Cool News
Several FOUR FEATHERS Reviews Float In!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I saw this on Monday night, and overall, I’m not terribly inspired to write about it one way or another. It’s handsomely made, but vacant in some ways. I liked some of the film, and some of it I simply sat through. Overall, I don’t feel one way or another enough about it to work up much of a head of steam to write.
Luckily, we’ve got a couple of last looks at the film before you decide if you’re going to head out to catch this one this weekend or not...
Howdy ho, Harry,
I was the person who steamed TUCK EVERLASTING and got negated by three positive reviews on it the next day. I would just like to let you know that I didn't think it was BAD, I thought it was AWFUL! It's sloppily made crap.
Anyway, I just got back from a screening of FOUR FEATHERS. I want to start off that this certainly is no Oscar bait. Hell, it might not even be ELIZABETH. But it sure is an entertaining, epic film that should please most demographics.
Based on the novel, of which I am unfamiliar with, Heath Ledger is HARRY, a British soldier who has recently married to ETHNE (a lovely but absent Kate Hudson). As he is ready to relax with his new wife, he receives news that the British Army is heading to Sudan to fight in a colonial British war.
Unfortunately, HARRY is a coward and he decides to rescind his position in the army, much to the surprise of longtime friend JACK (a very good Wes Bentley, in his biggest and best role yet). Very quickly, he is sent four feathers, each a sign of his pathetic cowardice. He becomes miffed, and heads to Sudan for redemption.
What ensues is an odd and uncomfortable parallel to the John Walker Lindh saga. By temporarily joining the Sudanese army and growing a mighty beard, losing dozens of pounds in the process, the normally pallid Ledger still doesn't gain the ability to demonstrate ANY new facial expressions, but he looks mighty convicing while his ass is being kicked around hard.
Shekar Kapur's second film lacks the electric narrative of ELIZABETH, but while the beginning is shaky and moves a bit too quickly, the middle section features great pacing. The battle scenes especially are quite rousing, and Kapur does the best with a mostly underwritten script.
All in all, its a rather rousing flick, aside from the generic African American sidekick, and Ledger's inability to earn a tan in the desert. Shekar Kapur establishes himself as a pretty damn good filmmaker. Next time, they should get him a script that actually exhibits character relationships and doesn't rely on well staged action scenes.
I am fabfunk, and I have spoken.
What’s this next spy got to say about it?
Hey Harry,
“Going to Four Peaks Brewery” here again – your increasingly reliable spy from the Phoenix/Scottsdale area. I fired off A.I., ADAPTATION, and EMPEROR’S CLUB reviews your way in the past. Here’s another.
About two-thirds of the way into the press screening of THE FOUR FEATHERS this evening, three ten-year-old kids walked out and yelled “This movie sucks ass!” and “Goddamn right, it does!” It’s not that nearly that bad, but it isn’t all that good, either. This movie yearns to be something it’s not, and will inevitably (if not already) draw unfair comparisons between LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and other “sand” epics. I think there’s probably a hunger for that sort of movie in this day and age. This movie is to LAWRENCE as the recent MUMMY movies are to the Indiana Jones series.
Without recounting the movie scene for scene, know this: Heath Ledger plays a British soldier named Harry who’s engaged to Ethne (Kate Hudson). Harry’s best friend is another soldier named Jack (Wes Bentley), who is drawn as the better, more devoted soldier of the two. Soon enough, their regiment is going to be sent to the Sudan, where a British outpost was wiped out by a band of Arab desert marauders. Harry resigns his post, and is given four feathers representing Harry’s cowardice. Ethne gives Harry the four feather, inspiring him to go to the Sudan by himself, in an effort to follow the Arabs and ultimately warn his friends.
The plot isn’t bad, but the movie is slow, turgid, and occasionally hard to follow. It has a problem with space and time too, which I don’t quite understand. We jump to
The Sudan when Bentley & co. arrive, then jump back to Harry. Minutes later, we’re back in The Sudan with Harry, and only then does the film decide to give us the sweeping music and “The Sudan” title card. Strange choice.
Whatever the case, the movie is riddled with cliches, though judging from the reactions of morons in attendance, we aren’t in danger of losing those anytime soon. By the way, here’s a side note that I’ll throw out there: is it just the Phoenix/Scottsdale area, or has anyone noticed a recent increase of people laughing at things that aren’t supposed to be funny? The scene where Chris Cooper kisses Kevin Spacey, and the one when Annette Bening breaks down in AMERICAN BEAUTY comes to mind. The scene where the kid pulls a gun on Bruce Willis in UNBREAKABLE is another. It happened quite a few times in this movie.
Anyway, some of the action is pretty hard to follow, none of the characters are very clearly drawn, and I actually found myself wondering who Heath Ledger was after near the film’s end. Frankly, by that point, I didn’t care. The entire movie hinges on Ledger being deemed a coward, but the movie’s fatal flow is not delineating this very well at all. By no means could anyone consider him to be a coward. If it were the real world and someone did that to me, I’d leave my friends and my fiancee to go fuck themselves. For real. The last thing I would do is travel across the globe to help them out. And even if I did that, I’d demand an apology on the other end.
This film just felt lacking on every level, despite impressive sets, costumes, and accents. Kate Hudson is absolutely wasted, and I hope she finds a role like Penny Lane sometime soon. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was three hours, yet I wished it were five; this one was a little over two, and I wished I’d spent half the time in there. Occasionally good, but it should have been great. It just goes to prove: they really **don’t** make them like they used to. ** ½ stars out of five.
We’ll see what you guys think as you check in here to rant and rave over the weekend if you take a look...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
I had some hope for this one. Oh well, I'll probably see it anyways. Two very well written reviews, nice job.
-
I saw this movie and I can only think of two words for this film : Epically Mediocre
-
get sand in his vagina?
-
From what I understand, he is NOT a coward for refusing to go to war, but rather very brave to take such a contrary stand in a society that thinks it's his duty to fight. That his friends think he's a coward is what makes him go to the Sudan, not because he's assamed. I don't completely agree with that sentiment, it sounds like something an actual coward would make up to justify his actions, but I can understand being afraid of going to war(and potential death). Anyway, I believe that's the idea in the film and in the book. Maybe they flinched at standing behind it in this version. ***** A TEN year old said it "sucked ass"? Geesh, kids these days are awful. Of course, the lude cartoons of Harry on this site can't be good for them either. Smut-pushers.
-
I thought that advance news and reviews are what we came to this site for! Thanks for taking the time Moriarty...
-
In the story it isn't that he is afraid to fight, it's that he doesn't believe in the cause he is fighting for. What does the Sudan have to do with England? This is the question that makes a "coward" of him. It is only in the face of his friends in need that he finds a cause that is worthy of heroics.
By the way, when did two reviews constitute several? -
The inappropraite laughter is something I've noticed as well (Boston area). Somewhat forgiveable for "American Beauty" - it was such a dark mix of humor and pathos. That point about the pacing being off with the "Sudan" title - sounds like real sloppy work.
-
Sep 20, 2002 12:47:24 PM CDT
I notice EYE SEE YOU is being flushed into theaters this weekend
by you are banned
How 'bout some reviews of Stallone's latest disaster? I thought ESY wasn't even going to receive a theatrical release in the U.S.?
-
was surely meant to be funny? It was a rare high point in an unbearably pretentious and turgid movie.
-
You gotta love ten year olds! I have noticed also innapropriate laughter: during One Hour Photo, at the pisture-wall and the fantasy "Uncle Sy" scene. People laught to deal with the discomfort of scenes they don't want to deal with. It can be very distracting...
Four Feathers looks lame, something you see on a date to appease your bitchy girlfriend but consider a compromise because it *might* have some cool action. -
Sep 20, 2002 1:25:16 PM CDT
FOUR FEATHERS sounds more like GUNGA DIN than LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
by lostoptimist
but that's beside the point. There is only one David Lean and, unfortunately, the man is dead. Here's hoping that one day Kapur will try his hand at something other than historical epics...
-
...another role that emphisizes your strength and appeal. Eternal optimism. Another look at those "ski slopes" wouldn't hurt either. Think about it Penny.
-
...ten year-olds they would have had their faces slapped (hard)and, as further punishment, I would have made them watch the remainder of the film and then write a report on it afterwards.
Man, the little bastards of today are just too much - no sense of courtesy or respect for others.
Just give me two minutes with those little A-holes and I'll have them both crying like a couple of little girls and saying "please," "thank you," "sir," and "ma'am" to every adult they see!
-
Wow. You have a good point Blade Runner, but you totally messed that up for me. Your lack of respect for the English language upset me more than Penny Lane's character did you. Please proofread what you're going to write next time. It was very distracting.
-
No arguement about the rudeness of kids, but devoting an entire post to what you'd do to 'em? Seek therapy.
-
Sep 20, 2002 5:36:50 PM CDT
The scene in Unbreakable where David Dunn's kid is aiming a
by el duderino
The scene itself was just one of the cluster of brilliant scenes in that movie. It was extremely tense, humorous, and horrifying all at once. In all honesty, do you think the line "I'll just shoot him once" was intended to be dramatic?
-
Ok, Shekar Kapur is Indian and obviously isn't in love with the British Empire that ruled his country for 2 centuries. What I just don't understand is WHY filmmakers must put a "contemporary and modern" spin on a tale that was written 100 years ago? OF COURSE people are all anti-colonial these days, but that's typical. We as people tend to look at history with a modern perspective and that just does not work. Imperialism may be judged to be WRONG now, but it was entirely acceptable not only to the British in the 16-early 20th centuries but also every other European country and even the US to some extent. So what Kapur is doing here is criticising a society that was very acceptable 100 years ago. You can't have a young Victorian soldier questioning his Empire with a 21st Century perspective..that's total hypocrisy. I can't wait to see this movie because I'm an historian but then again, I'm not really expecting to see an historically accurate film. I understand that the British kill Muslim slaves in this movie at one time....hmm...people DO know that the British were the FIRST NATION to ban slavery in 1772 (just in England) and then world wide in 1833? Ok, just making sure. If Shekar wanted to make an anti-colonial movie...then by all means..make another Gandhi. But don't try to reach a halfway point between portraying the glory of British soldiers, but at the same time questioning what they're doing in the first place! That in itself is one big contradiction that just does not work and will entirely confuse historically unaware movie-goers. I'm really waiting for some talented filmmaker to make a movie about the Brits where their military actions were completely justified. I'm sick of the British being portrayed as outright cartoonish villains (Patriot) or semi-villains (Four Feathers) or just being downright unjustly insulted (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers). If you look at history, there are many great tales of military heroism to make a great movie involving the Brits....Agincourt where 8,000 english under Henry V destroyed an army of 50,000 French when cornered...or the destruction of the invading Spanish Armada in 1588 where they were outnumbered over 2-1, The Battle of Trafalgar where Nelson defeated the invasion fleet of Spanish and French fleets (again outnumbered almost 2-1) in 1805. Or how about the battle of WATERLOO in June of 1815? How about we remake ZULU? Or what about the Battle of Britain in 1940? Or the sinking of the Bismark in 1941? Surely there is great heroism there...so HOLLYWOOD!! STOP USING THE BRITS AS BAD GUYS!! I'm still looking forward to the Four Feathers though.
-
I know there was always an anti-colonial voice in the British Empire and throughout Europe in the 18-19th centuries. But honestly, estimates of that voice range in the area of being outnumbered by a ratio of 85% pro-colonial. (mainly England) Why do you think Disraeli was the predominant figure of British politics from the 1860's onward until the late 1890's when Imperialism finally began to slow down. As for the superiority complex of the Europeans...well, I know I may irk a few people by saying this...but let's face it. The British were far more advanced than the Zulu tribes of South Africa or the Mogul Empires during the 18th century in India. Technical superiority was one aspect, but the Europeans were ahead of their time in moral thinking. Slavery had become obsolete (though racism endured). Plus you cannot fault the Brits or the rest of the Europeans for racing to establish colonies. Money and power are always hanging in the balance..just like the US now seeks to keep potential threats to a minimum....the Brits had to gain new colonies (new markets and resources) to stay ahead of the surging Germans and French. How can you blame them? I just wish we'd make a movie that portrayed Imperalism as it was...not distorting it with political correctness by liberal minded whiners. If you're going to make a movie about Colonialism, then do it right. Don't make the main character a 21st century minded man in the wrong time frame to point out how the actions of others around him are wrong.
-
...I dig your english. There's a charm to it. About Penny; I think you might have misunderstood me. I believe Kate Hudson(the actress) played Penny Lane(the character) with an enthusiastic energy. I simply feel she brought life to the role. She captured me with her "eternal optimism".
-
He wrote this: "When will you ever learn that it was not she that was a special girl, but that it was the kid reporter that viewed her as special? It's not in her where her magic resides but on the lovestrucked kid. It's in the eye of the beholder that resides the magic of the loved one, and not on te loved one him/herself." Tiny spelling errors aside, I must congratulate him. I took years of Spanish and Japanese, and I can shop and find my way to the bathroom in a foreign country on a good day. I could not, however discuss the magic of love with anyone in Tokyo. I may not agree with your politics all the time, but I salute your effort at learning the English language.
-
"Plus you cannot fault the Brits or the rest of the Europeans for racing to establish colonies." No, but it was still wrong. But I get your point I think. It's far easier for us to judge the actions of a hundred years ago than it is to make sense of the world today...
This is the best AICN thread I've seen in awhile. -
If you didn't already know something of the war in the Sudan, "The Four Feathers" would have you think the British were there for nothing more than racists kicks. Almost every reviewer, if they like it for not, praises it for "raising the question" of what the British are doing there. How about stopping an out of control, mass murdering self proclaimed succesor to Mohammed who's rampaging his way towards Britain's ally Egypt and threating the Suez? You wouldn't know it from this film since the Mahdi is never even clearly mentioned, much less explained. Most people don't know a lot about history and tend to accept whatever they see in films as fact, which is a really scary thought when you see a film like this that throws accuracy into the garbage in an attempt at PC meaningfullness. The film may as well have been set on mars for it uses nothing of the conflict, from battles to slang and uniforms and what is shown is almost invariably wrong. And I won't even go on about the super-human Mahdists leaping high into the air to kill the snarling, laughing, weak, racist British soldiers as they shoot men in the back. I think someone got confused and thought they were working a a DUNE sequel...
-
Blade Runner, I will take it like a man and admit to my mistakes. Your posts about colonialism showed some research and thought on your part. I was totally unaware of your understandable struggles with the English language. I jumped to a conclusion and I apologize. Normally, people who live in this country and speak English as a first language will write a post full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, which is like nails on a chalk-board to me (very irritating). I mistakenly thought that you were American. Sorry dude.
-
I have to agree with the earlier poster. This talk-back is cool.
Though I'm not a history buff, I would like to point out that history is always influenced by the bias of the person(people) who recorded it.
Though pespectives about events differ, that doesn't neccesarily mean any of them are wrong.
"...you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." -
"...the generic African American sidekick."
I haven't seen the movie, but if the reviewer means Djimon Hinsou's(sp.?) character, he is African. -
I'm watching my copy of "Khartoum," with Chuck Heston, Laurence Olivier and Ralph Richardson. It's about the conflict between "Chinese Gordon," sent to the Sudan in an unofficial capacity by the British government, and the Mahdi, Sudanese leader of a jihad. Its political and historical sophistication is several orders of magnitude greater than flag-waving hoo-ha like "The Patriot," or "revisionist" claptrap that invites modern audiences to laugh or sneer at their benighted ancestors.
-
the poor dude has been playing african slave roles for 3 movies already! in AMISTAD, GLADIATOR & now FOUR FEATHERS. now he is really cool & did his job great but i'll bet he's dying to try OTHER roles. so hollywood give the guy a break. he doesn't want to be stereotype casted as that "kick*ss slave guy" forever!
-
....true, the Turks did have some tolerance for Christians. There were still penalties, though (high taxes for Christians, and if predominantly Christian villages couldn't pay those taxes, the Turks would take some of their best youth off to become permanent soldiers--the Janissaries).
But if you want to start trying to put blame on who started conflict between Europe and the Muslim nations, the blame has to fall on the Muslim nations. The Arabs invaded Spain and even into France before being stopped by Charles Martel. The Crusades were touched off by a Turkish invasion into the Byzantine Empire, which was officially a Greek Orthodox Christian nation. The Byzantine Emperor appealed to the Pope for help, and the Pope got the idea to proclaim a Crusade. He did lie about the abuses the Turks were doing to Christians living in Palestine. This would give an excuse to send the Crusade to Jerusalem, thus taking back a symbollically important city, and at the same time hopefully distracting some Turkish forces that otherwise would have been attacking the Byzantines. As I said, the Pope did lie (or at least exaggerate) about what the Turks were doing, but those early Crusaders didn't know this. They thought they were out to end the oppression of people in Palestine and to help out another nation, both of which were true to some extent.
But anyway, Muslim invasions of Europe kept continuing even long after the last Crusade had happened. Constantinople of course eventually fell, and in the 1500s the Turks went so far into Europe as to seige Vienna.
But the point of this post isn't to blame the Muslims for all the world's problems (I do personally disagree with Islam, though), it's just to debunk the revisionist theory that they were just sitting in the Middle East minding their own business when all the evil Europeans decided to try to murder and massacre them. Yes, massacres did happen during the fighting in the Middle Ages, but they were committed by both sides. -
First off, I meant to say, I'm not trying to blame Muslims for all the problems that happened back then (i.e. during the Middle Ages/Crusades era). Yes, the Europeans did some bad things themselves, but the whole conflict was not started by Muslim invasions, not the other way around.
Secondly, I forgot to clarify that the Muslim invasion through Spain and into France happened long before the first Crusade. -
Some people are too really too stupid for words. You can rant and rave on how the "murderous arabs" conquered Spain and half the world as if its a bad thing, but man just look up basic history and you get a vastly different picture. Just take Spain under the Moors. They created one of the greatest and most tolerant civilizations ever to grace the earth. What did the Crusaders do on the other hand? Slaughter and kill hundreds of thousands. Force converted thousands by the sword(and Christians now have the nerve to claim that the Muslims did this), started the inquisition and generally massacred left and right. For more on Spain read here: http://cyberistan.org/islamic/andalusia.html
And people, read up on history before spouting your mouths off. -
After the Moors overran Spain, they crossed the Pyrennes into France and, among other things, sacked the city of Narbonne, slaughtered the entire adult male population, and enslaved the women and children. Fortunately the invaders were then turned back by Charles Martel. Later, the Moors did indeed mellow into a (relatively) tolerant culture, but they were then themselves were overrun by North African fanatics - the Almoravids and Almohades - freshly converted to Islam. And what if the Moors' culture was more advanced in many ways? Isn't that always the colonialists' excuse?
Muslim armies waged war on Europe, on and off, from that time until they were finally repelled from the gates of Vienna in the 17th Century. The slaughters they wreaked in Eastern Europe are cause for bitterness to this day. The Crusades, as bad as they were, were islands of Christian aggression in a sea of Muslim aggression. Sorry to disagree with you, "stumped" - or should I say, AHMED. -
I'd just like to point out that the Mahdi's revolt was not a revolt against British rule, for the simple reason that the Sudan wasn't under British rule when it began. It was a revolt against the Egyptians, who had conquered the Sudan earlier in the nineteenth century. The Egyptians were determined to retain the Sudan, but were unable to defeat the Mahdi's forces, who slaughtered a whole series of Egyptian armies and made the Sudan ungovernable. When the British seized control of Egypt (some time around about 1880) they inherited this mess and quickly decided that the Sudan wasn't worth the trouble it would take to hold it, and therefore set about withdrawing the Egyptian troops and administration from the Sudan. This they eventually succeeded in doing, in spite of the actions of the officer in charge, General Gordon, who believed that he had a divine mission to save the Sudan from the Mahdists and therefore disobeyed his orders by refusing to abandon his base at Khartoum, resulting in his own death and that of his garrison. The British conquest of the Sudan began about ten years later, as a result of Mahdist attacks on southern Egypt and the expansion of France and Germany, which threatened to bring the upper Nile under the control of a hostile European power, jeopardising the security of Egypt and the Suez Canal.
-
Something like three times per sentence. Must proofread.
-
First off, I was not talking to you - I was talking to the poster who calls himself "stumped" (see above) and whose email address contains the name "Ahmed."
And I hardly know where to start with your strange characterizations of Muslim and Christian cultures during the Middle Ages. The Turkish sultan may well have forbidden damage to the Hagia Sophia, but that merely indicates that he had more respect for that building than for the inhabitants of Constantinople. Those who weren't killed in the aftermath of its fall were enslaved.
The backbone of the Turkish army of the time were the Janissaries; as Raider pointed out, they were taken when they were boys as a sort of tax from Christians in the Balkans, and trained as slave-soldiers. They were forbidden to have sex with women - except for a three-day period after they had captured a town, at which time they could do as they pleased with the female inhabitants.
You are correct about Vlad Tepes's effectiveness and brutality, but wrong to think that that madman's savagery was characteristic. And impalement was not his innovation; it was a Turkish punishment, which he may have learned when, as a child, he was given as a hostage to the Sultan.
Do you really mean to say that ALL Muslim nobles were so well educated, and NO European nobles could read? In that case, it's rather hard to account for the many works of poetry, literature, and instruction composed by European nobles during the period.
That Muslim culture was frequently (though not always) vibrant during this time, and made many intellectual advances, can't be denied. But say that Muslims were "tolerant" in the sense we know it is a distortion. There were times and places this was true - but this is also true of certain Christian times and places, as in the mature Crusader States where both faiths existed side by side, or in sophistated urbanized areas like the Toulouse region, where Jews, Muslim traders, and heretics were tolerated - for a while, at least. The Muslims' "tolerance" towards Christians and Jews was more often a severely restricted second-class citizenship - "dhimmitude" - in which the authorities and the Muslim populace frequently engaged in oppression and humiliation. -
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the clergy were the only people in the Middle Ages who could write, but I can assure you, you're incorrect. By the 12th Century, some degree of literacy was a common part of a noble's and knight's education. They and their women provided a market for popular romances, how-to manuals, and various other books, many copies of which survive. Many personal letters from nobles and middle-class people, often of the sort you definitely wouldn't have a monk write for you, also survive.
And as for the troubadours: many were in fact professional singers and composers; but many were nobles, knights, and middle-class. Duke Guillem IX of Aquitaine, Eleanor's grandfather, was the first troubadour we know of. Jaufre Rudel de Blaia was a nobleman; Beatritz de Dia was a countess; Peire d'Auvergne was the son of a bourgeois; Guillem de Montanhagol was a knight. Richard the Lionheart also composed songs. And if these people were merely taking credit for the work of professional composers, why do the same sources also distinguish professional composers, common-born men like Berart de Ventadorn, Marcabru, and Arnaut de Mareuil? If these were the sort of people whose credit was taken by the nobles who hired them, why do we know about them at all? -
I've been reading Blade Runner and everyone else's posts and what I've gathered from them is this:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At some time in history, every people on the face of this earth have been conquerors. And at different times, those same peoples have been conquered. No one ethnic/religious group is exempt from the villainous but very human desire to control all that they survey.>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately, it is impossible to make a movie from such an evenhanded view. You might be able to make a *film,* but not a popcorn cruncher. For that you need a hero and a villain. So in this movie the imperialists are heroes--fair enough. Somewhere someone is making a movie that vilifies those same people. Let's hope that there's a review for that movie on this site. -
"The Four Feathers" was absolutely atrocious. cardboard characters spouting asinine dialogue from a pathetically dull and unimaginative screenplay while under the direction of a fool who has obviously forgotten whatever narrative techniques and sense of pacing he acquired from "Elizabeth." a moronic, careless piece of war flick drivel.
-
Fascinating world history and interesting original story aside, this movie can hardly be worth watching if they cast him in the lead role. It's just another chance for him to prance around in a period costume and look pretty for the teenyboppers (see A KNIGHT'S TALE and THE PATRIOT aka BRAVEHEART 2).
-
The fifth feather was the one dancing in the air above my mouth as I snored my way through this turkey. Stupid, boring, and bad history - I can tolerate one of those three, but not all of them. Rent the '39 version - or better yet, "Khartoum." THAT'S an historical epic.
And BladeRunnerUnit - I'm not arguing that contact with Islamic culture did not have a huge impact on Europe. It introduced all sorts of new ideas - and reintroduced old ones, like Greek learning. It was the catalyst for what historians call the "Renaissance of the 12th Century," and spurred the development of, among other things, Troubadour culture. Exept most historians nowadays feel that the contact came not with the Crusades, but a few decades earlier, through more peaceful intercourse in the Western Mediterranean. I was objecting to your implication that the European nobility were all ignorant, illiterate goons until the END of the Middle Ages, Henry VIII's time.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts