**Kingdom of Heaven**

[Pericles]

I thoroughly enjoyed the film.

I liked everything about the movie - everything was very authentic (although some of the catapault effects were a bit over the top).

It should really get you in the mood to play MTW.

:charge:

I loved the costumes - and the armies on both sides were huge.

It was a real treat.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I just saw it, got back just a few minutes ago. It was quite good, the catapault effects were a bit over the top.

There was only one specific inaccuracy that I am certain of. When Salahadin/Saladin offers the king a drink and he hands it to the lord of Cerak Salahadin slapped the drink away and killed the man, in the movie he lets him drink it. He would have been violating a law/custom that states that if a man eats or drinks with you you are responsible for their safety, he did not violate it.

[_Aetius_]

I thought the movie was pretty boring and always felt disjointed somehow.

The problems with it I think were;

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



1, we didnt see the Horns of Hattin,

2, the siege of Jerusalem was about as uninteresting as it could get,

3, Orlando Bloom was in the movie,

4, I fail to see the value of having Queen Sibylla play such a major role was, romance has no place in this kind of movie regardless of her rightful place in the movie to an extent :duel: Romance in these kind of movies just gives me the urge to roll my eyes with boredom and throw popcorn at the screen Lol.

5, Balians rise from nothing to hero of the crusader states is nothing short meteoric.

6, What few battles there were wernt very interesting an wernt very big.

The scenes I enjoyed the most were ones with King Baldwin in, I think he was a really good character in the movie. Really though IMHO its another flop wannabe epic. No better than Alexander which is saying something.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hehe, exactly my opinion about most new ancient/medieval era movies... especially 3,4 and 5 (except that I don't throw popcorn at the screen ~D ). I haven't seen KOH yet but I don't have any high expectations. Although the director is a skilled guy at creating a good athmosphere etc. I've yet to find out if it has saved this movie story from being like the rest.

[Pericles]

I thought the movie was pretty boring and always felt disjointed somehow.

The problems with it I think were;

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



1, we didnt see the Horns of Hattin,

2, the siege of Jerusalem was about as uninteresting as it could get,

3, Orlando Bloom was in the movie,

4, I fail to see the value of having Queen Sibylla play such a major role was, romance has no place in this kind of movie regardless of her rightful place in the movie to an extent :duel: Romance in these kind of movies just gives me the urge to roll my eyes with boredom and throw popcorn at the screen Lol.

5, Balians rise from nothing to hero of the crusader states is nothing short meteoric.

6, What few battles there were wernt very interesting an wernt very big.

The scenes I enjoyed the most were ones with King Baldwin in, I think he was a really good character in the movie. Really though IMHO its another flop wannabe epic. No better than Alexander which is saying something.


We all have individual opinions and views. Too bad you didn't like the movie.

None of what you have stated above in any way detracted from my enjoyment of the movie.

I thought Bloom did a fine job, and I was especially focused on him. Perhaps you weren't following the movie closely, but Bloom inherited his father's estates in the Middle East which brought him close those in power, since his father was a Lord there (and everyone knew him). In addition, Bloom's character had been knighted by his father (just before his death), thus making him a knight (and of a higher standing).

As for romance: women form half the movie going public, so a movie must appeal to them too. Soldiers do not exist in a vacuum. After all, even the toughest soldier has emotions, loves, wives, etc. It didn't feel out of place to me at all.

I love history, so I thought the movie evoked time and place very well: the costumes, scenery, etc were exceptional. And the armies forming up, and the battles were quite well done.

I do agree with you about the Battle of Hattin: I would liked to have seen the actual battle, and not just its aftermath. Often a film for the theatre needs to be edited to an acceptable length, so some battles needed to be edited out. This film could easily have been 4 hours long (it's actually 2 1/2 hours long). However, perhaps the Director's Cut of the film on DVD will add footage of the actual battle.

Hmmm... your comparison of this film with Alexander couldn't be further from the mark. I was highly critical of Stone's Alexander; while I thoroughly enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven.

Because Scott has focused on the emotionally-charged Crusades in his movie, it has caused lots of interest groups (Arabs, Christians, etc) to write to reviewers to get them to criticize the film. The movie even criticizes the pope and religion. So I would expect many negative comments about the film to come from these quarters.

Here is Ebert's print review of the movie which is fairly balanced:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/REVIEWS/50426001/1023

Cheers!

[Pericles]

I just saw it, got back just a few minutes ago. It was quite good, the catapault effects were a bit over the top.

There was only one specific inaccuracy that I am certain of. When Salahadin/Saladin offers the king a drink and he hands it to the lord of Cerak Salahadin slapped the drink away and killed the man, in the movie he lets him drink it. He would have been violating a law/custom that states that if a man eats or drinks with you you are responsible for their safety, he did not violate it.

You may be right about that inaccuracy.

But just moments before this, Saladin had just finished slaughtering thousands of Crusaders on the battlefield, so perhaps a lapse in manners might be the least of a prisoner's worries... :)

Cheers!

[Pericles]

Here is a review by the USCCB. Pretty balanced review of the film:


"Sweeping, if bloody and somewhat revisionist, historical drama set in the time of the Crusades about a disillusioned blacksmith (Orlando Bloom) elevated to knighthood who journeys to Jerusalem in search of redemption and becomes embroiled in the power struggle between the tolerance-advocating Latin king and a war-mongering would-be usurper, who threatens to disrupt the tenuous truce between the Christian and Muslim forces. Spectacularly directed by Ridley Scott and full of grand-scale battle scenes and period detail, the epic film takes license with the facts, but overall portrays both sides as a mix of vice and virtue (though in its skewed telling of the events Christians come off as the prime villains) and imparts a timely message of peaceful coexistence, as well as a strong condemnation of violence, ideological hatred and war. Recurring intense battlefield violence and associated gore, including decapitations, hacked limbs and flaming bodies, as well as a brief adulterous sexual encounter. L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. (R) 2005"

Full review here:

http://www.usccb.org/movies/k/kingdomofheaven.htm

[_Aetius_]

I thought Bloom did a fine job, and I was especially focused on him. Perhaps you weren't following the movie closely, but Bloom inherited his father's estates in the Middle East which brought him close those in power, since his father was a Lord there (and everyone knew him). In addition, Bloom's character had been knighted by his father (just before his death), thus making him a knight (and of a higher standing).

Well I watched closely except when the people behind me decided to resume their second to second commentary of the movie:furious3:

It felt like his rise from nothing to hero of Christendom took about 5 minutes, not to mention his sudden amazing ability with a sword. He starts off fairly useful with the sword granted, but then he gets a quick session with his father who teaches him the right stance to take when in battle, which he suddenly becomes an expert at and uses to amazing effect against the majority of his enemies. :charge:

His fathers territory was a waste land, and in the movie of little real significance, regardless of his fathers reputation he wouldnt of just suddenly been one of the most important men in the holyland just like that.

I didnt say the film was devoid of anything good, i was glad that christianity took a beating, the sick attitudes of its priests etc it was good to see.


As for romance: women form half the movie going public, so a movie must appeal to them too. Soldiers do not exist in a vacuum. After all, even the toughest soldier has emotions, loves, wives, etc. It didn't feel out of place to me at all.

Considering his wifes death led to a chain of events that would force him to leave for the holyland, its abit odd he suddenly gets over her death and sleeps with another mans wife IMO.

Its just so predictable now in movies, if theres a hero and a woman in a lead role you can almost always bet that theyll fall in love yadda yadda yadda. Its cool if you dont mind it, but it just bores me now. It happens in most movies but in most movies it makes little difference, but in Epics I just get the feeling its put in there just for the sake of it.


Hmmm... your comparison of this film with Alexander couldn't be further from the mark. I was highly critical of Stone's Alexander; while I thoroughly enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven.

I compared KOH and Alexander because it felt to me like a really crap history lesson, im almost constantly reading history but the movies I feel didnt do it justice.


Because Scott has focused on the emotionally-charged Crusades in his movie


I dont mind that, watching the movie despite the focus on the emotions involved with the crusades, I as a viewer wasnt excited or really that interested in what happens, in Gladiator I cared about the outcome in KOH id of been happy to see Balian slaughtered along with his men I just didnt care. Just didnt appeal to me is all.

Youve given a possible reason why Hattin wasnt included and thats maybe why its not in the movie, but whats strange is that hattin isnt just some minor little skirmish it was massively important as anyone who knows anything about this era will know, to not include it is like seeing something about the 100 years war and it not mentioning Agincourt Lol.

[caspian]

Yes there are many holes in the movie, the awesome costumes, sets and authentic feel of the movie is wasted on Legolas trying to be Aragorn. Bloom lacks that hero quality, he's totally believable as the chicken brother of Hector in Troy, also as one of the Fellowship of the Ring but not Defender of Jerusalem with a 'Field Defense Specialist' virtue.

I'd love to watch the Kingdom of Heaven II, where KOH left off. That is, when King Richard the Lionheart left Balian and is on his way to reclaim Jerusalem and to do battle with Saladin. Pity they didn't choose Coeur de Lion to be the star of the film, that film would have rocked.

[Pericles]

It felt like his rise from nothing to hero of Christendom took about 5 minutes, not to mention his sudden amazing ability with a sword. He starts off fairly useful with the sword granted, but then he gets a quick session with his father who teaches him the right stance to take when in battle, which he suddenly becomes an expert at and uses to amazing effect against the majority of his enemies. :charge:

His fathers territory was a waste land, and in the movie of little real significance, regardless of his fathers reputation he wouldnt of just suddenly been one of the most important men in the holyland just like that.

Well, a movie has to condense some things. Remember, Bloom was a blacksmith, and the son of a Lord. He would have great familiarlity with a sword. Also, we can also assume that his father gave him far more instruction than what we see in the film - think summary here.

His father's territory was in the desert; nothing indicates it was a wasteland.

Also, since his father was Lord of those estates, plus had 100 soldiers in his service, then Bloom (having been knighted and acquired his father's land) would also have been in charge of those 100 soldiers.

In addition, because of his father's great reputation, the higher lord's would have looked kindly upon his son. Think caste and lineage here...




Considering his wifes death led to a chain of events that would force him to leave for the holyland, its abit odd he suddenly gets over her death and sleeps with another mans wife IMO.

Its just so predictable now in movies, if theres a hero and a woman in a lead role you can almost always bet that theyll fall in love yadda yadda yadda. Its cool if you dont mind it, but it just bores me now. It happens in most movies but in most movies it makes little difference, but in Epics I just get the feeling its put in there just for the sake of it.

Well, stranger things have happened. We do not know the time interval between her death and his love affair.

Plus, being so far from home, all alone, and being a man, he would still have feelings for the fairer sex.

Sorry, but knocking the film on this basis really is off the mark.

Remember, women go to movies too...




I compared KOH and Alexander because it felt to me like a really crap history lesson, im almost constantly reading history but the movies I feel didnt do it justice.

Don't go to the movies to learn history; go for entertainment and the fact that a film like KoH can evoke time and place.




I dont mind that, watching the movie despite the focus on the emotions involved with the crusades, I as a viewer wasnt excited or really that interested in what happens, in Gladiator I cared about the outcome in KOH id of been happy to see Balian slaughtered along with his men I just didnt care. Just didnt appeal to me is all.

Well, taste in movies are a lot like taste in food - it can be highly subjective.

I appreciate your viewpoints.

I would suggest you read Ebert's review of the film, and the reason why Scott made the picture in the first place.


Youve given a possible reason why Hattin wasnt included and thats maybe why its not in the movie, but whats strange is that hattin isnt just some minor little skirmish it was massively important as anyone who knows anything about this era will know, to not include it is like seeing something about the 100 years war and it not mentioning Agincourt Lol.

I agree here. However, the vast majority of people will never know that.

However, including the battle might have given the film far too much bloodshed. As it stands some reviewers are stating that the film (even without the Battle of Hattin) is still too bloody.

Hopefully, the DVD will include lots of film extras...

Cheers!

[Pericles]

Yes there are many holes in the movie, the awesome costumes, sets and authentic feel of the movie is wasted on Legolas trying to be Aragorn. Bloom lacks that hero quality, he's totally believable as the chicken brother of Hector in Troy, also as one of the Fellowship of the Ring but not Defender of Jerusalem with a 'Field Defense Specialist' virtue.


This sounds a lot like you picked this up from a reviewer's comment.

I had read several reviews before I saw the movie. So I was especially watching Bloom.

He was perfectly fine on-screen and when he dealt with other actors.

Bloom in no way suffers from the "wimp" factor as he has been portrayed in some reviews.

To me, this is a Red Herring...

[Wishazu]

i thought the film was mediocre for the most part, though i think Bloom did a sterling job. there wasnt enough action in it, and the action it did have was shot so close to the mark you could barely make out whats going on, i know war is controlled confusion but when im watching a film i want to be able to see clearly whats happening. on the subject of historical films though i thought Alexander was a far superior film, battles were 100 times better than KOH.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Soldiers do not exist in a vacuum. After all, even the toughest soldier has emotions, loves, wives, etc. It didn't feel out of place to me at all.

I think he meant that love is the last thing a soldier who just came from a bloody massacre would think about. It's like thinking about girls when you're sitting on the toilet... Besides, those who think about love when they fight can't focus on the fight and demonize the enemy enough to get the strength to do something as awful as cleaving another man in half with a sword, and therefore won't survive long on a Medieval battlefield.

[_Aetius_]

His father's territory was in the desert; nothing indicates it was a wasteland.

Dont you remember when he first arrived at his father territory and looked over it? there was no vegetation, the people were digging for water, granted that changes later on, but at the time it was a desolate wasteland.




Well, a movie has to condense some things. Remember, Bloom was a blacksmith, and the son of a Lord. He would have great familiarlity with a sword. Also, we can also assume that his father gave him far more instruction than what we see in the film - think summary here.

Summary is fine aslong as it doesnt look ridiculous, there was very little indication of how much time was passing, you can work it out afterwards when you look at the chronology of the events, but watching the movie its hard to tell how long it has been since he left home to the siege of Jerusalem.

One thing is for sure though between the time his father gave him his first instructions of holding a sword etc to when his father was mortally wounded, there was precious little time between the events. By not showing Balians development as a knight and his skills it gives the impression that he was just a brilliant swordsmen just like that.


Well, stranger things have happened. We do not know the time interval between her death and his love affair.

Plus, being so far from home, all alone, and being a man, he would still have feelings for the fairer sex.

Sorry, but knocking the film on this basis really is off the mark.

Remember, women go to movies too...

Yes stranger things have happened, but more original events have occurred aswell.

If I knocked the movie on that alone itd be stupid, but i pointed that out as an annoyance along side other reasons why I was bored silly watching it.


Don't go to the movies to learn history; go for entertainment and the fact that a film like KoH can evoke time and place.

I went the movies for entertainment, me and my friends just wernt entertained, I have to say its the first time ive ever seen so many people get up and leave the movie halfway through.

In the end though everyone has opinions about movies and thats cool, example i think the Blair witch project was brilliant all my friends think it was terrible so *shrugs* Lol

[Spartakus]

Just saw the movie a few hours ago.

Must say I was pleasantly surprised, even though my expectations weren't as low as some other's. In my opinion it's maybe the best historical epic of late, I would say even better than Gladiator, but that has more to do with my fascination with the Crusades than anything else.

France in winter with snowy leaves floating in the air, arid and dusty Palestine, the city of Jerusalem with its great conglomeration of peoples and tongues fluttering about, the battles, the religious fervour and grim fatalism of the characters, and the tragic king Baldwin IV, these things I loved.

Yet there were, as always, some things I felt were a bit off, but which can be easily modified in the extended version.

Main problem; the whole movie is simply too short. The journey by boat from Messina to the Holy Land, which is quite an undertaking in itself, is summed up far too briefly. When Balian washes up on the shores of Syria after the shipwreck you haven't got the slightest impression at all of the great voyage he's been through. I would also like it if the extended version spends longer time in France, exploring the background and motivations of Balian more thoroughly.

The presentation of Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon as generic villains and little else should definitely be modified with some additional scenes giving explanation to their motivations and reasoning, though knowing Hollywood I strongly doubt it will be done. I couldn't help but laugh at how Reynald apparently knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he still keeps going, by the logic that "somebody has to be like this." Good one, let's be evil because, well, somebody must be, right? The presentation of the Templars should also be balanced out a little, they were the backbone of the Kingdom and not mere lackeys of Lusignan.

Lastly, I hope to see a little more of what happened on the Saracen side of things. My criticism of the movie and at the same time wishes for the extended version, you might say. :bow:

[Beefy]

so out of 10 what would you give it?

is it worht going to see

[_Aetius_]

I do think Edward Norton as Baldwin IV was brilliant, I just think how he was presented was great and I just liked the character in general. I do wish Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons had had larger roles to.

[Pericles]

Just saw the movie a few hours ago.

Must say I was pleasantly surprised, even though my expectations weren't as low as some other's. In my opinion it's maybe the best historical epic of late, I would say even better than Gladiator, but that has more to do with my fascination with the Crusades than anything else.

France in winter with snowy leaves floating in the air, arid and dusty Palestine, the city of Jerusalem with its great conglomeration of peoples and tongues fluttering about, the battles, the religious fervour and grim fatalism of the characters, and the tragic king Baldwin IV, these things I loved.

Yet there were, as always, some things I felt were a bit off, but which can be easily modified in the extended version.

Main problem; the whole movie is simply too short. The journey by boat from Messina to the Holy Land, which is quite an undertaking in itself, is summed up far too briefly. When Balian washes up on the shores of Syria after the shipwreck you haven't got the slightest impression at all of the great voyage he's been through. I would also like it if the extended version spends longer time in France, exploring the background and motivations of Balian more thoroughly.

The presentation of Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillon as generic villains and little else should definitely be modified with some additional scenes giving explanation to their motivations and reasoning, though knowing Hollywood I strongly doubt it will be done. I couldn't help but laugh at how Reynald apparently knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he still keeps going, by the logic that "somebody has to be like this." Good one, let's be evil because, well, somebody must be, right? The presentation of the Templars should also be balanced out a little, they were the backbone of the Kingdom and not mere lackeys of Lusignan.

Lastly, I hope to see a little more of what happened on the Saracen side of things. My criticism of the movie and at the same time wishes for the extended version, you might say. :bow:


Generally, I have to agree with you on most parts here. Even at 2 1/2 hours the film is simply too short. But that is saying something about what is already there.

I do agree that things need to be fleshed out more. I would like to see more background on Bloom's character and others.

Plus, I would like to see the Battle of Hattin be included.

I remember when the Two Towers hit the theatres. I was a bit disappointed with it. Yet, the extended DVD version fleshed out the film, and I now enjoy it.

Hopefully, the DVD version of KoH will provide us with a lot more film footage.

KoH tackles a BIG subject; its vistas are many; its landscape is vast; and the cast is huge - this movie needs to be extended at least by another 30 minutes...

Like you, I have a great sense of history and the movie did evoke a sense of time and place. It did provide us with a sense of history, while not being 100% historically accurate.

Cheers!

[Pericles]

I do think Edward Norton as Baldwin IV was brilliant, I just think how he was presented was great and I just liked the character in general. I do wish Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons had had larger roles to.

I agree with everything here.

When the film ended I wanted more...

Hopefully, Scott kept a lot of the cutting-room material for the DVD version.

[Pericles]

Dont you remember when he first arrived at his father territory and looked over it? there was no vegetation, the people were digging for water, granted that changes later on, but at the time it was a desolate wasteland.

Summary is fine aslong as it doesnt look ridiculous, there was very little indication of how much time was passing, you can work it out afterwards when you look at the chronology of the events, but watching the movie its hard to tell how long it has been since he left home to the siege of Jerusalem.

One thing is for sure though between the time his father gave him his first instructions of holding a sword etc to when his father was mortally wounded, there was precious little time between the events. By not showing Balians development as a knight and his skills it gives the impression that he was just a brilliant swordsmen just like that.

Yes stranger things have happened, but more original events have occurred aswell.

If I knocked the movie on that alone itd be stupid, but i pointed that out as an annoyance along side other reasons why I was bored silly watching it.



I went the movies for entertainment, me and my friends just wernt entertained, I have to say its the first time ive ever seen so many people get up and leave the movie halfway through.

In the end though everyone has opinions about movies and thats cool, example i think the Blair witch project was brilliant all my friends think it was terrible so *shrugs* Lol


Aetius:

We could go back and forth with postings, but I think we can both agree that many of the problems with the film could be solved by it simply being a longer movie. This would help explain to us what is going on and give us more info on the characters.

I thought this film was very richly filmed. It really deserves to be a 3-4 hour epic along the lines of Lawrence of Arabia...

When I was in the theatre you could hear a pin drop - people were glued to the screen...

BTW, I didn't like the Blair Witch Project and I thought The Bourne Identity with Matt Damon was ridiculous. I never once believed that Damon was a contract killer, and that fall he took of 10 stories at the end of the movie was simply too much...

Cheers!

[Pericles]

so out of 10 what would you give it?

is it worht going to see

For me the film evoked time and place, and it gives you a real sense of the time period and the Crusades.

I think you will find most people will agree that the film was too short - we all want to see more...

I am glad I went to se the movie.

Here is Ebert's print review of the movie. He gave it 87.5%.:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/REVIEWS/50426001/1023

[Pericles]

I think he meant that love is the last thing a soldier who just came from a bloody massacre would think about. It's like thinking about girls when you're sitting on the toilet... Besides, those who think about love when they fight can't focus on the fight and demonize the enemy enough to get the strength to do something as awful as cleaving another man in half with a sword, and therefore won't survive long on a Medieval battlefield.

Hmmm... you haven't even seen the film, yet you are defending someone else's position.

For your information, the love interest occurs before the bloody battles take place...

Even so, in all wars throughout time, soldiers have taken solace and escape in the arms of a woman before and after battle...

[Marquis of Roland]

Just watched the film yesterday...

Even though it was 2:30am and I was asleep probably half the time I still relatively enjoyed the film (don't think I missed any good parts hehehehe).

Question:
The type of cross Bloom and Neeson were wearing was the insignia of the Knights Templars? How come the people they named templars in the movie was not wearing this cross? Unless I'm totally mistaken here I thought that cross was exclusive to the Knights Templar.
The knights wearing blue under Jeremy Irons(?) what knights were they? They were also wearing the cross of the Knights Templar. In fact come to think of it the only knights not wearing the templars cross were the templars?!?!?

I'm not too sure on the historical background of the templars, can someone please clarify thanks.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed they didn't show Hattin. But judging by how badly those crusaders were LITERALLY roasting (How the hell can they wear those thick cotton or wool tunics OVER their sizzling armor AND still be marching in 100 degree weather????) you can't expect those men to fight a battle, much less march in that. You could have fried eggs off of their breastplates!!!

[Pericles]

Just watched the film yesterday...

Even though it was 2:30am and I was asleep probably half the time I still relatively enjoyed the film (don't think I missed any good parts hehehehe).

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed they didn't show Hattin. But judging by how badly those crusaders were LITERALLY roasting (How the hell can they wear those thick cotton or wool tunics OVER their sizzling armor AND still be marching in 100 degree weather????) you can't expect those men to fight a battle, much less march in that. You could have fried eggs off of their breastplates!!!

heheh

2:30am? You are a brave soul :)

I hope the dvd will cover more of the battle.

More on the Battle of Hattin:

The Battle Of Hattin - July 4th, 1187

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/ctit2.htm

http://www.templarhistory.com/hattin.html

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_hattin.html

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/kedar.htm

[Pericles]

I have to say its the first time ive ever seen so many people get up and leave the movie halfway through.

Aetius:

Sorry, but I find this statement to be totally unbelievable.

KoH is actually one of the better films of the year.

If you don't mind me asking: In what country/city did you see the film?

Are you sure they weren't going to use the washroom and/or buy concestion food?

[Yun Dog]

Overall I enjoyed KOH

although there were a few disappointing aspects

1. Scott as the director lead me to compare the movie with Gladiator, hoping for a crusader film of epic proportions, the problem was there was none of the highs or lows of gladiator the movie was flat and I found I had no feeling toward any of the characters.

2. The battles were disappointing, really only the siege at the end which didnt really have much fighting - unlike the opening battle in Gladiator which was GREAT.

3. what Im now calling 'the Orlando factor' - the guy needs to develop some different characters, he plays the same guy in all different generas. And cant he at least do another accent - he has what I call 'Orlanish' or the Orlando accent which is a movie killer - unlike Jeremy Irons as Tiberius who was great.

4. They wasted time on 'Orlando's dug a hole dad!" and didnt show the crusaders getting massacred what did they run out of money!!

5. I liked the King of Jerusulem, I liked Saladin

6. comparing the movie to Alexander is not right, Alexander was complete rubbish, this is a watchable attempt.

Overall it lacked some good battles which wouldve helped it, and the characters lack emotional punch so you caredless about their fates, I enjoyed the costumes and sets but Scott let this one slip when he had a chance at an epic. ~:handball:

edit: He shoulda got Phoneix for the villan, and had someone else as lead

[Colovion]

I enjoyed the movie. I never hate any movie which at least attempts to portray history in all it's grandeur. Even movies which have certain aspects which are flaws still bring to the entertainment, and if you know the real version - then you can just overlook those facets of the film for entertainment purposes.

I did kind of feel ripped off when I didn't see any huge battle scenes actually get carried out. It almost seemed as if every time two hosts came together that it was anti-climactical. The lack of the battle of Hattin, from the movie, showed that it was already over before it began. At least it was shown that the lack of water was the reason for the loss, and the ignorance of Guy.

In the end the reason why I enjoyed the film was because it dealt more with the development of characters and the reality of the situations surrounding the battle scenes. It didn't so much concentrate on the battles as the pinnacle of the movie - nor did it glorify war. Essentially it was to show the disparity of war, as I felt strongly from the scene at the broken wall of Jerusalem.

Even though these Epic films like Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven etc, do not have perfect historical accuracy to back them up, I still love seeing such amazing acts of courage broadcast for all to see.

I brought my mom and sister there for part of my mom's Mother's Day present. At the end of the movie she said "So was that all real?" As if she didn't expect it to be something that could have been in any way real. She didn't even know if Saladin was a fictional or factual character. I advised that most of it was facts, in the general sense, but I have a book if she wants to read it. http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//wink2.gif

ps - I felt Alexander was very engrossing. After reading a historical Biography on the man, I still felt it generally held true to what most movie goers would call his greatest achievements, and also gives the first true dipiction of the chaos on a miles-long battlefield.

[Spartakus]

I brought my mom and sister there for part of my mom's Mother's Day present. At the end of the movie she said "So was that all real?" As if she didn't expect it to be something that could have been in any way real. She didn't even know if Saladin was a fictional or factual character. I advised that most of it was facts, in the general sense, but I have a book if she wants to read it.

Now this is what's great with historical movies; they bring history to those who normally would never sit down with a book and read about it. History as told by Hollywood, but hell, it's better than nothing. ~;)

So many through the ages have fought and died for what they believed in, there have been many noble leaders, as well as terrible ones, and tragic kings such as Baldwin IV. Shame is, most people haven't even heard of them. Through movies such as this one they can get some well deserved recognition among the general public - for better or worse.

Maybe movies is the only way of teaching the adult part of the population history, much like a baby needs to be spoonfed his food to the sounds of "heeere comes the airplane!" ~:rolleyes:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hmmm... you haven't even seen the film, yet you are defending someone else's position.

For your information, the love interest occurs before the bloody battles take place...

Yes, I haven't seen it. I'm not defending his position on this movie, but I just joked about the clichés I've seen in so many other movies of this type. The worst part has got to be when half the line bends down over their fallen friends crying while the battle still went on... yeah, right, like that would ever have happened in real life...

Like I said I like the director, he's a skilled director so I expect the athmosphere/artistic part of the movie is well done. For example gladiator was quite unrealistic and in some ways cliché-filled, but still so powerful in it's artistical construction that I couldn't help enjoying it. But I'd still prefer not to judge KOH as good or bad until I've seen it :).



Even so, in all wars throughout time, soldiers have taken solace and escape in the arms of a woman before and after battle...

I meant, as you probably also meant yourself when you said "taken solace and escape", more to hide the disgust and fear and stuff than any real love (i.e. planning of marriage and kids etc)... More of an escape back to the womb than love, although the calmness a man can experience in the arms of a woman he loves can give that feeling too, which means you could call it love... I guess it's best if I don't try to explain in detail what I meant, just that I find it hard to combine love and war well, and that in sports and other situations when you need full coordination and body control thinking about love lowers your performance.

[Ser Clegane]

Now this is what's great with historical movies; they bring history to those who normally would never sit down with a book and read about it. History as told by Hollywood, but hell, it's better than nothing.

And if the movie is interesting and good it might even inspire people to grab a history book or surf the net to get some additional information about what the movie might have only scratched on the surface. ~:)

[Rodion Romanovich]

So many through the ages have fought and died for what they believed in, there have been many noble leaders, as well as terrible ones, and tragic kings such as Baldwin IV.

Hehe, that's the reason why I actually enjoy reading history books more than reading novels...

[Sir William Wallace]

i just saw it last night and i was absolutly amazed, i loved it,,, such a great film, it will be a classic

[Pericles]

There's good news.

Ridley Scott has confirmed that the DVD version of KoH will be ONE HOUR LONGER than the theatrical release.

So the DVD version will be 3 hours and 30 minutes long.

This should flesh out the movie and hopefully will include the Battle of Hattin.

Apparently, Scott was pressured by producers to heavily edit the movie for the theatre. Scott originally wanted to have the 3 hr version in the theatres.

This explains a lot about the movie.

:charge:

[Spartakus]

There's good news.

Ridley Scott has confirmed that the DVD version of KoH will be ONE HOUR LONGER than the theatrical release.

That's excellent news, just what I hoped for, though I was convinced it was in vain.

Pretty sure we'll see Hattin then, more of what took place on the muslim side, and a lot more background info on the characters.

Domo arigatou, Scott. :bow:

[_Aetius_]

Aetius:

Sorry, but I find this statement to be totally unbelievable.

KoH is actually one of the better films of the year.

If you don't mind me asking: In what country/city did you see the film?

Are you sure they weren't going to use the washroom and/or buy concestion food?

~:confused: hows that unbelievable? I didnt follow these people out the door to see where they went, but when groups of people leave and dont return I can only assume they left the movie beause they didnt like it.

If 1 or 2 people leave throughout the movie then you dont really notice but when groups of people from different parts of the theatre start getting up and leaving its pretty obvious why.

Liverpool England

[Colovion]

Hehe, that's the reason why I actually enjoy reading history books more than reading novels...

I"m with you on that one. Certain history books are rather dry, but certain ones are undisputably eye-opening and jaw-dropping that it doesn't matter how amazing the novel is, it's still not depicting a true event. Truth always bring me to appreciate the events much more.

If you want to read some amazing historical novels check out Harold Lamb. (http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Lamb,%20Harold) He has books on Hannibal, Alexander, Crusades, Tamerlane, the Mongols, Charlemagne - and others. When I first started reading them I felt as if the events in them could not be real, as the books aren't written like a dry history text - but as a creative tapestry depicting events in a person's life which were drawn directly from historical accounts. Deffinately give him at least one read on one of his books, you won't be disapointed. :book:

[Pericles]

~:confused: hows that unbelievable? I didnt follow these people out the door to see where they went, but when groups of people leave and dont return I can only assume they left the movie beause they didnt like it.

If 1 or 2 people leave throughout the movie then you dont really notice but when groups of people from different parts of the theatre start getting up and leaving its pretty obvious why.

Liverpool England

I have never seen that happen in any theatre I have been in. And I have seen some real stinker movies :dizzy2:

KoH was actually a pretty good movie.

I will usually get up half way through a movie and use the washroom and buy some goodies, so if a lot of people do it, it could seem that they were leaving. How could you possibly keep track of who was leaving and returning if you were watching the movie?

It just seems to be really odd.

Were they young people? Girls? Adults?

[_Aetius_]

I have never seen that happen in any theatre I have been in. And I have seen some real stinker movies

KoH was actually a pretty good movie.

I will usually get up half way through a movie and use the washroom and buy some goodies, so if a lot of people do it, it could seem that they were leaving. How could you possibly keep track of who was leaving and returning if you were watching the movie?

It just seems to be really odd.

Were they young people? Girls? Adults?

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving. :dizzy2:

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?

[Puzz3D]

I felt Alexander was very engrossing. After reading a historical Biography on the man, I still felt it generally held true to what most movie goers would call his greatest achievements, and also gives the first true dipiction of the chaos on a miles-long battlefield.
I enjoyed Alexander and the mythological symbolism, but was disappointed that important events were skipped. That jump cut to the Battle of Guagamela was very rough, and indicates that Alexander's consolidation of power in Greece was edited out. The narrative is so badly disjointed at that point that no one can follow it. Alexander's two wounds are moved into the wrong battles since only two battles are shown. The way he was wounded the second time in real life is more impressive than what was shown in the movie where in India he scaled a fort's walls alone and jumped into the fort and was saved by his shield bearer with Achille's shield which he had taken from Troy, but the underlying reason he gets wounded is the same and that comes across in the movie. I don't understand not showing Alexander's body lying in state in Alexandria. I fully expected that, and it would have been impressive to see his body covered in hammered gold sheets in full armor. It lay in state for about 500 years. A lot of the detail in the movie is accurately taken from historical references, although all the primary references were destroyed when the library at Alexandria was burned.

If Kingdom of Heaven is going to be released on DVD in an expanded version, I'll wait for that. Expanded versions usually contain expositional material, charcter development and sub-plots and not added battles since battle scenes are expensive to shoot. The studios are not out to cut the battle scenes anyway unless they want a PG-13 rating such as happened with the movie King Arthur.

It seems to me that recently most of the directors of historical epics have been using them to present their personal political or social agenda as though they were making a fictional film. Just the same, there is a great deal of accuracy in these films, but you have to filter out the political and social stuff if you don't agree with it so you can enjoy the rest of the film. I recently watched the film Alexander the Great made in the 1950's, and that is a pretty straight telling of Alexander's life with really bad battle scenes.

[Pericles]

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving. :dizzy2:

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?

Don't worry I won't be rehashing the merits of the movie - heheh

The reason I ask about the age, etc is that I could see younger people getting bored and then leaving the theatre, especially groups of young girls and guys...

I, myself, am an older person, so I appreciate long, historical epics....

[Ptah]

Mixed opinions is a good thing, as everyone is entitled to their own. To add my own to the mix;

KOH could be viewed as one of those movies where the screenplay and directing was a disaster, but the actors managed to save it from sinking to the very bottom. I was very satisfied with the individual acting and character depiction, except the screenplay was simply horrible. Perhaps, like Lucas or Spielburg, Scott may be overrated as a director of historic spectacles.

Overall, the acting was good, and casting wasn't bad. Character portrayal was acceptable, but the continuity of the overall story was so disoriented that it was hard to follow just how the young Balian d'Ibelin would become such an important character during the raging turmoils of Saladin's 'reconquista' of Jerusalem.

The historical twist done to actual history is tolerable, barely.

Balian d'Ibelin was the third son of Balian d'Ibelin, Constable to the Count of Jaffa, Lord of Yebna(Ibelin). He was born in the Holy Lands and have never even been in France in his entire life... but that's OK. History portrays this man as a minor lord, but famed and honorable, especially when compared to the greedy and faulty Crusaders of the time. So the director wants him to look like the case of the 'ideal knight'... okay, fine by me. The fact that Baldwin IV was long dead before Saladin made his move to Jerusalem.. okay, that's fine too.

Why create a 'Tiberias'? All the villians are there, in person. So why remove Raymond III, count of Tripoli, cut off a chunk of him and add it to Balian? It is not entirely strange to repress certain characters to make the lead character shine out more, but to take a chunk out of one of the key historical figures and deleting him to create someone did not exist - that's a little too far to go for a historic movie IMO.

The movie itself failed to take a firm grasp on just what it really wants to portraty. What is KOH? Is KOH;

1) a story of self-discovery, a peasant becoming an honorable knight?
2) a success story, of how a poor peasant became a prestigious lord?
3) a love story, between a young knight and a queen?
4) a historic spectacle, with exciting battle scenes?
5) a political story, rejection of fanaticism, peace to all mankind?

Making a movie with several of above themes would be a difficult task for even a good director. Making a GOOD movie with ALL of the above themes intact would be something impossible even for the greatest of directors. KOH loses all sense of integration by trying to mix up all of the above, and as a result, succeeded in none. What it became is a loose, semi-historic, and politically correct "once upon a time..." story.

This young blacksmith, who finds about his origins, and decides to become a knight with the blessings of his recently found father.. okay, no harm done so far. It's still the opening scene.

But the real problem is after the young Balian moves to the Holy Lands. Judging by at least a very loose comparison between the real chronicles and the movie, it would have been at least 10 years Balian spent in Ibelin to become a great lord and prove himself as a worthy ruler. All this, which would be vitally important in adding integrity to the hero of the movie, is dealt in about 5 minutes. Move to Jerusalem, granted king's audience, and then BAM! A blacksmith becomes a benevolent and respected ruler. Geez, how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?

And the major turn-off, was the romance between Sybilla of Jerusalem and Balian. The real Balian actually married Sybilla's mother, Maria Comnena. He was a LOT older than portrayed in the movie too. But okay, this is a movie. Historical twist, right?

But what is this love? A burning passion? Desire? At first look Sybilla falls to a young handsome knight. Nothing surprising.. it's a Hollywood movie. I can understand that. But what about AFTER they spent the night together? What is this sudden urge inside Balian to become a perfect knight, in loyal service of his duties, and turn away from the girl? Spend just one night together, and Balian turns into an icecube. Sybilla (probably) feels used, and she would go ruin the Kingdom of Jerusalem because her one-night stand refuses her love. Scott's depiction of love, a romantic one, is hardly satisfying. Certainly no male audience would ever understand the twisted and rushed relationship like this one, nor would the female audience.

In the end, Balian's last heroic strive to save Jerusalem, the wonderful acting of the colorful villians, and an honorable and fashionable depiction of Salah-ad-Din, would be the only thing that saved this movie from self destruction.


Let's ask ourselves; what did we expect from "KOH"? I for one, when I heard about this movie months and months ago, after I learned that it would be based on the most dramatic events with the most colorful and inspiring characters during the entire Crusades, expected to see the Horns of Hattin. The climactic battle where armour-clad, horse-bound crusader knights met their demise facing Saladin's army.

What did we get? During the course of the entire movie, we get to see three scenes, and ironically, the most inspiring scene was where no battle even took place.

We saw the suicidal kamikaze charge at the gates of Kerak(which ended in like five minutes), the rallying of Crusader armies in front of Kerak, and the fall of Jerusalem. Of these, the rallying of the Crusaders in front of Kerak, was the only scene that was really worth seeing.

The Crusader army lead by Baldwin IV emerges from the horizon. Unlike the lightly armoured, dark coloured Muslims, the Crusaders are visually stunning. The uniformity of the white tunics. The brightly shining mails and shields of the knights. The Templars dressed in white and red, the Hospitallers in black and white. Well armed footsoldiers in service of their lords and order. This 30 second visual, was more impressing than everything else in the movie, as it truly gace us some insight on what the Muslims might have felt when they met Crusaders on the battlefield.

However, flipping the Horns of Hattin with just two cuts, is simply intolerable. Skipping the most important battle of this era, was probably the biggest mistake of this movie. If this movie only had depicted the Horns of Hattin on a dynamic scale that would resemble the battle scenes of "Lord of the Rings", this movie would have been very different.

[Marquis of Roland]

hmmm....so does anyone know the deal with the templar insignias in the movie??? As far as I understood it, all the "templars" in the movie wore only the simple red crusader cross. The knights in blue (as well as balian and his father) wore, as far as I know, wore the even-sided templar cross. So who were the templars and who were the other people???

I understand there were some hospitallers in there as well???

Any historians out there that know this, please respond, I'm a bit confused.

[Thoros of Myr]

Excellent breakdown of the film Ptah. You really hit the nail on the head. Taking out the battle of Hattin was a serious mistep as was the chaotic nature of the story's theme and progression.

Indeed, the 30 seconds in which the Crusader armies are shown in full array is about the most breathtaking part of the film.

I hope that extra hour in the DVD does something to remedy those two problems. I think it's a worthwhile (if frustrating) film for enthusiasts but maybe none else.

[The Storyteller]

Agree very much with Ptah.

I was pretty surprised that I didn't feel bored (it IS a long movie, even with all the cuts), because it is very fast paced - a lot happens in very short spaces of time.

Unfortunately, the characters don't really evolve, the Horns of Hattin battle isn't there (I can't believe anyone would cut that out) and there are too many glaring inconsistencies in the film.

Balian develops far too quickly, from a blacksmith to a lord who can really fight and plan strategically. When he told the priest that making a man a knight would make him a better fighter, he sure wasn't kidding! There's a reason why kung fu movies dedicate several scenes to horrible weird and wacky training methods - the film wouldn't make sense otherwise!

And I really, really hate the way people in Hollywood tumble into bed for no apparent reason. You know what I liked most about Gladiator? He didn't go to bed with the lead actress for no apparent reason!

Also, the characters are very, very flat. Balain is so... nice that it makes me grit my teeth. Saladin is so... nice in his own way that it makes me grit my teeth. I mean, show these guys doing something a little nasty, please! Instead, they're nice nice nice all the way.

Entertaining movie, and I did like it, but not awe inspiring or mind blowing.

[Orda Khan]

Stop looking for history lessons in the movies. What I saw was very much what I expected. I was entertained and that's the reason we all go to the cinema.

.......Orda

[Mega Dux Bob]

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving. :dizzy2:

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?


At the local mega plex I go to we get this all the time; people going from theator to theator sort of like they are channel surfing. Very annoying.

[Mega Dux Bob]

hmmm....so does anyone know the deal with the templar insignias in the movie??? As far as I understood it, all the "templars" in the movie wore only the simple red crusader cross. The knights in blue (as well as balian and his father) wore, as far as I know, wore the even-sided templar cross. So who were the templars and who were the other people???

I understand there were some hospitallers in there as well???

Any historians out there that know this, please respond, I'm a bit confused.


The red cross on white field is the Templars (full name Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomun), the confusingly they started off with a white cross on a black field which they show the Hospilters wearing instead of their white cross on a red field. The complex blue cross on a gold field was the device of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the why the count of Tiberious would be wearing and not his own device is beyond me.

BTW Wasn't there a Bishop of Tiberious who featured prominently in all this?

[Colovion]

Stop looking for history lessons in the movies. What I saw was very much what I expected. I was entertained and that's the reason we all go to the cinema.

.......Orda

:2thumbsup:

[_Aetius_]

But the real problem is after the young Balian moves to the Holy Lands. Judging by at least a very loose comparison between the real chronicles and the movie, it would have been at least 10 years Balian spent in Ibelin to become a great lord and prove himself as a worthy ruler. All this, which would be vitally important in adding integrity to the hero of the movie, is dealt in about 5 minutes. Move to Jerusalem, granted king's audience, and then BAM! A blacksmith becomes a benevolent and respected ruler. Geez, how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?

Thats what I was trying to get at earlier, the rise from blacksmith to hero of Christendom is nothing short of meteoric regardless of his fathers title and territory, most men who rise to power so quickly in reality anyway were useless and totally inept. Yet Balian was convieniantly nothing short of perfect.

Also when you said "how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?" I felt absoutely nothing for Balian the main character I couldnt of cared less about his fate or pain, yet King Baldwin IV in the end not exactly a main main character in the movie mattered to me and deserved the attention of the audience in comparison.

Not just because he was a leper but because despite of that he was a just and brave ruler who clearly deserved better than what he got in the movie and in reality. I dont understand how Scott could make me feel nothing but annoyance at Balian and especially Orlando Bloom who im still waiting for to give a decent performance or atleast play a character I can enjoy watching and yet feel for a character who didnt really play that big a role in the movie in comparison.

Its been a few days since I saw the movie now and have had time to think it over and it wasnt as bad as I thought but even so I wouldnt give the movie more than a 5/10 which still is pretty poor.

[_Aetius_]

And I really, really hate the way people in Hollywood tumble into bed for no apparent reason. You know what I liked most about Gladiator? He didn't go to bed with the lead actress for no apparent reason!

I agree with that, I liked other things about Gladiator more than that though.

[sharrukin]

This movie really annoyed me. Not because it is a bad movie (it isn't) but because it could have been so much better.

The creative licence taken by Ridley Scott is pointless. The historical facts behind this movie have a much better storyline than the movie puts forward. Why does Princess Sibylla marry Guy Lusignan in the movie? It makes no sense. In the actual events she married a fool because she loved him and doomed a kingdom. That has dramatic impact which this film lacks.

Tacking on 20th century morality and socially conscious dialogue detracts from a movie that isn't good enough for it to go unnoticed. It also takes away from the immersion we should feel when watching the movie. I mean that Balian will cheerfully bang Guy Lusignan's wife but won't marry her to stop a war and save thousands from death. Why? Well because that would be wrong! You never get the sense that anyone in this movie actually believes in what they are doing with the lukewarm exceptions of Saladin and King Baldwin. You have endless 'couldn't we all just get along' dialogue and the villains answer to this is 'No' and why? well because were bad to the bone. Couldn't they have gotten a little more complex than saturday afternoon cartoons? Darth Vader had more depth than this.

There was some feeling for the period when Liam Neeson and Orlando Bloom are in France. Liam Neeson and his crew from the holy land were interesting and I really do not understand why they were killed off at the start of the movie. Orlando Bloom's character needed someone to talk to but all the possible candidates were all buried in France.

The actual pace of events and how and why things are happening is so vague that we barely know what's going on and begin to care less. Guy of Lusignan hated Balian for some reason, perhaps because he hated his father? There really doesn't seem to be much reason for it aside from the fact that Guy is the bad guy.

The Characterization in this movie is also pathetic. Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and others are well capable of better than this but they are given badly written dialogue and scenes that are vapid and uninspiring. The Princess Sibylla's relationship with Balian was both pointless and dull, it comes from nothing and leads nowhere. The Reynald of Chatillon character is so flat and one dimensional is almost cartoonish.

[derF]

Ive not seen it, but im under the impression that its the 3rd in a franchise the movie industry is investing into at the moment. At first i thought it was about the Byzantines, i got really excited until i was informed it was about the Crusades. What a bummer.

Anyway, if i miss it, i wont cry. I watched Troy and Alexander and left the theater feeling unimpressed.

Bloom, is far too inconvincing an actor.

[Mega Dux Bob]

This movie really annoyed me. Not because it is a bad movie (it isn't) but because it could have been so much better.

The creative licence taken by Ridley Scott is pointless. The historical facts behind this movie have a much better storyline than the movie puts forward. Why does Princess Sibylla marry Guy Lusignan in the movie? It makes no sense. In the actual events she married a fool because she loved him and doomed a kingdom. That has dramatic impact which this film lacks.


The girl being stupid and marrying the wrong guy and destroying everything would have not have gone over well with the teenage girls in the audiance who came to see Bloom.

[sharrukin]

The girl being stupid and marrying the wrong guy and destroying everything would have not have gone over well with the teenage girls in the audiance who came to see Bloom.

If you needed to put in a love interest then use Balians wife and child who actually existed. The story goes that Balian even sent a message to Saladin asking him to safeguard his family and Saladin agreed. I am sure hollywood could come up with something sappy along these lines because sappy is what they do best.

[Samurai Waki]

I just watched KoH, not bad, although Orlando Bloom has just never done anything for me, not really the inspiring leader type...it should have been Spartacus ~;)

[Hurin_Rules]

The Hospitallers (Knight of the Hospital of St. John) always wore the white cross on the black field--that was their standard uniform. YOu can see a picture of it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sandra.s/Hospitallers.html

The Templars habit is here:

http://www.solihull-online.com/templball.htm

The only anachronism on this point in the movie, as far as I can tell, is that Guy of Lusignan, who became king of Jerusalem, wore a Templar habit. In real life, he was never a Templar, so I'm not sure why they had him in a Templar uniform. It may have helped to show the close links between him and the Templars (which is true), but he himself was never a Templar.

David Thewliss's character, who was the guy who helps Baldwin in Messina before they get on the ships, was clearly a hospitaller.

~:cheers:

[GonZ]

On the whole I enjoyed the movie despite it's well documented flaws.

Orlando Bloom was miscast imo.

The worst part of the movie for me was nothing to do with the movie itself. It was the people sat two rows behind. Chatting, laughing, mobile phones going off.

About halfway through the movie I'd had enough and went over and asked politely if they could turn it down as they were spoiling other peoples enjoyment of the movie.

Guess what? They turned it down for about 5 minutes, then carried on... actually they were even worse than before. I suppose I should have got the manager but in the end my Mrs and I moved seats.

My blood was boiling though :furious3:

[edyzmedieval]

LOOOOOL............. Man, that's a very bad part of cinema....

Anyways, please tell me if KoH isn't like Troy or King Arthur.....Because those 2 movies were quite a disaster to me....

[Pericles]

When I go to the movies to watch a history-based film, I usually look for:

* a good story

* does the film evoke time and place

* does the film provide us with a sense of history

I think KoH achieves these.

Yes, there are inaccuracies...

But I don't think Scott set out to give us a history lesson; I think his theme was much bigger than that - he used the setting for the Crusades to tell us something about the on-going conflict in the Middle East over Jerusalem...

I tend to be a bit more forgiving about history and the movies, and consequently, I have a much better time...

If the movie gets me reading more about that time period then it has done its job...

[KRALLODHRIB]

Well, lord knows I never would have thought I'd provide a review of a movie on fansite for a pc game. Ach. . .*@$! it!

While the movie did seem to appeal to a large and evidently uneducated audience, Scott did provide a relatively tight plot and implement an above average (for backassward Hollywood) degree of realism (in terms of the props, tactics, although he neglected to consistenly illustrate their, the depraved Crusaders, historically supported blockheadedness--recall that Crusaders were often the "dregs" of European society, they were sent and directed to the Levant so they could destroy themselves there and not cause harm to the Continent--etc, though the dialogue often became weighed down by anachronisms).

The general impression upon exiting the theatre was, as others have hinted at, "is that all?"

Much too much is missing here for Kingdom to be onsidered a classic in my books, and I don't mean pyrotechics you Star Wars and GTA fans! Additionally, I think the love story should have been developed a bit more. I love the Leper bit, though the money shot was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long. Ye, we get your point Scott: Lepers lose their noses. Too bad Scott lost his tact during editing. This is similar to the gratuitous violence glorifying images repleat in the film; apealing to the slobbering masses, yes, but it is largely unecessary to draw so much attention to it.

And while some would critisize the way Catholicism is protrayed, I found it refreshing to see it demonized as Islam has traditionally been by Hollywood. Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to steroetypes of any sort but there is a message here that evidently Scott really wanted to make: that the Crusaders went to a foreign land and messed with it so they got what they deserved (perhaps a great deal less) and ended up getting a great deal when Saladin let them live even after the crimes that the Cursaders committed there. It is a fact that terrible, incomprehensible atrocities were commitited by both Catholics and Muslims, but I think the consensus of honest historians would readily agree that Europeans were MUCH MORE barbarous than Arabs during the Middle Ages--it was in fact the Arabs that preserved much of the classical knowledge that came to be "rediscovered with the Renaissance".


Still, any work that attempts to recreate history in a culturally and historically sensitive manner is always appreciated by the educated.

[Despot of the English]

I haven't seen the film but I expect nothing more than the Christian faith being demonized and Islam being the enlightened religion. The vast majority of those who died in the Christian army at Hattin were Palestinian-Franks and *not* Crusaders. They just happened to be born in this land and had every right to live there and did try to live with their Muslim neighbours. Obviously the Crusaders from Europe didn't help to preserve what they had. The First Crusade and the brutal sack of Jerusalem was never forgotten and the Palestinian-Franks were always going to live there on borrowed time.

[Pericles]

Well, lord knows I never would have thought I'd provide a review of a movie on fansite for a pc game. Ach. . .*@$! it!

The general impression upon exiting the theatre was, as others have hinted at, "is that all?"

Much too much is missing here for Kingdom to be onsidered a classic in my books, and I don't mean pyrotechics you Star Wars and GTA fans! Additionally, I think the love story should have been developed a bit more. I love the Leper bit, though the money shot was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long. Ye, we get your point Scott: Lepers lose their noses. Too bad Scott lost his tact during editing. This is similar to the gratuitous violence glorifying images repleat in the film; apealing to the slobbering masses, yes, but it is largely unecessary to draw so much attention to it.

Still, any work that attempts to recreate history in a culturally and historically sensitive manner is always appreciated by the educated.

KRALLODHRIB:

You insights are welcome :)

I think the fact that ONE FULL HOUR was cut from the film before it hit the theatres does explain the rush feel of some scenes.

Scott will be including that extra hour of film on the dvd, and it does flesh-out the film more.

Personally, I am a bit upset having to pay full price for two-thirds of a movie at the theatre.

Scott had originally intended the full 3 1/2 hour movie to be shown in the theatres, but was forced to cut it.

No wonder the film has drawn criticism. Hacking out bits of film can only hurt reviews of it...

However, based on what I saw in the theatre I will be buying the dvd when it comes out. I think Scott will have something to prove.

Cheers!

[Pericles]

I haven't seen the film but I expect nothing more than the Christian faith being demonized and Islam being the enlightened religion. The vast majority of those who died in the Christian army at Hattin were Palestinian-Franks and *not* Crusaders. They just happened to be born in this land and had every right to live there and did try to live with their Muslim neighbours. Obviously the Crusaders from Europe didn't help to preserve what they had. The First Crusade and the brutal sack of Jerusalem was never forgotten and the Palestinian-Franks were always going to live there on borrowed time.

Personally, I thought the film was relatively even-handed.

Scott's ultimate purpose was to show that fighting over Jerusalem has been going on thousands of years...

[KRALLODHRIB]

I think we need to remind ourselves that Scott's intentions are good.
Attempting to provoke the bovine masses in the United States out of their thoughtless, in terms of historical consciousness, slumber is not an altogether promising feat.
And while we must always be vigilant in analyzing art, even popular, emphatically uncomplicated art, I think there is susbstance in this film, even it is often presented in a discontinuous and, frankly, incomplete manner.

Still, I will absolutely purchase the DVD, as I have purchased Scott's "Gladiator".

We love to dream about what "might have been", and how it might have looked. And, if we could only participate. . . the glory!!!

Our criticisms are meant to help not hinder future art, whether on the silver screen or LCD screens.

KEEP EM' COMING SCOTT! ~:cheers:

[Despot of the English]

When will it be available on DVD?

[Pericles]

It should be on dvd this December.

I'm also hoping there will be some documentaries on the history of the crusades on the dvd as well. Here is a golden opportunity to entertain and educate.

Cheers!