Example collocations logo

Historical in sentence

2205 examples of Historical in a sentence

This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments.
What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts.
I completely understand the historical significance of Rocketship X-M, but that doesn't make it a good movie.
A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film.
Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK.
Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period.
All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view.
This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!
There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures.
The trajectory of the figures' lives is presented to us as a microcosm mirroring the historical trajectory of America's teens through prohibition and its spoils, ending with the (arguable) ruin of its moribund central figures (save Deborah- a make up department fumble or intentional one wonders).
Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going.
Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City.
A very bad film, an amalgam of clichés and historical inaccuracies.
This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things.
There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD/tape at home.
Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc.
However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history.
It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum.
The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters.
There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed.
Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should.
As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba.
When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie.
In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors.
Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled.
On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising.
In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen.
Vicente Aranda has made a terrible historical movie.
During the second half of the film, I felt as if I watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn.
It fails in delivering the "message" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm.
BackNext