Watched Master and Commander last night, via computer DVD drive rather than my living room AV system. Image quality suffered as a result, but not enough to ruin the viewing experience. As suspected, my computer audio system tamed the louder sounds heard during living room play-back. Too much so. The sound loses a great deal of its depth and impact, more so than I like. Still, it's a livable compromise, considering what little hearing I have left remains intact and my head isn't pounding to match the canons. As to the film itself, it more than justifies its expense, even discounting that I bought it used dirt cheap. It helps that I have a long held fascination with ships of the age of sail, the Napoleonic period in particular.

@SubRosa: Do you perchance refer to 'Light Horse Harry' Lee?

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Apr 20 2016, 02:44 PM

Oh no, I mean Charles Lee, a British officer who joined the American side at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. He had been one of Washington's rivals for command of the Continental Army from the very start. Everyone knew that whoever led the army was most likely to lead the new American government, if the Colonies won. So there was a lot of infighting over command.

Lee intrigued against Washington the entire time he was in the army. Going behind Washington's back with disparaging letters to other officers and members of Congress. Washington knew about it. He even read one of the letters that was mistakenly delivered to him. But he did nothing. I think Washington was biding his time for the opportunity to decisively defeat Lee.

But it was his Lee's own incompetence that caused him to be captured in his pajamas by British cavalry after the retreat from New York. When he had earlier been in command at Charleston he ordered the evacuation of a fort because he said it would never hold and the garrison would be slaughtered. The State governor overruled him, and the fort stood and defeated the British.

At Monmouth itself he was given an impossible task: attack Henry Clinton's army of some 13,000 with a force of only 5 or 6,000 men of his own. Washington originally gave command of the attack to Lafayette. But this was a slap in the face to Lee, who was second in command of the army. If the army was going to be divided, the honor of leading the second half should be given to him. It may sound quaint and silly to us in the 21st Century, but personal honor was everything in the 18th Century (it was slights against his honor that led to Benedict Arnold's treason after all). So he argued for command, and Washington gave it to him. I think this was all a clever ruse on Washington's part

Another commander, like Nathaniel Greene or Daniel Morgan, would have handled their much smaller force far better against Clinton's army. But Lee literally went into the battle with no plan at all. His troops attacked the British piecemeal, with no real order or objectives. When the British turned and laid into him, he ordered a retreat. He completely lost control of the men, and it became a disorganized rout. The day was only saved when Washington came up with the rest of the army and rallied the fleeing troops.

This all gave Washington grounds to sack Lee, which he did on the spot. I don't know if that was the entire reason for the battle, but I suspect it was a large part of it. There was no real strategic need for Washington to attack Clinton at Monmouth. The British had already evacuated Philadelphia without a fight and were marching back to New York - their main base in North America. The battle itself did nothing to change that. The next day Clinton took up the march again and continued on his way to New York - something he would have been obliged to do even if he had won. France had recently joined the conflict, which changed the entire scope of the war. Because of that the British had to pull troops from America and send them to the far more important (i.e. profitable) sugar islands in the Caribbean. That is what prompted Clinton to abandon Philadelphia without firing a shot in the first place.

It is true that Von Steuben had trained the Continental's over the previous winter, and turned them into a real army. And I am sure many of the Continentals, including Washington himself, were spoiling to fight the Brits. In fact, Monmouth was the first time the Continentals were able to stand eye to eye with the British regulars without flinching. They literally fought the best the British had to standstill - that includes regiments like the Black Watch and Coldstream Guards. After the humiliating defeats at Harlem Heights, White Plains, and Brandywine Bridge, it was a huge boost to American morale. But the battle itself was tactically a draw. Neither side really got the upper hand on the other. In the end, nothing really changed in the situation overall. Except Washington's command of the Continental Army was now unassailable.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Apr 19 2016, 07:13 PM

Thanks to Master and Commander, my thirst for sea and sail has obliged me to start a Horatio Hornblower fest. Horatio is a very likeable protagonist, all the more because of his missteps and mistakes. Such as how he was captured in the The Duchess and the Devil. It helps keep him down to earth, or down to sea, as the case might be. Because his feats are also quite incredible. When I compare him to Richard Sharpe, Horartio is a much easier to relate to character. OTOH, Sharpe tends to come off as a Marty Stu.

Having recently watched my DVD of the Errol Flynn Adventures of Robin Hood, yesterday I watched the same movie on laserdisc, wanting to hear its commentary track, which I recalled being better than the DVD commentary track. To my surprise and embarrassment, turns out the two tracks are identical, save that the one on DVD is slightly updated.

I have of course watched many videos of various sorts and lengths at YouTube. The one I'll draw your attention to is a quickie by Metatron, a channel I watch with some regularity. It relates the legend, quite possibly rooted in fact, of a female samurai warrior. As part of the presentation, one of Metatron's female students models samurai armor. A quite comely young lass, I might add. Shows you don't have to resort to skimpy, unrealistic armor to flatteringly clothe female game and movie warriors. Admittedly, the particular armor worn here is rather beautiful in its own right, more so than a great many armors. Still, it can be done if one is so inclined.

@SubRosa: Thanks for the clarification and discourse. I've not studied the American Revolution in decades and recall little of it beyond broad generalities.

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Apr 20 2016, 03:40 PM

I haven't watched the video yet, but Tomoe Gozen has long been a heroine of Japanese history. She is known for cutting off a man's head with a knife. There were many examples of women in the samurai era who took arms and fought, even if not given the official title as samurai. There was Yamamato Yaeko, Nakano Takeko, Tsuruhime of Omishima, and tons more. The naginata was even known as the classic weapon of female warriors. You can find a ton of info about it in this little osprey book

And yes, there is no need for hypersexualized outfits to make women look good. A hot chick is a hot chick, even wearing a brown sack. In reality, female warriors wore the same armor that men did.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Apr 20 2016, 06:08 PM

Now that it is out on disc, I watched The Revenant. It was ok, but nothing really special. Half the dialogue is just grunting or unintelligible gibbering. I was completely underwhelmed with Leo DeCapricorn. But then I always am. Tom Hardy gave a much better performance. In the very least, his character was more interesting. Granted that is partly because he actually has other characters to talk to throughout the film, so we get a chance to see his self-rationalizations for his behavior. Where as most scenes with Leo are just of him looking at the sky, or looking at the trees, or looking at the snow, etc... None of which conveys any emotion or clue into his thoughts.

I also noticed that Leo had a John Wayne gun (i.e. it never needed reloading). Toward the end of the movie he sneaks up on a French trapper and takes his pistol. He goes to steal the horses, is seen, and shoots the guy who saw him. Then he jumps up on a horse and rides off, and shoots another guy chasing him. This is in the 1820s, so we are talking black powder guns that had to be handloaded by dropping powder, ball, and wad down the barrel, and primer to the pan. Later on he is attacked by Indians, and again shoots an Indian when he wakes up, jumps on his horse, and shoots another Indian as he rides off. Maybe he actually had two pistols and it is my bad. But I don't recall ever seeing him have a second gun at that point of the film.

The wilderness is kind of nice to look at in some scenes. But mostly it is just grey and bleak. That adds more to the feeling of desperation and danger of being alone and wounded in the wilderness. But I think it also made going to all those places rather pointless, since as the viewer you really cannot enjoy the vistas, which would have been breathtaking if they had shot them on days with better weather.

The reality vs the movie also fails on a pretty epic level. The main character Hugh Glass is real. But unlike in the movie, he never had a son, and whether or not he ever had a wife was in dispute. He did survive a bear attack with the help of the other hundred guys with him. Not all by himself like in the movie. He was abandoned. But it was in the middle of summer, not the depth of winter. He crawled back to the fort, but wasn't pursed by hostile Indians like the movie portrays. When he did track the guy down who abandoned him, the real Hugh forgave him. The whole thing makes me shake my head. Why not make a movie about Jesus next, where he rips himself off the cross and goes on a killing spree, laying waste to Palestine before walking to Rome and ripping off the Emperor's head with his bare hands? That would be as accurate as the Revenant was.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Apr 22 2016, 09:54 PM

I hope no movie directors are reading that Subrosa, don't want to give them ideas after all

I've just been watching Red Cliff, which is a damn good film

Just imagine Jesus with a laser minigun, blasting down rank after rank of demon legionaries! It would be epic!

I hope you saw the International version of Red Cliff. There was a shorter version they made for the U.S., which was not nearly as good. Funny how that happens when you cut over two hours out of a movie...

*shudders*

I didn't even know there was a longer version of the film. But I picked it up second hand, so I got it pretty cheap. Even though it's the abridged version I got my money's worth.

Watch the 291 minute version if you can. It is much better. Granted, it is almost 5 hours. But worth it.

I'll have to keep an eye out for it. And then find a day to spend watching it

Game of Thrones, season one.

So apparently the latest episode of Vikings (Season 4, episode 10) was the mid-season finale, and there are to be another 10 eps at some point in the future. That would explain why this season has seemed to go so slowly.

It hasn't been a bad season, but it (for me at least) hasn't been as good as previous ones. The last part of the latest episode in particular felt rushed and out of place. A pity, since Vikings has been one of my favourite shows for a long time now.

Game of Thrones, season two - not quite halfway through the season.

I have only seen a few episodes so far. I will have to start catching up. TBH, I was a little surprised that they are going back to Paris. Haven't we been there and done that? In the 'real' world Ragnar Lothbrok died shortly after the first attack on Paris. Not to mention King Horik was still alive at the time. I keep wondering if they are going to kill off Rangar at some point and fast forward a few more decades to show his sons all grown up. That might explain why they spend so much time in Wessex in season four, even though it is no longer relevant to the show. Eventually Ragnar's sons are going to lead the Great Heathen Army to destroy every Saxon kingdom except Wessex. Which we now know will be led by Athelstan's son. Are we going to see that in the show?

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Apr 28 2016, 08:41 PM

Heh. That would be the 'out of place' bit that's tacked on to the end of the last episode. I don't want to spoil it too much though, so I'll say no more on that.

Knowing that we're only halfway through the season does make me quite excited for part 2. Everything that's happened so far has been building up to whatever they have planned. Wessex is mentioned a fair bit during the last few minutes, so it looks likely.

I've done no 'movie' watching in some time. Been too busy watching filmed recordings of various Beethoven string quartets performed live in concert, discussed in detail in the appropriate thread. When hearing allows, a less and less common scenario, music trumps movies for my attention.

At YouTube I watched two documentaries on Richard III, one yet another take on the Princes in the Tower, the other an interesting discourse on the plausible consequences of his scoliosis (curvature of the spine).

Feeling a bit nostalgic, I'm slowing rewatching Caliform's now ancient Minecraft LP, make when the game was in some ways quite different than today, and each game day offered challenge and discovery.

-------------------------------------------

Between medical appointments one day last week I killed time in the mall, visiting Best Buy. Got my first in-your-face look at the new 4K Ultra HD TVs in action. Holy Moly!!! Those things are amazing, especially the high-end 75-80' models. One Sony and a Samsung really caught my eye. Simply stunning images, which I assume were true 4k source material. Colors really 'pop'. Some cheaper 4k models weren't so impressive, especially one that had obvious darkening at screen corners. I don't plan to buy one this lifetime, and the better models are out of my price range in any case, but darn...

I finally got caught up on Season Four of Vikings. I guess I was right about the fast-forwarding into the future part! I saw an announcement that John Rhys Meyers joined the cast for the fifth season, though they have not said who he will be playing. But after seeing the teenage Ivar, I am thinking he will perhaps be a ten years older version of Ivar. But it is also possible that he will play the grown-up Alfred the Great.

To be honest though, I thought most of season four was a letdown. I loved the stuff of Bjorn alone in the wilderness, and I loved Lagertha's wedding. But after that it all just sort of circled the drain for me. It seems like the writers don't know what to do with Ragnar anymore, or where to take the show.

Ragnar going back to Paris seems strange, as he never did it a second time in legend. It wouldn't be another 40 years before the vikings would take another crack at Paris. It was that attack on Paris in 885 that that the Rollo of history was involved in (who was not related to Ragnar Hairybreeches).

Even that nags at me. Because historically Rollo did not betray his own people to their deaths and become a solitary French noble. He and his entire warband went over the French side, creating the Norman people and the Duchy of Normandy.

The whole idea that no one in Kattegat found out about the slaughter of the viking settlement until a decade later also seems incredulous. Did they really expect to have absolutely no contact with all the settlers there for ten years? If the settlement had lasted, I am sure there would have been people traveling back and forth to trade and visit family members. There were vikings who sailed back and forth between Greenland and Norway just to visit family. The little hop to Wessex to is nothing in comparison.

Hopefully things will improve in the second half of season four. Maybe they are going to kill off Ragnar and move on to a new generation of characters - giving Bjorn, Ivar, and Alfred center stage. If so, there is a lot of material there.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: May 10 2016, 11:56 PM

I just finished watching one of my all-time favourite films: Dragonheart.

There's just so much that I love about this film.

That is on my Favorites list too. It was well done, funny, and just the right amount of everything. It is light, but surprisingly satisfying.