Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login

What's your favorite 18th century era movie? 

21%
24 deviants said Amadeus
19%
22 deviants said Marie Antoinette (2006)
18%
21 deviants said The Duchess
15%
18 deviants said Dangerous Liaisons
10%
12 deviants said The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)
7%
8 deviants said The Madness of King George
6%
7 deviants said Other (Please Comment)
3%
3 deviants said Affair of the Necklace (2001)
2%
2 deviants said Barry Lyndon
0%
No deviants said Marie Antoinette (1938)

Devious Comments

:iconent2pri9se:
ENT2PRI9SE Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'm thinking either The Crossing starring Jeff Daniels as General George Washington supporting cast Roger Rees as General Hugh, Merce Sebastian Roché as Major General John Glover.

My second Pick would be The Patriot starring Mel Gibson. Ironically both films come out in 2000.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
I haven't seen THE CROSSING-- is it any good?

As for PATRIOT, I've seen that movie way too many times. I'm not sure why, I don't really care for it all that much. Maybe it's because there's not too many films set during the American Revolution.
Reply
:iconent2pri9se:
ENT2PRI9SE Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I think so. I would not say it was a good one if I didn't, Besides the story is more historically accurate compared to the Patriot. The Crossing is about Washington's first successful battle and it's importance to the war.
Reply
:iconsince91:
since91 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
It's a tie between Amadeus and Dangerous Liaisons. Chose the second one, though. The main male character really impressed me. (forgot his name, hah xD)
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Valmont-- John Malkovich was dead sexy in that role, wasn't he? :XD:
Reply
:iconsince91:
since91 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Yes, he was. :D
Reply
:iconmyrth1:
Myrth1 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2011
King George! :boogie:

But also something between "Wuthering Heights" (1993 version), and "Bounty" (1984). I don't know if "The Duellists" also counts, as it's between 18th and 19th centuries.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
"Madness" is a great movie. I've never seen "Wuthering Heights"... mainly because I'm not a fan of the book... would I like it then?

How cool-- you've seen "The Duellists"! That's one of Ridley Scott's best films, IMO. I didn't include it though since it's more 19th century/Napoleonic era. Maybe another poll for another day...
Reply
:iconmyrth1:
Myrth1 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2011
Well, to be honest, I was really disappointed, when years after watching the film I've got chance to finally read "Wuthering Heights". Not that it's a bad book, but it's written in so annoying way, that it can give a headache. And it's not the translation thing - I have to read it in original for English at school. So I guess you would like the film, which gives the plot, but instead of lousy-written descriptions just shows the image. (Actually quite similar thing was with "Out of Africa", which as a book is painful to read with it's over-the-top descriptions and the film converts them into one of the best shots you can ever find :giggle: )

That's why I wasn't sure if it counts, as it starts just in the final moment of 18th century (or I don't remember it well enough and it started already in 19th century?)
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Hmm, I might catch it when I have a chance-- I just hate the characters of Heathcliff and Cathy so much. But I'm quite looking forward to the new adaptation of Jane Eyre-- now that's a Bronte book I really like!

I don't remember when "Duellists" starts... wikipedia just says it's set during the Napoleonic Wars. I really need to watch it again.
Reply
:iconmyrth1:
Myrth1 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011
Well, I don't like most of the modern adaptations of old books. They take the outer shell of books they are based on, but all the inside is bumped with modern ideas. Or there is no book. I really HATE The Duchess and Marie Antoinette. They are respectively just another dull "great woman agains all those nasty, pathetic, dumb men and their patrimonal world" put into 18th century clothes and just 18th century clothes put on actors.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
But the clothes are pretty, at least! :)
Reply
:iconmyrth1:
Myrth1 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2011
Yeah, as someone point out The Duchess - just for costumes :giggle:
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Too bad there's no "bling" emoticon I can use... :XD:
Reply
:iconacceber98:
acceber98 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Student Artist
Pirates of the Caribbean!! Orlando Bloom (faint)!!!!
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Hey, that's true... I didn't think of it for some reason. I was mainly thinking of period 'frock flicks.' :)
Reply
:iconacceber98:
acceber98 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Student Artist
It doesn't have the best costumes, but you gotta love Capt. Jack!!!
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
The costumes aren't bad for a giganto blockbuster, though.
Reply
:iconmyrth1:
Myrth1 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011
Em... Isn't PotC set in 17th century? Late, but still 17th century. At least it's the peak of Caribbean piracy period in history...
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
It's a historical fantasy, set in the mid 1700s (sort of).
Reply
:iconthedauphine:
TheDauphine Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011
The Madness of King George is one of my favorite historical movies of all time ever!
I'm a bit of a King George III fanatic myself, plus the costumes and music are amazing!
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, it's a very good movie! :)
Reply
:iconthedauphine:
TheDauphine Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011
Yep! :)
Reply
:iconelenatria:
ElenaTria Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Marie Antoinette?? I haven't seen it but it doesn't sound as awesome as Amadeus. :P
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Trust me, it's not. ;P
Reply
:iconelenatria:
ElenaTria Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Phew, you had me worrying!! =P
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
:lmao:
Reply
:iconkingandrewi:
KingAndrewI Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Student Artisan Crafter
Oh God, why are you making me choose?!

I will always love Marie Antoinette 2006. However much I may despise the film, the costumes were just all kinds of fabulous, gorgeous, delicious, scrumptious - any adjective of that nature, really.

Dangerous Liaisons is high up there too, although in recent viewings I've grown a little more ambivalent to the costuming. It's still fab, though, and it earns extra points for having an amazing script, sets, performances etc. Love!

As a film, I'm somewhat on the fence about The Duchess. I think if it hadn't been used as a Keira Knightley vehicle it could have really been something amazing. Nevertheless, it's still good for a slightly-schlocky-but-still-moving period tragedy. And, omigod, how I love the costumes. For once it was all done RIGHT! I just loved seeing all the accuracy everywhere I looked. Why can't more movies be like that?!

The Madness of King George had some gorgeous costumes too, but I see that more as a character study than a true "frock flick" per se. I still love it though, definitely gets repeat viewings.

1938 MA is such a ridiculous extravaganza that I put it on a different level than the modern day films. It's like Gone with the Wind in that respect.

The Affair of the Necklace is okay. I mean, I like the costumes and everything, but as a film it sucks and there really wasn't one costume that made me go "I HAVE TO HAVE THAT." So it's whatever.

I've actually never seen Amadeus. I'm bad, aren't I? :blush:
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Bwa ha ha ha! I am clearly EVIL!

Well, you know how much I dislike the 2006 MA, as we've discussed it a lot before. I don't think Milena Cananero could do bad work if she was hogtied to railroad tracks, but I prefer what's she done in other movies. YMMV of course!

DL is probably one of my favorite costume movies ever-- also it's one of the few movies actually set in Louis XV's time, which makes me get all warm and fuzzy. Why have you grown a little ambivalent to the costumes?

I agree with you about The Duchess. In terms of production and costume design, it's beyond reproach, but it feels kind of like a Kiera Knightley Lifetime movie blown up for the big screen.

I'm actually really fond of Affair of the Necklace even though it's not a good movie per se... it kind of feels (to me) like a romance novel, so total guilty pleasure.

You should see Amadeus! It's a great movie, although the costumes are kind of... schlocky. But the cartoonyness kind of suits the movie in a weird way, so I don't mind them too much. It's a really engaging film. Just don't see Forman's follow-up period movie, Valmont... ugh... just ugh.

Now why haven't you commented yet on my Rococo Belle pic? I'd love to hear what you think! ;P
Reply
:iconkingandrewi:
KingAndrewI Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Student Artisan Crafter
Ah, Milena. Utter goddess-ness.

The thing about the DL costumes is, 1.) there really isn't any attention paid to colors, in that specific color palettes aren't really assigned to each character. I guess on the one hand this is accurate, but I would have liked to have seen more attention paid to that. 2.) Some of the fabrics, trims and a lot of the background costumes are terribly theatrical, over-the-top and inaccurate. Despite all that, though, I still love them.

Glad we agree about The Duchess! ;)

I have two problems with AotN. One is Hilary Swank. I mean, who really thought she would be good in a period piece set in France? It's like Heather Graham in From Hell, or Drew Barrymore in Ever After. Just a hot mess all across the board. The other is that Jeanne is meant to be a sympathetic character, when what she did was really kind of despicable and she isn't really sympathetic at all. And since MA (who theoretically should be the villain in the movie since she represents the monarchy which destroyed Jeanne's life) is also given a justly sympathetic treatment, there really is no antagonist in the movie. Rohan is kind of presented as one, but he is actually facilitating Jeanne's crime, so the viewers are just left in a kind of limbo as to who they are supposed to care about. Again, it's whatever.

I shall see Amadeus, I promise! And I shall go comment on Belle right now!

PS I watched ten minutes of Valmont on Youtube and I was done. Bad costumes, terribly miscast Annette Bennette. DL is miles better. But you already knew that.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
You make a good point about the DL color palettes... though I'd have to rewatch the movie for the background characters. Did you ever read the Period Movie Review's take on the DL costumes? [link] It's quite well written (although her mistaken belief that the movie is set in the 1770s makes me gnash my teeth a little).

Seitou got me into AotN, and it's one of my fluffy rainy-day romance movies-- I like it, even though it is has a lot of problems (to put it charitably). I think the problem is less Hilary Swank, and more of the director. Charles Shyer was best known for directing 1980s romantic comedies like Baby Boom and Private Benjamin... not really a good match for a serious period drama. I think Swank is ok, but if she and the other actors had worked with a more skilled director, then the movie would have meshed together a lot better than it did.

Valmont is a real trainwreck. I remember when it came out, and everyone was comparing it unfavorably to DL. I saw an interview with Forman, and he was so defensive (he said something to the effect that DL was filled with 'scheming old people' and Valmont had younger, sexier, happier people). It was pretty hilarious. Even back in the late '80s people knew DL was a better film and Valmont sucked. LOL!
Reply
:iconkingandrewi:
KingAndrewI Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Student Artisan Crafter
Obviously I agree with her! But yes, the costuming is very 1760's, as is the hair.

I didn't know that about the director, but it makes sense. There's just something off in the tone of the movie, and you never really feel that you're in the period. Totally the opposite of DL or The Duchess (and lets not even start on MA!). I did listen to his commentary on the DVD and I liked what he had to say. He seemed proud of his movie.

I don't care what Forman has to say. Close and Malkovich (who usually annoys and/or creeps me out) are dead sexy.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Man, I so love the 1750s-1760s in terms of style. It's sad that DL is the only movie I can think of that really depicts that period well...

The Period Movie Review is one of my favorite movie costume sites out there. I've cried many single tears now that it's no longer being updated-- her reviews do a great job of addressing costumes in terms of how they work in the movie, in addition to authenticity, which is not something many bloggers do. Her review of the hot mess that is "Becoming Jane" is spot on. (I liked that movie too, but the costumes were an absolute trainwreck!)

Malkovich is smoking hot in DL. Firth in Valmont barely registered on screen at all, which is interesting because now the actor has a lot of screen presence and gravitas, as seen in The King's Speech. I guess that's one of the good things age can do for you....
Reply
:iconkingandrewi:
KingAndrewI Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Student Artisan Crafter
I'm more of a 1770's fan myself, although I would love to see some super-wide 1740's panniers action at some point.

I adore the period movie review as well. I agree with everything she says, and she seems quite knowledgeable across a wide range of eras.

I love Firth. I mean, Darcy, hello. But Malkovich is Valmont.

And on an Austen-related note, I wish just one Regency movie they make wouldn't be an Austen adaptation, because they always revert to the tried-and-true dainty white cotton dresses for those productions. In actuality, though, we know there was so much more fun stuff going on with fashion during the Regency. I'd love a movie to be made about Princess Charlotte so we could see some of those really outlandish court dresses.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
You know I would love to see something set in the 1730s with mantuas worn over oval hoops, but I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime. There was some show done recently called "A Harlot's Progress" that was set in this decade too, but the costumes were 18th century generic. No perukes, no mantuas, no oval hoops, just stuff gotten out of the costume warehouse. Blah.

I think Firth was definitely miscast as Valmont. Weird to think that movie came out 5 years before P&P.

Yeah, I hear you about the Austen thing. Most movies set during the Regency tend to default to "Regency/Empire generic," as most movies set in the 1700s tend to default to "Georgian generic." I used to not notice this when my knowledge of the period was sketchier, but now I can't help but notice. You particularly saw this in "Bright Star," which started off with some interesting hats, but then quickly devolved into the usual plain muslin frocks, which is especially odd considering the heroine was supposed to be a dressmaker and milliner with outrageously fashionable taste. They even said as much in the movie. However, she was dressed like every other Austen heroine in every other Austen adaptation you've ever seen. So yeah...

Have you ever seen "Princess Caraboo"? That seems to be one of the few Regency-period movies to not have that problem, but I haven't seen it yet, so I wouldn't know.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondarthmalice66:
DarthMalice66 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Mine is probably Horatio Hornblower.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
The Gregory Peck movie or the more recent TV series? I'm only counting movies... TV shows don't count. ;P
Reply
:icondarthmalice66:
DarthMalice66 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Both! One just takes place later than the others do. If not that I'd have to say the Crossing because it's the most accurate account of the Rev War caught on Film that's not a documentary.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
I haven't seen it! Is it good? :)
Reply
:icondarthmalice66:
DarthMalice66 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah. Jeff Daniels plays a very good Washington. There's a few inaccuracies in it, but there's nothing new about that. Overall though it's good!
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
How are the costumes?
Reply
:icondarthmalice66:
DarthMalice66 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
fairly decent from what I remember. They had some of the American commanders in Wigs, which is incorrect, but on the whole it wasn't bad!
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
American commanders didn't wear wigs? I thought wigs were pretty standard at the time, weren't they?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconstevenshipman:
stevenshipman Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011
To clarify: Marie Antoinette 2006. :)
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Cool! :)
Reply
:iconstevenshipman:
stevenshipman Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011
As an overall piece of cinema, I choose Amadeus. But Marie Antoinette and Dangerous Liaisons run a close second and third, especially in the area of costume/design/style. The colors in Marie Antoinette are absolutely exquisite! In that respect, M.A. is my fave.
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
I"m particularly fond of Dangerous Liaisons myself. :love:
Reply
:iconcomic-chic:
comic-chic Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional
Hows about John Adam the HBO mini series...? :love:
Reply
:iconsuburbanbeatnik:
suburbanbeatnik Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Does that count? I would think a miniseries would be in a separate category. What's your favorite movie set during this period? :D
Reply
:iconcomic-chic:
comic-chic Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011  Professional
I voted for Marie Antoinette. I think it just captures the essence of being a girl so, so well.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 

Poll History