hope he does video on Medieval, historically its probably the worst movie ever made, it makes Braveheart and 300 look like the most perfect historical documentary.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES
I can't wait for Nick's take on Napoleon. That forehead smack animation is going to get a lot of use.
I loved the Attenborough line- totally came out of nowhere and was a perfect impression 🤣🤣🤣
Did an AI do it or a friend? It was flawless delivery
Scrolled down looking to ask the same! :)
I believe it is AI, but if anyone got the real information and / or source I'd gladly use it !
It was wonderful.
Its gotta be AI, theres so much sample of his voice that you can get it to say anything convincingly.
AI is a possibility but I believe it's one of the many impersonators available on Fiverr. There's one English standup comedian with a TH-cam channel who does impressions of celebrities such as Attenborough and famously Morgan Freeman.
The actual story of the Magna Carta should be made into a movie
There kind of is one with a movie called Ironclad. We get a magnificently hammy depiction of King John by Paul Giamatti. Unfortunately, the main plot is essentially a Seven Samurai rip-off where a knight sworn to a vow of silence starts talking and immediately becomes much less interesting as he and Brian Cox gather a small band of 5 other knights and barons to hold off King John's forces at a castle. It's an entertaining movie, if only for Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox.
I could've happily watched this cast of Robin and his merry men in a complete film without anybody else. They were genuinely funny and fun to watch.
I believe there is one more element to why the early Robin Hood was a yeoman. Since the English army strongly relied on archers during the Hundred Years War, many commoners came back from the battlefields of France richer and with significant military training, making Robin a perfect mirror of the time. There is a short documentary by Mike Loades detailing how many families of north and central England were founded by these veteran archers.
But this movie is about 150 years before the Hundred Years’ War
@@MsJaytee1975The making of Robin Hood documentary goes through the decision making behind the film. The yeomanry was becoming more prominent during this time and bringing home a lot of ideas from the crusades, also being able to freely join and profit from the crusades, plus having a character with no obligations related to land gives more freedom to play with the character
It’s always funny that King Richard “the Lion heart” is regarded as a great English king even though he was only in England for like 10 minutes
And utterly despised the place, the people, the food, the climate, bankrupted it...only cared for Aquitaine.
And don't forget how "honourable" Richard fought during the Crusade, executing prisoners of war and committing other war crimes...
@@doublep1980everyone did back then
He was also quite the bellend.
@@doublep1980 back in the day, when you couldn't ransom yourself you were expendable.
Bruh, those WW2 amphibious landing craft were absolutely insanity, what in the hell
I heard that an earlier version of this Robin Hood's screenplay was that it followed the Sheriff of Nottingham's perspective, depicting him as an overworked law enforcer in Prince John's borderline anarchic England, and Robin was both an impoverished nobleman-turned-bandit that refused to bow to John AND suspect number one for a spate of cold-blooded murders around Nottingham, despite only admitting to killing to a few of the victims in banditry raids, but several of his merry men were killed in cold blood too, meaning there's a Jack the Ripper-type lurking about...
A cat-n-mouse crime thriller set in 12th-13th century England with Robin Hood and the Sheriff becoming reluctant allies to catch a serial killer would've been so interesting.
If that is true, then that would've made a far more interesting take on the Robin Hood legend.
If that was true, I'd have LOVED to see that film. Sounds awesome.
I heard about this version of scenario but Russell Crow demanded change it to make Robin hero.
NOW That's a version I'd love to see. Shame we didn't get that
This is genuinely one of those “what could’ve been” movie plots that’s never left my mind from the minute I first read about it years ago. They could’ve even kept the casting they ended up with (namely Matthew MacFayden as the sheriff) and it still would’ve worked so well. Such a shame that one actor’s ego had to ruin what could’ve been a truly original take on this beloved folktale.
Fun Fact: Despite the fact that John is the most common male name in England, there has only been one King John. He was that bad of a king
How is that fun? That just sounds like a regular fact.
That's not a "fun fact" because it's not even a fact. Whether John was a good king is debatable, but what is sure is that he wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. So what you said was not a fact, just an unrelated coincidence.
He was so bad that the Brits wanted him to be King of the Franks.
Too late to be known as John the first, he's sure to be known as John the worst.....
John was NEVER supposed to be a king, and was raised as such. His incompetence was due to poor parenting and tutors.
Had to pause the video and comment... the David Attenborough section was brilliant! I love it! I really want to believe that was actually Sir David Attenborough doing that bit 🙂Timestamp 30:22
If I recall correctly, this film began as a movie from the Sheriff of Nottingham’s respective, before the director and Crowe were brought onboard. Sounds like all the rewrites and changes took their toll.
Yeah I remember reading about it when Scott first signed on to do it, a police procedural from the Sheriff's perspective sounded really interesting. I still hope we'll get that movie some day
@ytviewer1274
I think at the time Ridley Scott seemed to be pretty obsessed with making an “English braveheart”, that would explain the changes he made.
For example a few years before Robin Hood he made Tristan and Isolde which had similar themes to RH and braveheart.
It’s incredible how long this channel has been producing quality content.
I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people (myself included) have gained an interest in history thanks to your work!
The Ridley Scott Robin Hood, gives strong 'Braveheart' vibes in the scene with the King, Robin Hood revealing himself, and giving his speech dialogue about rising up & freedom.
I as German who as a Teenager (2010) did Not really have any knowledge of the english History must admit that despite the obvious historical inaccuracies the Film did Spark my interest in it. Now 13 years later im quiet thankful it did.
Never the less great Episode as usual. Thanks for your passion.
I remember 20 year old me being pissed by this movie. Now after Napoleon 2023 was released, I don't care.
I've just watched this on Netflix and I must say that Oscar was a great King John.
He's always the best part of any movie
I think it’s hilarious how King John is portrayed as a greedy villain but in reality he was raising taxes specifically to free King Richard who wasn’t dead when he had to take the place of King.
can I just say how amazing it is that you got David Attenborough to do some narration for this video. Well done!
Did he though?
Might it not be more likely that it was AI?
I was a young history major when this movie came out, and you hit all the major points that I had issue with in the movie, especially riding the horses off the ww2 landing craft.
You forgot something. Part of the Robin Hood legend is that the forests were owned by the King, and to trespass was a death sentence. The appeal of the legend were guys able to trespass without giving a f---. In fact, the most famous film acknowledged that by having Robin Hood bring in a hunted deer to the King.
While we're on the subject of Ridley Scott's grasp of Medieval history, I would love to see The Last Duel get the History Buffs treatment! I am very curious how the film aligns with real events!
It doesn’t lol 😂
It really doesn't
while we're on the subject of duels and ridley scott, I'd highly recommend watching The Duelists. It's actually really good.
The Duelists > The Last Duel
Ridley Scott keeps this channel alive.
30:32 - The "Richard Attenborough" voice-over almost made me choke on the steak I was eating while watching.
First of all, this is History Buff's funniest review yet. The extra work that went into the editing and voiceover jokes absolutely paid off. Second, I love the fact that Nick is annoyed with this movie's bad history but is also equally annoyed at it just being a terrible movie.
This channel can be a bit of an education at times but you have a really energetic sense of humour. I love how you do have a sense of balance for filmmaking, being critical about inaccuracies but still forgiving when certain aspects have to be altered for forgone for pacing.
Yes, I'm still waiting for History Buff's to do 2022's "All Quiet on the Western Front", although I suspect that it may too easy of a target.
@@jehl1963 been hearing that napoleon is a pretty weird movie
He's become a self satisfied sanctimonious prick. It's sad that he knows so much history but has to be so angry about inaccuracies that it blinds him to half the films he watches.
I see a lot of channels that do this type of thing. Having someone that know about something review a film about that. And I always like when they take into consideration that is a movie at the end of the day not a documentary, but a ton of them just glance over the real history too much.
You know what's underrated? The 1991 Robin Hood with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. It's not bad at all and has the best sense of the period as any Robin Hood film.
Is that the one with Jurgen Prochnow as the sheriff of Nottingham?? I like it, the power dynamic and motivation of the characters was much better.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. I can't recall how historically accurate it was, but the movie was excellent.
Great film, It mixes real history with the legend of Robin Hood.. Not 100% ture witj known history. Not a bad film.
Uhhh the only one I’d ever heard of released in ‘91 was Prince of Thieves?
@@JumpCutThis Confusingly, this one, called simply "Robin Hood", was also released in 1991.
Directed by John Irvin, it starred Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman in the lead, with JUrgen Prochnow and Jeroen Krabbe and Brit TV mainstays Edward Fox and Danny Webb in supporting roles.
Hard to find, but worth a watch.
Quick correction. Literacy in medieval times was actually much higher than most people think. The reason it’s so low is because the way it was measured back then was by if you could read the Bible which was exclusively in Latin. Now it is true that only the clergy and nobility could read Latin. However there were significantly more people who could read English. Maybe about 1 or 2 per household.
On the subject of Pepper Harrow being chosen as the name, I have some family members who live near there. A large part of the film, as well as the intro section of Gladiator, was filmed nearby and local gossip was that Ridley Scott liked the village and the name of it so much that he incorporated it into the film.
Far better reason than he doesn't know geography of his home country
And he couldn't spend 5 mins thinking of a better way of incorporating the name than how he did it in the film?
Can’t wait for Nick to review Napoleon. It’s gonna be a blast
yeh it will be a long video xD
Firstly I wanna say that I love your channel. A great way to present crash courses in history. Secondly, you are aware of the fact that movies are for entertainment purposes and all Hollywood cares about is attracting an audience. Thanks again.
The 1938 version with Erroll Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Olivia DeHavilland is still the best by far. The classic sword duel between Robin and Gisbourne is one of the greatest scenes in cinema.
Oh yes, the way the scene moves from two people fighting to their shadows fighting back to them fighting is just perfect.
you must be joking or have never seen Robin of Sherwood
@@famebrightstudio451 Nah, bro. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is by far the best Robin Hood movie!
Just wait untill you see the Disney version with animals. Awesome. Or the comedic version
Sure, I’d concur with that assessment- if you’ll admit that Robin Hood: POT has the best theme song of them all?
What say ye?
"How do you know the knights you see walkin' about, are actually knights at all?" The fact most of them spoke French as a first language was a big clue... certainly those close to Richard the Lionheart would have been Franks rather than English, so would have spoken either French or Occitan.
Yeah haha. Richard the third one of the most famous kings of England didn't speak a word of English.
Yeah, Richard even debated selling the city of London to the highest bidder, I was quite shocked when in Robin of Sherwood he turns out to be a rotten b*****d. But then the rumour was that the Plantagenets were descended from the Devil - they were called The Devil's Brood...
To be fair English definitely sounded Germanic those days.
They would also have been physically more imposing than the vast majority of men at the time due to their better diet, and years of weapons training in armour.
@@rustomkanishka If this were the 11th century I would agree, but the late 12th century would have been early Middle English, which was more of a fusion between Old English and the Francophone language of the Normans. It wouldn't be remotely close to what you'd recognise as Early Modern English yet, but it would have lost quite a bit of the Germanic sounding nature.
My Mum met Russel Crowe once. Crowe went to the little town of Dorrigo with his kids to The Plateau Cafe, and ordered: a Vegemite sandwich.
The Plateau cafe, where my Mum worked at the time would close and is now a small museum that is open during the markets, but at least it is open unlike the Antique show thats never open, the bottom pub(we have 2) or the Railway Hotel that has been “closed for renovations” for 7 years and the motel part was only open for a short period of time, and the train’s, which is the biggest train museum in the Southern Hemisphere, but the Trains and carriages have been sitting there rotting since the track closed in the 1980’s
I live in Dorrigo to
My favorite detail about this film is that Alan-a-Dale is portrayed by Alan Doyle (coincidence with the name?), who is a real-life folk singer from Newfoundland. :)
Alan and Russel Crowe are really good friends in real life, which is how he got the role.
I love Russel Crowe's fluctuating accent in this movie. It's hilariously adorable.
Inconsistent accents are now a tradition of modern Robin Hood movies.
Each time it happens it just makes that one scene from Men in tights that much funnier.
Prince John: And why should the people listen to you?
Robin Hood: Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.
@@Pedropapt
Oh aye? Well Crowe's Robin Hood speaks in about 12 English accents. As well as 2 Scottish and I think a South African one.
I swear he just decided to do an impression of Mel Gibson during his big speech 😂
Lol his accent goes from Yorkshire to Australian to South African having a stroke, in one sentence 😅
I like how you always credit the clips you use from other movies, saves me having to work out what they are
This movie is eye-wateringly gorgeous visually - and eye-wateringly bad with history. I'm so glad to see your take on it, Nick. It makes me feel validated, kinda like how it feels to share stories between trauma survivors.
Part and parcel for Ridley Scott though. He makes a ripping good yarn, but in a historical sense? Laughingly bad.
Too desaturated colours. That's a common problem with modern movies, especially historical ones, and Scott is a regular offender.
@@Argumemnon I don't know if I'd call this movie modern anymore. It's over a decade old is it not?
I'm fairly indifferent to the historicity of a robin hood story anyway, like Gladiator itself. Scott does historical fiction so fictional it's nearly historical fantasy, and to me that's fine becuase we know the score, so the question just becomes how good of historical fiction/fantasy is it? Gladiator? Incredible. This one? Not so much but not awful. While I know it's the point of this channel and I like this channel, I actually don't really agree that the history has to be accurate in a historical fiction film.
realy? i think it looks realy ugly, everything is greyish brownish and the lighting sucks
I swear Ridley Scott is just trolling us history lovers
Can't believe the same man made _the Duellists_ which was an absolute banger...
Please, I beg you, don't watch Napoleon.
He’s been corrupted unfortunately
20:02 Wrong, women in England could inherit property. In fact this was the reason for the 100 years war, as any Shakespeare buff of Henry V will know, Sallic Law (ie French Law) doesn't allow the inheritance to be passed to Women, but English Law most definitely does. To check this out read up on the Anglo Saxon Laws from the Laws of Aethelbert of Kent 600AD onwards. And William Duke of Normandy, made sure English Law was still enforced, after 1066, this is laid down in the Domesday Book (1086), which refer to the Laws of Edward (the Confessor) and the Land owned in 1065.
I kinda have a very soft spot for this version of Robin Hood, despite being historicaly inaccurate.
I need to revisit it, since it's been a long time, the last time i watched it.
Thank you for covering this movie, and wish you happy holidays Nick.
I have to admit, that I do like this film, just for it's yarn and action, but listening to Nick give it the once over, I think this is one of the best reviews you have done to date, I love the brutal honesty and glib British humour you added along with it. Epic!
yeah i always go back and watch/rewatch whatever movies on the chopping block before watching the video and honestly, even while watching its obviously very ahistorical and unrealistic, but i found it quite enjoyable regardless.
Its really dumb to watch these movies expecting historical accuracy tbh. These are movie directors and writters they want epic romanticized narratives. Of course real history would be too boring for them and they are not interested in it
Two Robin hood actors are both supermans dad in Man Of Steel!! Kevin Costner was Jonathan Kent and Russell Crowe was Jor'el. No wonder Clarke Kent became a superhero instead of being a supervillan!!!haha
Nick your cranking these out, love it, Flynn version was filmed in Chico only an hour away
Bidwell park yes?
Is there a tribute there?
Before they got Errol Flynn to play the part , the forerunner for the role was James Gagney , no matter how hard I try (and believe me I`v tried) I just cant imagine him as Robin Hood , a year later in 1939 he made a western the Oklahoma Kid in which he was so miss cast that it would be another 16 years before he would make another western , as for Errol Flynn he was Perfect for the part , not surprising that even today he is the first one that a lot of people think of when you say Robin Hood....
You’re
You and my wife ahould go bowling 😂@unclerojelio6320
I just want to say that your sponsorship from War Thunder is a perfect pairing. You don't only cover war films but I think many players of War Thunder have a love of history.
And I'm just glad to see your channel grow. I love your videos.
Waiting to see how disappointed you are by the recent Ridley Scott's Napoleon.
he probably had a stroke in the theater
'Breaker Morant' would be a perfect movie for your analysis given the stark realities of the Boer War, and the heroic take of the film.
Ohhh…..excellent suggestion!
And that Breaker in real life was claiming to be the illegitimate son of an English aristocrat.
It's been a while since I've seen it; did they ever deny that they did it, and lean into the following orders angle?
They r nude doing so in court (in the movie). Both Morant and the person the Bryan Brown played admitted to the killing of Visser (the clergyman) to the third person in trial but not in court. They did refer to an order that allowed the execution of Boers wearing khaki (which were taken from the British dead).
My understanding is that the original script was for a medieval murder mystery with the Sheriff of Nottingham as the central character. Trying to solve a murder that easily points to Robin Hood and the Sheriff grappling with his emotions because he has reason to believe it's a frame job. Then Ridley Scott got involved and tossed the concept.
Yeah I remember hearing that. It was going to have Russell Crowe as the Sheriff and he's the good guy. Interesting idea
They even researched proper investigation techniques for the time. Sounded really cool.
@@109Eken Please keeping Brother Cadfael away from the sight of any Hollywood Executive, please!
The pace was so excruciatingly slow. The WW2 landing craft did give me a chuckle.
That Attenborough spoof voiceover was ruthless! You REALLY didn't like this one and take no pains to conceal your displeasure. Great review! Can't wait for you to behead and eviscerate Mr. Scott's "Napoleon"
24:27 to be fair, this is pretty much what happened about a hundred years later during the English Peasants Revolt under Wat Tyler. Tony Robinson (who also did a great documentary on Robin Hood which I think the filmmaker must have seem, since they reference Robin originally being from Barnsdale in Yorkshire like the earlier ballads, though they leave out the ballads being set during the reign of Edward II) did a great documentary on the Revolt which showed that the rebels were pretty well organised, used coded written messages and were pretty sussed on the politics of the time, given that they knowingly targeted the buildings that held tax records and went after both tax collectors and the financial elite (including the archbishop of Canterbury, who was chancellor at the time).
Conquest of The Longbow: my favourite version of the Robin Hood fables.
The production value and depth of research in your videos is so high that I’m legitimately surprised you haven’t been picked up by a major network or streaming service yet. You and the Gaming Historian, I swear by these channels lol. Both you guys have higher quality episodes than a lot of bigger budget doc series out there. You deserve to get picked up already!
@@qwwtww ah going after the historical inaccuracy of the show going after historical inaccuracy lol
If the geography of this movie shocks you, you should watch Season of the Witch with Nicolas Cage, where in one scene they ride along the coastal region of Steieemark, completely ignoring the fact that what is todays Austria doesn't have a coast at all.
When I saw those landing crafts...I almost died!
I live in Nottingham and every time my dad and I pass a Robin Hood statue or sign (there's an estate agent here that has Robin Hood as their logo, so we see them quite often), we boo and comment knowlingly to each other that Robin Hood was actually from Barnsdale (my dad is also from Yorkshire).
This channel was basically created to undo the harm filmmakers like Ridley Scott are doing to the understanding of history.
I haven't watched a ton of these videos, but every single one I have watched, the verdict has been "pretty accurate to history." I have a sneaking suspicion that will not be the case with this one.
I’m more excited for a History Buff video than I am for Christmas 🎄
I've been reading the King Raven series by Stephen Lawhead, and he sets Robin Hood in Wales in the 1100s. He argues that the root of the Robin Hood legend lies in Wales because the longbow originated with the Welsh, Wales was covered in old growth forests while most of England's old growth forests had been destroyed (making them harder to hide in for long periods), and the legend was most likely an oral tradition before it was written down, which means is probably originated well before the written account in the 1300s. It seems like a really interesting argument.
well kind of tradition for the english to steal welsh legends. they did it with king arthur too :D
Thats sounds stupid
Yes the longbow did originate in wales but by that point had long since been adopted in England
I am honestly convinced that Ridley Scott lost a girlfriend to a history student at university, and now uses his filmmaking to ruin public understanding of historical topics for revenge.
Wow, this is twice (to my knowledge) that England denied itself of having an actual king named Arthur. First being King John's nephew Arthur, Duke of Brittany, and the other was Henry VIII's elder brother Arthur Tudor. I mean there are people who ask "Was there really a King Arthur?" and to that I say, there was almost one not once but twice. I guess it really is only a model.
Ehh…
If he did exist, he was a minor Bretonnian Warlord in the Post-Roman Era.
We should have had a King Albert, but the late Queen's father Albert chose the regal name George.
@Kaiserboo1871 And he didn't.
@@skepticalbadger You don’t know that.
We know precious little about the post-Roman England.
*cap america meme* -"I got that reference!"
My favorite Robin Hood movie is the one with Kevin Costner......Alan Rickman will always be my Sherrif
You took this review personally. I felt some extra spice on your comentary and pissed my self laughing. Great job man
I have to point out that the earliest Robin Hood stories were not set during the time of King John, or even in the Sherwood Forest. The original stories feature King Edward (probably Edward I) and Robin's main haunt is the Barnsdale Forest.
Also, the name Robin Hood seems to predate the legendary figure by centuries and has been associated with outlaws and wilderness well before the Norman era.
30:30 loved the David Attenborough cameo telling it like it is.
A great Robin Hood story is the Outlaw Chronicles by Angus Donald, told from the point of view of Alan of Dale. Covering all elements of the legend and time period (with the few inaccuracies discussed by the Author at the end of each book) with the kind of gritty realistic feel that this film was probably attempting.
This is one of those "Yeah... but I like it" movies for me. Historical Inaccuracies aside, it has cool fairly historical armor (the lamellar is a bit out of place, but not unbelievable for a force that has recently been in the Crusades) and great battles and locations. As a modern retelling of Robin Hood, complete with a new backstory, it is actually my favorite.
I want a whole tv-series with this film as it's starting point.
Same here. I can get behind historical fiction, especially movies based on a legend rather than an actual person from history. Not every period piece has to have historical accuracy for me to enjoy it. I guess it’s more about the feel of the times rather than getting every minute detail correct. For example, I enjoyed Vikings despite the glaringly obvious historical inaccuracies. It was a cool series but I wouldn’t use it as source material for a term paper on the Norse raids on Britain. To be honest, if I want to learn about history I will watch documentaries. These type of movies are entertainment plain and simple.
That being said there are some awesome movies based on real events that are as accurate as they possibly can given time constraints for making a movie, such as Schindler’s List, Downfall, Lincoln, etc.
Good note on the lamellar armor, but to be honest the movie lost me with the first scene with William Marshall wearing that g*damned "ring-mail" armor! Arrgghh! I hate that sh!t! Whenever I see that in a movie or tv show I'm like "the producer was too f*%king cheap to hire an actual armorer"...
I also enjoyed the movie, despite the inaccuracies. Nick does bring up a good point about the plot being a bit overloaded. Perhaps the Magna Carta bit would have been better left for the sequel that never happened. I still enjoy this movie, regardless.
I've heard of Ivanhoe countless times, but having never read it I had no idea Robin Hood shows up in it.
The BBC adaptation with Stephen Waddington is pretty watchable.
Not the easiest DVD to source these days.
13:00 He was also french by birth, was a french duke, talked Poitevin french and Chalus was one of his own castles...
Richard died in a bed inside Chalus castle. The castle had surrendered when learning the duke Richard himself was present at the siege and wounded.
I will say that this movie does actually features some other actual historical figures of the Angevin era England of the typical Robin Hood setting aside from Richard Lionheart and Prince John such as their mother Elenor or Aquitaine, John's wife Isabella and Sir William Marshal the most well regarded English knight of the era. And it does hew closer to history than most Robin Hood stories. The biggest fiction is King Phillip Augustus invading England when he actually was more interested in taking the Angevin's French territory such as Aquitaine and Gascony
Yup, but explaining that Philippe was taking a territory he technically owned as king would not seem as so much of an invasion to Scott's mind, he needs his scheeming badies....
It’s funny hearing Richard I talk about ”putting the French to bed” considering he was French basically.
Mark Strong didn’t play a baddie on the Kingsman films. He was actually quite likeable there.
This is the first movie I ever saw Lea Seydoux in, been a fan ever since.
It was cool to see them include William Marshal in this film. He was a fascinating guy.
Love the book 'The Greatest Knight' about William Marshal. My ears perked up when HB said his name, then I remembered this films reputation
The guy barely spent any of his reign in England and mostly used it as a piggy bank.
He would have considered himself a Norman. not "French" its important to realize how fractured identity was in those days.
@@PaulMcElligott Richard didn't give a shit about England, he was barely there (though the money it got him was nice). Now Aquitaine in France, that's where his heart was. After all, he had spent most of his life there. Most of Western France was his when he went on crusade but after he was ransomed, all but Normandy had been conquered by the French king.
So did he settle with that and happily spend the rest of his life in England? Nope, he was there for two months, then he went back to France to regain those lands. Until he died five years later.
If you disregard all the Robin Hood-built romance, Richard was...kind of a dick. To everyone, including French nobility, his own father who he rebelled against, the whole English population, etc. It's only because John was so universally hated that people started to see Richard through rose-tinted glasses.
What makes it more ironic is that tensions between the Saxon’s and the French speaking Norman ruling class was a sticking point in the old Ivanhoe story
Being from Nottingham, listening to Crows accent is like being repeatedly kicked in the bollocks.
What a great editing job! Monty Python, Errol Flynn, Disney, Men in Tights and Richard Attenborough (at least a good imitation)! Excellent. 😂🤣😂🖖💕
Watching this reinforces everything I've thought about this film and Ridley Scott. He can make a good film, but he needs an awesome script, and even then he can stuff it up (e.g. Martian ending).
As a fellow British Bald-y, I'm confident in saying that Mark Strong being villainous so often, most likely comes from the slight taper of his skull shape. Animation has long taught us to associate roundness with friendliness and joviality, sharpened angles with villainy and deviousness.
Ridley Scott never met a historical context he didn't completely screw up.
Not true AT ALL. No, his story does NOT need to take a "backseat" AT ALL, he's making a MOVIE, not a documentary. You shouldn't be going to movies for pure facts, if you were writing a history essay, you should never cite a movie as a source, only use articles, books, and documentaries. He needs to make a combination between the story AND the real life history but you're able to change aspects of history for your story like for pacing or for brevity, or to higlight something for the sake of your themes that you're trying to display. There's been numerous movies that's done that and it's worked wonders. You can have a movie that's nothing but pure historical facts but if it's presented in a REALLY bad and poor way that intervenes with entertainment than it can come off as a film that fails at it's job. So you need to know to do BOTH in a overall excellent balance.
Messing with history is fine as long as you are making sure to the audience that it's NOT meant to be one for one in real history, Gladiator is praised and beloved as an iconic movie to this day because it's just having different interpretation of events with historical characters and people are overall fine with that as people know it's just have it's own version of events. And it being in much more ancient times it able to give it more of a pass for interpretation of it's story Napoleon on the other hand is much closer to modern times and it's trying to be more of a one for one in history that you would see in a history book or taught in history class, so people have much more expectations for it to be accurate with real life history in it's events so that's why some people were pissed off at the movie and ridley scott for doing it's own thing in history. Messing with history is fine as long as you make it clear what exactly you're doing with it and the kind of expectations with it, the trailers and promotions were making the napoleon movie be a showcase of his life story and EXPECTING people to come in and see his accomplishments and explain HOW he was become who he was. But what we got wasn't entirely that as promised as the trailers were showing the movie TO be. There's where some people's problems start with the movie from HOW it was promised to be and what people ultimately got.
Loved this review. Look I've said it before and I'll say it again as entertaining as your reviews are of the movies you find historically accurate they are even better when you review the ones that aren't. LOL. Nick you're the best!!
Very well done Nick. However, I was disappointed that you failed to mention the possibility of William of Cassingham (or Willikin of the Weald) being one of the inspirations for Robin Hood. I've done some research on him and there are definitely some similarities between the events of his life and those of the legendary bandit from Sherwood Forest. Also, despite the great historical inaccuracies of the movie, I did note that Ridley Scott's version mentioned the Massacre of Ayyadieh when the "good" King Richard the Lionheart had more than two thousand Muslim prisoners of war beheaded. This is a gruesome detail that has been sadly overlooked by numerous versions of the Robin Hood myth. Keep up the good work. I am really looking forward to your reviews of Napoleon and The Last Duel!
I feel that Robin Hood is a great many people fused into a legend 😊
Have you ever considered doing a historical review of the “Horatio Hornblower” TV mini series from the late 90’s? When I was in high school, my best friend had all the DVDs so we ended up binging it. I don’t remember there being any glaring, facepalm-inducing inaccuracies, but it has been over a decade since I watched the show, so I freely admit I could have forgotten something.
The beach invasion made me laugh. Surprised that Mister Scott didn’t have the celts or Germans doing a beach invasion on the Tiber.