Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

~D

Just saw the movie, I was impressed. Not great, but good, and better than I expected. Deffiently the most historically acurate film of it's type that I've seen, far more so than Gladiator and Braveheart.

These "historians" accusations are baseless. They never talked about any sort of Muslim, Jew and Christian alliance, only said that before the Crusades all could come and go to the Holy Land, which was true. The Muslims, and in particular Salah ad-Din were potrayed accuratley. Honorable but harsh. He wasn't really a good guy or a bad guy, as I think he was in reality.
The Chrisitans weren't potrayed evilly, either. The main baddies were Christian, but so were the main good people.

The warfare was good, though not enough of the Muslim's horse archery was depicted. It suffered from Hollywood Fire Arrows, but all in all the warfare was more accurate than either Braveheart or Gladiator.

A lot of the characters were of course streched, but thankfully the love intrest didn't ruin it, and was kept safely on the side for a lot of it. I really liked the King of Jeruselaem, and how they showed him.

So it is in no way propganda, and wasn't as bad historically as most films. It was a good movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone who likes this sort of film.

Propaganda or not I know I will love this movie.

Quote:

---

It suffered from Hollywood Fire Arrows

---

It was cool the first time in Gladiator but once was enuff. I prefer the fighting in Excalibur and the Messenger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

It was cool the first time in Gladiator but once was enuff. I prefer the fighting in Excalibur and the Messenger

---

I loved Excalibur, but you have to admit that it suffered a bit from "monty python" syndrom. The hacked off limbs with squirting blood looked rather like a certain scene from the search for the holy grail. ~;)

As far as solid, bone crunching melee, I think we can all agree that Conan did it the best. ~D

I was so disapointed he stopped after two as Red Sonya wasnt as good. I still like him as Conan the best. He was perfect. He should make 1 more ~:) I can still watch those over and over.

Saw the movie yesterday and my impression is pretty much in line with Pindar's.

Not an all-time great but certainly a very good and impressive movie (and definitely worth the money to watch it).
Very good overall feeling in terms of the design of the movie and an apparently rather balanced view on the situation.

I also heard that they cut a lot of footage that will be included in a director's cut on DVD - which I am looking forward to asyou often had the feeling that something was missing, I expect the movie to gain considerably from having additional footage included again.

IMO the movie lacked a bit of originality when compared to Gladiator - Ridley Scott shamelessly borrowed plot parts from his own movie (which is not bad if you judge KoH on a stand-alone basis).

My only "real" gripe: The main character really seemed to have a "green thumb". It was a bit bordering the hilarious when he took over the lands of his father and seemingly turned barren land into a flourishing paradise within weeks. ~;)

Yeah, that was quite funny. It was hard to tell how long it took though, but it seemed to go from barren to very good farmland very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

The warfare was good, though not enough of the Muslim's horse archery was depicted.

---

Would it ever be enough for you? ~D

Seriously, is there any movie you would recommend because it does feature lots of good horse archery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Yeah, that was quite funny. It was hard to tell how long it took though, but it seemed to go from barren to very good farmland very quickly.

---

lame. Thank god I didn't see this, I would have been infuriated. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Would it ever be enough for you? ~D

Seriously, is there any movie you would recommend because it does feature lots of good horse archery?

---

You can never have enough horse archers. ~;)
As for movies that have a lot of horse archery in it, can't really think of any at all. Even that TV movie of Attilla had no horse archers in it practically. I wonder why Hollywood doesn't understand them, or something. You'd think that they would have made some sort of movie with Mongols, or any sort of nomads, but nope.
At least the foot archers in this movie had proper looking bows.

Quote:

---

lame. Thank god I didn't see this, I would have been infuriated.

---

It is a good movie, and it could have taken a while, but it just doesn't really have any good indication of how long it took.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

As I said come face me in VI and Ill show you that Christains even rule the desert. Slow and plodding my butt. Ill be all over you like white on rice. ~;) On normal ground its no contest. Ill also out last you in stamina.

---

LOL.......and VI is historically accurate is it not?

.........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

My only "real" gripe: The main character really seemed to have a "green thumb". It was a bit bordering the hilarious when he took over the lands of his father and seemingly turned barren land into a flourishing paradise within weeks. ~;)

---

I thought about that, but I think it was maybe an unexplained editing goof. Recall in the film he arrives in 1184 and the final events of the film (his summoning to Karak, the imprisionment of Renuald) are three years away. My simpathetic reading is to see the greening as a couple years down the road from his taking up his charge, as it were. This of course means the woman was in his lands for some time. I think it was an edit that may be flushed out with all the extra footage coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I thought about that, but I think it was maybe an unexplained editing goof. Recall in the film he arrives in 1184 and the final events of the film (his summoning to Karak, the imprisionment of Renuald) are three years away. My simpathetic reading is to see the greening as a couple years down the road from his taking up his charge, as it were. This of course means the woman was in his lands for some time. I think it was an edit that may be flushed out with all the extra footage coming.

---

Good point - there were a number of occasions when things seemed a bit rushed. I expect that this movie will benefit from adding the cut footage as much as the old Cleopatra movie did (of which I still hope that they one day find the 1.5-2 hours that are still missing ~:) )

That is an excellent point. The timing was a bit off. And I really hope they show the battle of Hattin in the DVD...

Just got home, just watched the movie. Well what can I say, Great Movie!

The Siege of Jerusalem made my heart beat faster and the music through out the film was very well made.

But I noticed one funny thing, the music playing as the King dies is the same as when the letter written by Hannibal (in Hannibal) is read in that movie.

"Vide cor meom" or something its called. :bow:

If the battle of Hattin is in the DVD, and has lots of great horse archers my opinion of the movie will really go up :D

Also the great jerry goldsmiths score from the 13th warrior is there, the scene when Bloom knights some of outremers locals has the last battle music from the underated john tiernan film

Ok, just got back from seeing it. Here are my thoughts.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WANT THE PLOT REVEALED, DON'T READ ANY FURTHER.

Overall, I thought it was ok. Not great, not horrible.

Things I liked:

1. The music.
2. The battles were reasonably good. No Seljuk horse archery, unfortunately, and the troop formations were waaay too deep, but otherwise it was reasonably good. The cavalry even seemed to make some attempt to keep order during the charge.
3. The archery at the siege of Jerusalem. Maybe a few too many arrows, but it was neat seeing them flying about. I also liked the vultures on the battlefield.

Things I didn't like (mainly anachronisms):

1. Sibylla didn't end up with some guy named Balian. As far as I remember, she stayed with Guy.
2. Guy was not a Templar-- Templars didn't take wives.
3. Balian of Ibelin was an historical figure, but his history is changed beyond recognition.
4. The circumstances surrounding the battle of Hattin were needlessly altered. In actuality, Saladin besieged Tiberias, and Raymond of Tiberias' wife was trapped inside. In the end, Raymond himself advised against attacking, yes, but he did march out with the army. If you didn't do that, the king wouldn't just say, "Oh well, see you later; have fun!" If you didn't show up for the king's host in a time of invasion, you were disinherited at best, and executed at worst.

Oh, and all that stuff about Muslim propaganda: mostly bunk. I think Riley-Smith and Philips were flying off the handle there. Perhaps they had seen only an early version of the script. There was no crap about a confraternity of different religions. The Muslims were portrayed perhaps just slightly a bit too favourably (they should have shown Saladin executing the Templars and Hospitallers after Hattin, to balance it out, I think), but it was not 'Osama bin Laden's version of history' by any stretch of the imagination. There were zealots and politiques on both sides.

Anyway, these are a few of my thoughts. It was an entertaining movie. Bloom wasn't very good, nor was the plot, but the supporting cast was fantastic and it was great to see medieval armies depicted in such an extravagant fashion.

there were Hospitallers at Hattin!? I only saw Templars and Johannites. ~:confused:

Is that what they were? Couldn't tell... I suppose the ones with the black crosses were Johannites?
As for Hattin, I think more things will be put in. He did show him killing that red haired guy, and the piles of heads, so it wasn't like they didn't show the harshness of him.

as far as I know, the Johannites have black robes with white crosses while the Templar have white robes and red crosses.
In the movie, I guess the once in blue was the kings own guard but I noticed that the knights attacking the main character by that tree had white robes and black crosses. Who where they!?

The fellas in blue were the men of the Jerusalem garrison, white robes and black crosses sound like teutonic knights

They do sound like Teutonics, but Ballian's dad's friends had those on, even though later similarly dressed dudes tried and kill him. And since only one of those guys was a German, don't think they were Teutonics...
Besides, isn't it to early for them?

as far as I know, the Teutonics never went to Jerusalem. I only heard of them going east towards eastern europe.

The teutonic knights were formed around 1190, and they did have several castles and strongholds in the holy land, it was only in the 13th century that they began to colonise Prussia and parts of the Baltic.

Maybe scott just put them in or they were simply crusaders with white robes and black crosses

I know Balians father friend played by the great david thewlis was a Hospitillar and at Hattin both orders, Hospitillars and Templars were all put to death bar the Grandmaster of the Templars on Saladins orders at Hattin

Watched the movie and I find it nice. It's a politically correct movie and I think the only guys that will be offended are the hardline ultra-conservative Catholics (if they still exist). But I guess most Catholics are moderates these days. And anti-Muslim guys...

I also made some research :book: on the historical accuracy of the movie. Most elements of history, the setting, and the major characters are there but they made major distortion on Balian of Ibelin.

Balian is a historical character but his exploits is in no way similar to Bloom's character.

Guy is probably not a templar as Templars is a religious order. Guy is one of the nobles who owned land (Kerak?) and employs the Templars as his army.

I don't know what Bloom's order is? Brown uniform with black crosses.

The guys in blue with the marking of several crosses are the king's personal army. The multiple crosses is the logo of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

When Baldwin died, he was succeeded by his nephew (son of Sybilla through her first husband... not Guy). His nephew dies shortly and Sybilla was crowned queen.

And of course the love story. There was no real love story between Sybilla and Balien. The true love story, believe it or not, is between Sybilla and Guy. ~:eek: In the end Sybilla pays ransom? For the release of Guy and they fled to Tyre (the last remaining Christian city after the fall of Jerusalem) which was bravely defended by someone named Conrad.

I suspect Bloom's character might be originally intended to be Conrad but it lacks impact because the city he defended is not Jerusalem. And the Battle of Hatta(?) :duel: was intentionally left out because it does not concern Bloom's story and would only glorify the villain (Guy).

I dont think Blooms character was part of any order, as far I understod his men was simply his fathers Men-at-arms that he spoke of early in the movie. The brown robes with black crosses one was simply the Houses uniform I would guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

I dont think Blooms character was part of any order, as far I understod his men was simply his fathers Men-at-arms that he spoke of early in the movie. The brown robes with black crosses one was simply the Houses uniform I would guess.

---

That's what I thought as well.

As far as the Hospitallers, that's David Thewliss's order: black with white crosses. Here's an artist's rendering:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sandra.s/hospitallers.jpg

I've not heard the term 'Johannites' used, but I suppose it is another word for the Hospitallers (the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem).

The Teutonic Knights were not around at the time-- they founded a hospital in Acre after the fall of Jerusalem (c. early 1190s), but even then it took them a few years to move from a strictly charitable function to a military order.

ah, they are the same, Hospitaller and Johannites... that explains it hehe, in sweden we use the name Jahannites instead of Hospitaller for some reason. ~:)

In Norway the Hospitallers are called Johanittere.

And a quick remark. That Conrad who defended Tyre, was Conrad de Montferrat. His older brother William was actually married to Sybilla, and was the father of her son who became King Baldwin V. He died before his son was born though.

And as a further sidenote: Conrad had another brother called Boniface, who was the leader of the Fourth Crusade. And yet another brother called Ranier who was Manuel Comnenus' son-in-law.

And last fact: Conrad married Sybillas sister Isabella. Conrad though was killed by THE Assassins in 1192.

Amazing, what things u get to know when u have written a 30-page essay on the Fourth Crusade.

~D

Thanks for clearing that up. I wished they had pointed out that they were Hospitllers, to mabye take some of the emphasis off of the evils of the Templars, to show that not all the religous nuts were totally evil. ~;)
So his dad's friend (the one who dies at Hattin) is a Hospitaller? I thought I recongnized the actor, but the name doesn't ring a bell..

You would have seen him in harry potter and the prisoner of Azkaban as Professor Lupin

Aha! That's it. Thanks. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

ah, they are the same, Hospitaller and Johannites... that explains it hehe, in sweden we use the name Jahannites instead of Hospitaller for some reason. ~:)

---

They are also known as the Knights of Malta (Maltezer Ridderorde).

They were only known as that after Rhodes fell and aquired the island of Malta in the sixteenth century

I know, but that's what they're called nowadays. All right, off topic. I'm sorry!

Hey dude no offence intended. I really should have put a smiley after that sentence ~D

Not sure if this has been posted, but I came across this link to the historical background to the film:

http://users.panola.com/AAGHS/military.html

The history sounds rather more interesting than the film story, so far as I can make out not having seen the movie yet. Balian does sound a good subject for a movie - promising Saladin he would not fight, but being forced to lead the defence of Jerusalem - but why fictionalise him so much? [1]


[1]It reminds me of the ridiculous Heaven's Gate - IIRC the true story had the Christopher Walden character holding out alone under siege for about a day, in the film he is shot down in a few minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

The history sounds rather more interesting than the film story

---

On that, I think we agree. Why not tell the story of Raymond of Tripoli? The man who spurns his vassal for gold, and ends up provoking the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem? The man whose wife is besieged by Saladin, but who must advise the king not to try to save her, and who is then criticized for his wise, painful advice? One of the few men to escape all the carnage at Hattin?

Because he dies right after Hattin?

I would've rather seen a movie about the initial so-called First Crusade when they FIRST take Jerusalem.

But I guess that doesn't let you have the fun "co-exist" theme to add to the movie.

Not at all. Before the First Crusade, Muslims, Jews and Chrisitans were all aloud into Jeruseleum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Not at all. Before the First Crusade, Muslims, Jews and Chrisitans were all aloud into Jeruseleum.

---

exactly, before

if they had a movie about the Christians going and killing Muslims, that wouldn't send a very good message to the kids, now would it? http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//wink2.gif

Well having seen the film, I found it wasn't so bad after all. Bailian of Ibelin was a real person and the Ibelins were a fairly important family in the Holy Land (note: Bailian was not a bastard and had some other brothers). Baldwin V was completely crossed out of the film as was Sybilla's first husband. Sybilla was dressed like an arabian princess, with henna (even though henna was Indian) painted on her hands and wearing a veil. Even when she cut her hair in penitence, she still left her black eye makeup on, making her look like a whore.

However, if one just thinks of it as a story and forget about the history, it was quite a good film.

I mainly do, and I think the story was too rushed. It felt like the pace was far too fast for the events that happened. Gladiator and Musa the Warrior were both far more finely worked out, if you ask me.



~Wiz

The thing that got me most angry other than the lack of horse archers was when she cut her hair. I got really sad, and pissed off. I think guys should have long hair, but I obviously can live with people around me that have short hair, but women? Don't understand why they would ever have short hair, especially such an attractive woman. I just hope the actress didn't really cut her hair, and it was a (nearly) bald wig, or something...

Well I saw it last night and left with mixed feelings I must admit. It started out great. The fight between the christains in the woods was the best fight in the movie IMO. The armor , costumes ans scenery were all fantastic. The first time they enter Jeruslaem is really awesome. However it seemed like a very anti religious movie to me. It portrayed the relgious people as pious zealots and only the true warriors as being decent in any way shape manner or form. True it preached that we should respect eachothers beliefs but it also made more of a point that these beliefs dont mean anything. The portrayl of the Templars as the bad guys was a bit over the top. Is that what some of you meant that now you know what Templars where. What a joke. The best part is the end whre he says if this is the kingdom of god he can have it. The battle scenes were all herky jerky. The one pn one against the Saracen was kool though. Very realistic sword and pole axe action. This movie borders on being the best movie on the crusades ever made and good easily have been so. They even cut out the biggest battle. Do you think that Saladin has as many catapults as portrayed in this movie or that they could reload them so fast? They would have destroyed the place in a few hours with all that was hitting it in the movie. Overall though a very enjoyable experience.

Yeah, the siege was a joke. No one used that many catupults, especially when you're a Kurd using primarily Turkic cavalry using steppe style tactics. Of course he used the more civilzed style of warfare (infantry, sieges) when he needed to, but he couldn't have moved so fast with that many siege weapons. And none of them would have used any sort of fire.

Yeah, the Templars were over the top. Though Sala al Hadin was certiantly pious, and wasn't depicted as a raving lunatic. I think his dad's friend (Professor Lupin ~;) ) was sort of religous, but you're right, a few more not as crazy Catholics wouldn't have been bad.
And of course, horse archery. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well I saw it last night and left with mixed feelings I must admit. It started out great. The fight between the christains in the woods was the best fight in the movie IMO. The armor , costumes ans scenery were all fantastic. The first time they enter Jeruslaem is really awesome. However it seemed like a very anti religious movie to me. It portrayed the relgious people as pious zealots and only the true warriors as being decent in any way shape manner or form. True it preached that we should respect eachothers beliefs but it also made more of a point that these beliefs dont mean anything. The portrayl of the Templars as the bad guys was a bit over the top. Is that what some of you meant that now you know what Templars where. What a joke. The best part is the end whre he says if this is the kingdom of god he can have it. The battle scenes were all herky jerky. The one pn one against the Saracen was kool though. Very realistic sword and pole axe action. This movie borders on being the best movie on the crusades ever made and good easily have been so. They even cut out the biggest battle. Do you think that Saladin has as many catapults as portrayed in this movie or that they could reload them so fast? They would have destroyed the place in a few hours with all that was hitting it in the movie. Overall though a very enjoyable experience.

---

THat would depend on what they shot with those catapults... ~;) I mean if they just shot incendiary materials and not rocks it could have taken a while...

Besides, Jerusalem is a city which defences have been reinforced for centuries from the Romans to Saladdin himself. It wouldnt be that easy to shoot them down.

Of course this is just my tendency to disagree. ~D The whole trebuchet thing was exaggerated. But From the making of Scott said they built a few real trebuchets in order to make it look perfect and analize its possibilities.

Also what I really liked about the film is the fact that the "military advisor" was actually a Moroccan Colonel (Not american, british or western in general), so I have that hope that it maybe was more accurate in the belic aspect.

Overall I think it was a great film although that ship wreckage thing was a bit forced as well...

All I can say is count the flaming balls in any one frame and then notice how many new ones fire right after them . It looked as if they were firing about 500 rounds minimum per minute and Im being cautious on muy estimate. Over done hardly fits this scene. Im talking total flamong missles launched from siege engines. Also just becuse Bailion didnt want the other dude dead was no reason why they wouldnt kill the bastard anyway. The whole thing is this liberal a hole Bailions fault in the first plce. Well my intentions were good. Shows what can happen when you take the so called high road all the time.

What other dude dead? Not quite sure what you'red talking about there...
And they ought to have had a Turkish or Syrian or more Middle Eastern advisor. Morrocans didn't use much of horse archers...

[QUOTE=SwordsMaster]THat would depend on what they shot with those catapults... ~;)
Also what I really liked about the film is the fact that the "military advisor" was actually a Moroccan Colonel (Not american, british or western in general), so I have that hope that it maybe was more accurate in the belic aspect.

I was just wondering why a contemporary high ranking Moroccan officer would be a better military advisor than a contemporary high ranking western one? Just wondering as I know that western officers tend to have studied military history extensively. I don't know about Moroccans but I imagine they would too. What I'm really saying is does the current Moroccan army have some generally unknown link to the very distant past?

I was just wondering what inspired you to make that remark or whether it was based on cultural assumptions.

Heh, I wonder alot.

Not to mention Morroco is not exactly by Jerusalem, or any other lands controlled by the Turks and Egyptians who fought in the war.... ~;)

[QUOTE=Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

THat would depend on what they shot with those catapults... ~;)
Also what I really liked about the film is the fact that the "military advisor" was actually a Moroccan Colonel (Not american, british or western in general), so I have that hope that it maybe was more accurate in the belic aspect.

I was just wondering why a contemporary high ranking Moroccan officer would be a better military advisor than a contemporary high ranking western one? Just wondering as I know that western officers tend to have studied military history extensively. I don't know about Moroccans but I imagine they would too. What I'm really saying is does the current Moroccan army have some generally unknown link to the very distant past?

I was just wondering what inspired you to make that remark or whether it was based on cultural assumptions.

Heh, I wonder alot.

---

well, I know its maybe kinda stupid,but in the same way as europeans concentrate more on european history, you would expect a N.African or middle eastern officer to kinda concentrate on that particular area.

Actually Im not sure if he IS moroccan, he had an arabic (or moroccan, or algerian, etc, Im not sure) name and it was written in arabic too. I guessed he could have been moroccan as most of the big battles were filmed in Morocco, but of course that is not a key factor. So sorry for spreading confusion ~;)

I think that military leaders who have any knowledge of the history of warfare will apply it's lessons regardless of where they originated.

Some examples include Norman Schwarzkopf using the battle of Cannae as his inspiration for his tactics in the first Gulf War and (this one I'm not 100% sure of but is definitely something that I have heard) Fidel Castro and his cronies being inspired by the manner in Which Owain Glyndwr freed Wales.

Sure they may be more interested in a general sense in their own cultures but there are lessons to be learned everywhere.

i just came back from the movie and enjoyed it

the entire ideology that was put out by the scrip writer was bunk
i thought i saw quite a few innacuracies, but not big enough to really complain about

the templars and the hospitalers for 2 examples

i know that there are exceptions to every rule, but wernt the templars not supposed to trim their beards or wash their mantles?i would assume the same applied to the hospitalers

also - wernt msot knights scarred to hell and toothless (or the good ones at least)

also - i realize that some templars were only associated with the order (rather than serving brothers), but i thought that they were forbidden from acting as married men while on crusade (and an actual serving brother wouldnt have been allowed to EVER) - and i knew that guy did actually marry whats her name

but how did he rationalize this?

also - i thought only the pope was allowed to try and execute templars
are there any actual reports of executions by secular authorities in jerusalem?
around that period?

etc, etc

plenty of other percieved "innacuracies" - but they are only innacuracies if there is no documentation whatsoever
if there is even 1 piece of evidence, then it is simply speculation based on fact

its been a while since ive done my reading on the various orders
anyone have any ideas?

This movie is a metaphor and not a military history chronicle. There is a handful of characters wich strive. and succed to behave rational in an irrational world ravished by religious madness and missinterpreted code of honour.
Ballian defies the priest by knighting ordinary soldiers and servants as Salladin defies the mullah saying that when he won't be king anymore he'll quit Islam. Both have a realistic grip on religion and they don't fall into the traps of fanatism gently laid by their spiritual advisors...
It's a call for peace, tollerance and wisdom and, despite all the critical voices, I think that this goal has been definetly achieved by Sir Ridley Scott. Indeed, the story is simple and shallow, as the moral concepts and the philosophical dogmas it embodies. But, it's a movie for masses and not for keen intelectuals and epic battles addicts like us, and being so, it had to be chewable and easy to digest... ~D
It's a Kingdom of Heaven...it's the way it SHOULD be ~:grouphug: , not the way it was... :charge:

Quote:

---

This movie is a metaphor and not a military history chronicle.

---

So you saw it the same way I did ~:)

Quote:

---

It's a Kingdom of Heaven...it's the way it SHOULD be , not the way it was...

---

No and yes. Like I said it was pretty anti religous. I believe that christianity at least gives you the same message as the Bailian gives. That you must look for god within and be true to that god. Do unto others as they would do unto you is the golden rule.Making everyone in the movie who was religious look like a bunch of pious warmongering a holes was a bit to much though.

I saw Kingdom of Heaven this weekend and thought it was AWFUL! With the exception of a few good performances (Orlando Bloom's was NOT one of them), great costumes, art direction and special effects Kingdom of Heaven is nothing more than the usual Hollyweird fare. If you disliked Gladiator you will HATE this movie! Even if Russell Crowe were cast instead of Orlando Bloom he couldn't stop this movie from being complete garbage.

I felt absolutely nothing for any of the major or minor characters in KOH except for King Baldwin who had tragic little screen time. Norton did a great job playing the leper king even if he did sound a little like Brando behind that mask. Norton did such a good job I quietly wished KOH revolved around Baldwin's tragically short life instead of the silly revisionist romp I had to endure. KOH's script was quite poor and the stilted and silly dialogue didn't hurt matters. There were way too many profound statements and lofty, important sounding bulls--t coming out of people's mouths and half the time I found myself rolling my eyes instead of being sucked into the plot. Oh, to have the great screenwriters of yesteryear working in this age of first rate effects and massive budgets!

Two and a half hours of my life... wasted. thank you so very much Mr. Ridley 'I haven't made a decent flick since Bladerunner' Scott. I am really, really glad I paid a matinee price to see this flick, had I paid full price ($10+ in NYC) I would have been livid.

When it was over I turned to my friend and said, "Do you think THAT was worth 140 million?" His response? "Wow, I can't believe it! This was actually worse than Revenge of the Sith!"

Edit - To keep with the subject of this thread I didn't find KOH to be anti or pro religion or too pro Islam for that matter. However it did come across as being somewhat biased against Christianity but you could argue that it balanced it out with decidedly 'good Christian' models in the form of Neeson's, Thewlis' and Norton's characters. It would have been nice if KOH provided fanatical Muslim counterparts to the reprehensible priest and cardinal(?) characters in the movie but who cares? The movie was such crap that this argument can be easily overlooked.