Who else is eagerly awaiting the Pope Joan movie? I loved the novel, and am featuring an interview with author Donna Woolfolk Cross on my blog today. She was on-set during the filming in Germany and Morocco. The movie is being produced by the same company that did "The Name of the Rose," so it should be pretty good.

I love a really good historical film, but so many of them are kind of cheesy and stuffed with anachronisms. What are some of your favorite historical movies?

The Lion in Winter!

But I love them all really. I find it fun picking out the anachronisms and the like.

I read Pope Joan fairly recently and will be looking forward to seeing it to....David Wenham will make a great Gerold I think. And he ain't half bad to look at either!

I'm definitely eager for the Pope Joan movie - I enjoyed the book a lot when I read it.

And I just enjoy historical movies - including those that are cheesy (although I have to admit, every time I see Braveheart II, uhhh, The Patriot, I expect Mel Gibson to impale someone with the American flag - I blame it on the Simpsons).

I think some of my favorites are nautical - Master and Commander, Horatio Hornblower... but I also adored Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett and (though not strictly historical) Shakespeare in Love.

Lion in Winter is a great film. Great writing, great acting. Looks real.

I love historical films (and books) if I don't know too much about the period. Most movies about Elizabeth I make me blow a gasket because of their inaccuracies (and Elizabeth is a prime offender).

Conversely (and perversely), I adore Shakespeare in Love, maybe because it doesn't take itself too seriously.

The Lion in Winter is the best!

I agree that Elizabeth is a prime offender on the historical inaccuracy front -- but I loved it anyway. I thought Cate Blanchett was terrific and was outraged when Gwyneth Paltrow beat her out for the Oscar -- for Shakespeare in Love. Joseph Fiennes should have gotten some kind of special Oscar for being the love interest in both movies! If you don't mind high cheesiness, The 13th Warrior is a fun film -- how often do you get Antonio Banderas AND Vikings in the same movie? I think it's based on a Michael Crichton novel, possibly with a different title ...

I thought the 13th Warrior was fun, too. It's based on the Michael Crichton book Eaters of the Dead. I especially liked the scene where he was starting to learn the Vikings' language and you could understand a word or phrase here or there. That was really clever.

I thought 13th warrior also didn't get enough play. It was good, and I do watch every chance I get when it is on.

Eaters of the Dead (the first part, anyway) was based on a medieval Arab's account of traveling to the land of the Rus, so there's a lot of sound history in that book (less so in the movie). The second part is kind of based on Beowulf, although Crichton added his own twist to that. I think it's a bit cheesy - but if Beowulf weren't so many centuries old, I would probably think that was cheesy, too!

I'm afraid I'll never see anyone but Katherine Hepburn when I think of Eleanor of Aquitaine!

MuseofIre hit the nail on the head: the death knell of most historical movies sounds loudest when they take themselves too seriously. On the other hand, if they are too wildly inaccurate and too cheesy, they flop. To that end, clever dialogue and interesting characters, great costumes and sets, and a dash of spectacle are essential elements to a FUN historical film. My personal favorites:

1958's (or was it 1959?) "The Vikings," directed by Richard Fleischer, with Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine, and Janet Leigh in a loose adaptation of Edison Marshall's "The Viking," even more loosely based on Halfdan's conquest of the Danelaw. Good, clean, bloodthirsty fun.

The already mentioned "Shakespeare in Love," with Dame Judi Dench hamming it up wonderfully always comes to mind, but was it based on a book?

Although Gregory Peck's noble stoicism in "Horatio Hornblower" has been mentioned, his role as Atticus Finch in 1962' s "To Kill a Mockingbird" is fabulous. This film/book is not listed under "historical fiction," but it ought to be as it recreates the depression-era South better than any other movie. Telling the story through the wide eyes of the child makes the otherwise darkly sinister movie an adventure in history. Did it really happen? Harper Lee says so, and that's good enough for me.

And while we're thinking about C.S. Forester's Hornblower series, why not mention 1951's "The African Queen" by Forester and directed by John Huston, with the incomparable Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn? A great historical novel set in WWI Africa. Imagine if it had been made with the originally conceived cast of James Cagney and Bette Davis.

The dialogue alone (not to mention Katherine Hepburn's regal acting) make "The Lion in Winter" a terrific film (although based on a play, not a book).

For sheer romantic histrionics, can anyone forget 1939s's "Gone with the Wind"? I think it reflects more accurately on pre WWII America than it does on pre-and post-Civil War Georgia, but it is still fun.

Howard Fast's "Spartacus" became a great Stanley Kubrick film in 1960, with noble Kirk Douglas, effeminate Tony Curtis, voluptuous Jean Simmons, lecherous Charles Laughton, humorously avaricious Peter Ustinov, and just plain creepy Laurence Olivier. Some rousing speeches, great battle scenes, and erotic bathing scenes more than make up for horrific historical inaccuracies.

Already mentioned is Peter Weir's 2003 film "Master and Commander . . ." based on two Patrick O'Brien books. It depicts life on board a Royal Navy ship in the Napoleonic wars magnificently. I especially like Paul Bettany's comments on evolution.

Robert Zemeckis masterfully converted Winston Groom's novel "Forrest Gump" to the screen in 1994. Tragic history on international, national, and personal levels are depicted from Tom Hanks' slightly slow but infinitely wise viewpoint, making the bitterness of that tragedy palatable to the viewer.

If we're allowed to include "The Lion in Winter" even though it was a play, can we include 1942' "Casablanca," directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Bogart and Bergman? The Frenchman played by Rains is perfect, as is the Czech patriot Henreid and the Nazi monster Veidt. Did it really happen? It should have.

George Cosmatos' "Tombstone" is fairly accurate and fantastically entertaining, but I don't think it was based on a book. On the other hand, Thomas Berger's "Little Big Man" most definitely was, although the timelines were not accurate (Hickock was not killed before Little Bighorn). Still, a very entertaining movie that depicted horrible tragedies like the Washita massacre while not drowning the viewer with sorrow.

How about James Jones' "From Here to Eternity" made by Fred Zinneman in 1953?

And speaking of war films, how about Thomas Heggen's novel becoming a play and John Ford's movie, "Mister Roberts." Magnificent characters expertly portrayed by Henry Fonda, Jack Lemmon, James Cagney, and William Powell. Pierre Boulle's story "The Bridge on the River Kwai" became a great David Lean flick, with a masterful performance by Obi Wan Kenobi Alec Guiness. Or Cornelius Ryan's all-star cast of his non-fiction history "The Longest Day," Paul Brickhill's "The Great Escape," or Ladislas Farago's "Patton" are all excellent films depicting historical events described in their books.

James Fenimore Cooper's "The Last of the Mohicans" was turned into a great film in 1992 by Michael Mann. Although the acting is a little overblown (as is Cooper's own dialogue), the alternating scope and intimacy of the film is overwhelming.

How can we mention historical films without mentioning Sean Connery? "The Wind and the Lion" is wonderful, with a great Teddy Roosevelt played by Brian Keith, but is it based on a book? "The Man Who would be King," with Connery and the flawless Michael Caine is based on a Rudyard Kipling novella, so it should count, shouldn't it? Or how about "The Untouchables" based on Elliot Ness' own book? These are all fun, enjoyable movies, they create a great mood and recreate historical eras with authenticity, even if they don't track historical events with any accuracy.

Needless to say, I have many favorite historical films. It is too easy to make a film based on history and focus almost exclusively on the pathos. I prefer films that deal with the tragedy, and are able to move on. It must be reasonably accurate (unlike "Braveheart," "The Patriot," "Pearl Harbor") and believable. I must be able to like or at least identify with the protagonist. The above movies qualify for me.

Just saw Julie and Julia and of course the Julia sequence is Late 40's early 50's Paris and abroad.

The word we have adopted, YUM!

I've enjoyed most of the Jane Austen screen adaptations but special mention must go to the 1995 version of Persuasion, starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. The sets seemed realistic -- rooms were often small and dark! -- and the acting is superb.

I have to agree about Persuasion. It is my favorite (though I like watching Kiera Knightley in P&P, it is not a great adaptation) of all the Austen's that have made it to the screen.

I just found a 2003 version of "Lion in Winter" starring Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart. I believe it was a made for TV movie in GB.