History Buffs Youtube Series

aberry89aberry89 California
edited February 12 in General
Stumbled across this AWESOME youtube series that evaluates historical movies. Instead of a "Everything Wrong With" deluge of inaccuracies, it's more of a mini history lesson of whatever time period the movie takes place in. It's incredibly well done and for any history buff, it's really enjoyable way to spend about 20 mins.

Three of my favorites so far have been, 

Master and Commander (one of my favorite movies of all time)

Goodfellas  

Agora 

and to hear the narrator get really frustrated  LOL....
Hatorianelgat0ghm3Tyler_Durden
“No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"

Comments

  • elgat0elgat0 Clearwater
    Absolutely right on. The narrator does a great job of contextualizing criticism of the where it is appropriate.
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    elgat0 said:

    Absolutely right on. The narrator does a great job of contextualizing criticism of the where it is appropriate.

    That's what i love. If the history is obviously respected within the film, he is understanding of some things being changed to better serve the story. 

    “No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    My only regret is seeing this thread with not enough time to stop what I'm doing and watching the Master and Commander one right away.
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited February 13
    Save it as little treat for yo' self. ;)

    “No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"
  • Saw several of these now and most were interesting but unfortunately he really shat the bed on the We Were Soldiers one, it's painfully obvious he did basically no research and most of his criticisms are just factually wrong or based upon false assumptions, it's clear he never even bothered to read the book the movie was based on ffs. Thankfully he was properly taken to task in the comments, but he never bothers to even acknowledge it at all, which is really unfortunate because it casts doubt on all of his other videos now. 
    aberry89

  • Thank you for sharing this - I love it! :)
    aberry89

  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited February 13
    ghm3 said:

    Saw several of these now and most were interesting but unfortunately he really shat the bed on the We Were Soldiers one, it's painfully obvious he did basically no research and most of his criticisms are just factually wrong or based upon false assumptions, it's clear he never even bothered to read the book the movie was based on ffs. Thankfully he was properly taken to task in the comments, but he never bothers to even acknowledge it at all, which is really unfortunate because it casts doubt on all of his other videos now. 

    Havent seen that movie, so I didn't watch that review. Perhaps the source material for his research on that particular topic was shoddy, But I don't think that means the rest of his work is now all in question. His videos are only about 20 mins, so it's not going to like Dan Carlin in depth, I just appreciate a historical movie analysis that is pointing out what is both right and wrong about a movie, instead of listing its faults. If you watch episodes like "Apollo 13" is obvious he does is research. But hey, if you have come across youtube movie history reviewers that do a better job, send their link my way! I love this stuff. 

    “No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"
  • edited February 14
    aberry89 said: ghm3 said:Edit: removed broken quote

    Yeah the
    Apollo 13 one was probably the most detailed one he's done thus far. The thing about the We Were Soldiers one is that shouldn't this be one of the easiest movies to research? How do you get things so wrong? I get it that he's not going to do 5 months of research Dan Carlin style but you could at least read the damn book it's based on no? Then there were the critiques over military strategy that was just incorrect and betrayed ignorance/poor research even more. And the one major scene at the end that he should have criticized because it was one of the few scenes of pure Hollywood fiction, nothing. 

    Combining this with the fact that he won't even acknowledge making any errors makes me question what else may be incorrect in topics I know nothing about.

    Nevertheless I wasn't trying to say it's trash and not worthwhile, it's a really interesting channel, I've watched possibly half of them already. I just wish he could admit when he's wrong about something and address it in the interest of accuracy (this is the point of the channel is it not?)

  • aberry89aberry89 California
    Yeah, the not admitting that he got stuff wrong in that review is weird, and I don't know why he is sticking to his guns so much on that. I have no idea about the validity of the book or the movie at all so I can't comment...but at least people in the comments let him know he got stuff wrong. 

    “No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"
  • CoryCory New Scotland
    edited February 14
    Anyone think they will do one for The Great Wall
    That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo!
  • elgat0elgat0 Clearwater
    @ghm3 @aberry89 I rewatched the "We Were Soldiers" review and I agree it comes off bad.  The scenes that he criticized were more about movie making than credibility. 

    He called a death scene of two soldiers cliched without remarking on their accuracy.  For some reason with this film, he didn't seem comfortable praising it.  He gives it a lot of compliments for its historical authenticity, which is the primary lens through which he reviews movies, then hammers it for those death scenes and the family life scenes. 

    Maybe it's a Mel Gibson thing.   All of Gibson's movies have been raked pretty harshly, deservedly or not.  Mostly deservedly.
    ghm3
  • @elgat0 Yeah I think you're absolutely right, after watching more I think he has a significant personal bias against Mel Gibson. It's certainly true that The Patriot and Braveheart were terribly inaccurate historically and deserve derision for that, but he definitely just outright can't stand Mel Gibson and it negatively affects his reviews. He even brought him up in a random other video that had nothing to do with him just to mock him (I forget which one now, the Zulu followup video perhaps). 

  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited February 16
    Your totally right. I think he needs to recognize that Gibson is a very emotion driven director. Plot, and facts often fall by the way side. But at the end of the day, he is great director. Nothing wrong with calling him out on historical inaccuracies, but you have to give props to the craft when it's there.


    With all that being said, he could totally rip Passion of the Christ a new butthole - because I have watched that movie as a Christian and an Agnostic and it made me angry both times. You have to know the why and the what when you tackle religions texts - and Mel didn't do the Bible or Jesus their due. (and that is coming from a atheist leaning agnostic).

    “No time to squabble Troy, for Greendale on THREE! One, two- Jeff, every second counts. For Greendale on TWO! One-"
Sign In or Register to comment.