posted
I just got back from taking John and a friend to Timeline. They loved it! John kept asking what was real and what was fiction. He wants to go to France and dig-up castles.
As the rule goes, I liked the book better than the movie. But the movie was pretty good. The siege/fight scenes were mesmerizing and the kids even went "ooohh" during one especially artful scene.
I've been googling the last hour to find-out to what extent the city of Castelgard and the battle portrayed is real. While the kids are excited, I'd like to feed them some real history from the period/place.
Anybody out there know the fiction from fact regarding Castelgard and the battle of April 7, 1357?
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the movie was actually very predictable (which can be excusable in some cases) and that the acting, particularily the time traveling girl, I didn't find appealing. They should have casted a hot babe in her place for some good eye candy. Because thats what action movies need more of nowadays. Eye candy. Darn it, gimme my eye candy!
However, it was a decent movie, only had one too many moments where I wanted to bust out a line in a MST3K fashion.
I give it a B: worth seeing once, and maybe again at the dollar theater with a friend if you're bored.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the book and the trailer looked so corny. Oh well, I'll probably end up spending $8 on it anyways.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know of anything more expensive than 6 bucks around here, and I can get a student discount by showing my ID. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was a decent movie. Not spectacular, but I'm not sorry I spent the time watching it. Unfortunately, in the translation from book to screen, it developed some fairly serious plot holes. I also would have liked to see more of the 'present day' material from the book, but I guess that would have put a lot of the audience to sleep. Still worth a gander though, in my opinion.
posted
I saw the movie today. It has been a few years since I read Michael Crichton's book, and I was surprised at how much of it I had forgotten. But that meant the movie was mostly new to me.
As a rule, I like time travel stories, but somehow it seemed a waste of high tech just to go back and slog it out among a bunch of semi-barbarians whanging on each other with swords and shooting arrows at anything that moves. And what kind of total idiots would travel into the middle of a huge and bloody battle fought by medieval thugs, without taking modern weapons with them? Why bother to take two marines with them if you don't arm the marines? They weren't even conversant in the weapons of the era.
So what if history is changed? History needs to be changed! The group traveling back in time should have been armed like the Stargate SG-1 team.
The "Greek fire" was kind of interesting. I did not know historians were entirely sure how it was made. The way it was presented in the movie, it must have included quick lime as one of the ingredients, since pouring water on it made it burn even more fiercely (water will ignite quick lime).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reading the book now and judging from the research Crichton did with this I think that Castlegard is an actual place along with La Roque. I could be wrong of course.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abrynne- I got the same impression. I think that worst case, Castelgard and the pivotal French/English battle are an amalgam of events and places.
Though I've looked-up some of the books cited in the bibliography, I haven't noticed one that is dedicated to "Castelgard" per se.
posted
I took a semesterlong class on the Hundred Years War last year, so I know a bit about the literature on the subject. The Hundred Years War is a rather broad topic, so it may very well be that there are no books on just Castleguard. In most cases, only the most important or interesting battles merit a book of their very own. In my studies, I don't recall reading about Castleguard, so I doubt it was of particular significance. The other problem is that there is simply very little written by contemporaries concerning many of the events of the war. Very often, what we do have is poetic, incomplete or simply unreliable.
I read Timeline several years ago, and I recall that it was much better (and more interesting) than the movie. Still, I thought the movie was fine.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw an interesting show awhile ago on the Discovery channel about Greek fire and Fire Ships. In that show the historians were able to recreate the ships and the fire. I don't remember the details..but they did do it all with materials and methods that would have been available at the time.
At the end of the show they sailed the ship and then attacked and burned another. I think the show was "Ancient Arsenal: Fire Ships" but I can't be certain.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated this book. I couldn't even get through it. The opening scene was kind of cool, then it turned into a two -hudred page chase scene with unhealthy short men chasing people with fifty-pound swords. It's sad. I WANTED to like it more. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see movies at the Matinee for 4.50, and the evening showings are 7.00.
Anyway, I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but every review I've seen has said the movies was absolutely terrible.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That movie looked like B-list trash. Of course I may be biased against it, since the only Crichton book I ever enjoyed was Sphere.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, come on! Michael Crichton is an amazing writer! Haven't you ever The Andromeda Strain? The ironic use of the deus ex machina ending is a glorious counterpoint to the tension he builds throughout the book. And then there's The Lost World, with its brilliant recycling of the Jurassic Park plot. Most people don't realize that he took the entire text of the first book, changed a few key words, and bam! there was the sequel. Amazing. Utterly amazing.
I enjoy Crichton's research and readable style.My favorite Crichton book is "Eaters of the Dead" , though I think they've changed the title. Even with this one, I don't come away thinking, "Wow". Nor do I think character development is a big priority to him, but it's always a fun read with an interesting idea or two sprinkled in.
Never a waste of time in my opinion.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It's always been a mystery what the name means. A grove full of elks? A group of cross-species animals that are elk-trees? Who knows what it means."
Nick, congratulations! You found the Ent-wives!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to see this movie, but don't think I will now. Too many people have said the movie doesn't look good. Maybe I will read the book instead.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
:::stands behind kat, scrunches-up nose and makes bunny ears behind kat's head::: Based on my own personal experience, I'd suggest that NOONE, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES eat raisins.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
stupid corporate Elk Grove (my home town in California).
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
