So, this morning I'm scouring the internet for reviews of Netflix's Outlaw King, to see whether its worth signing up just to download, or whether it will just raise the blood-pressure ala Braveheart when I found this little gem:
"Why do moviemakers insist on telling historical stories when they’re really just interested in costumes and war? There’s nothing new about the abbreviated history you find in “Outlaw King,” a monotonous slog through the life and brutally terrible times of Robert the Bruce (1274-1329), a Scottish noble who fought — and fought — the English. At least in old Hollywood, filmmakers would also try to entertain you amid the clashes and post-combat huddles, giving you something more to watch and ponder than this movie’s oceans of mud, truckloads of guts and misty, unconsidered nationalism."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/movies/outlaw-king-review.html
Well, that made me burst out laughing, because I've lost count how many times I've read that novel.
To tell the truth, when I read books with big set piece battle scenes, I get confused, bored and usually skip about 10 pages. A lot of authors seem to want to tell the reader everything that is happening within the battle, rather than staying with one POV. I think the result of multiple POVs is that the suspense and sense of jeopardy is drained away.
I suppose the reason why US film-makers like stories like Braveheart and Outlaw King is that it fits into the Hollywood TV Trope of the English guys are all villians. But yeah, the story of Bruce has a lot more meat than mud and battles.
Thoughts?[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
"Why do moviemakers insist on telling historical stories when they’re really just interested in costumes and war? There’s nothing new about the abbreviated history you find in “Outlaw King,” a monotonous slog through the life and brutally terrible times of Robert the Bruce (1274-1329), a Scottish noble who fought — and fought — the English. At least in old Hollywood, filmmakers would also try to entertain you amid the clashes and post-combat huddles, giving you something more to watch and ponder than this movie’s oceans of mud, truckloads of guts and misty, unconsidered nationalism."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/movies/outlaw-king-review.html
Well, that made me burst out laughing, because I've lost count how many times I've read that novel.
To tell the truth, when I read books with big set piece battle scenes, I get confused, bored and usually skip about 10 pages. A lot of authors seem to want to tell the reader everything that is happening within the battle, rather than staying with one POV. I think the result of multiple POVs is that the suspense and sense of jeopardy is drained away.
I suppose the reason why US film-makers like stories like Braveheart and Outlaw King is that it fits into the Hollywood TV Trope of the English guys are all villians. But yeah, the story of Bruce has a lot more meat than mud and battles.
Thoughts?[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
Last edited:
