**Kingdom of Heaven**

**Pericles** · 05-07-2005, 00:48

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.

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

It was a real treat.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 05-07-2005, 02:59

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_** · 05-07-2005, 20:48

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

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** · 05-07-2005, 21:22

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

). 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** · 05-07-2005, 22:17

Originally Posted by _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

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/.../50426001/1023

Cheers!

**Pericles** · 05-07-2005, 22:33

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 05-07-2005, 23:37

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_** · 05-08-2005, 00:31

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

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.

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** · 05-08-2005, 00:51

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** · 05-08-2005, 01:10

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.

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** · 05-08-2005, 01:15

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 05-08-2005, 03:02

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** · 05-08-2005, 08:18

Originally Posted by Pericles

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_** · 05-08-2005, 19:39

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** · 05-08-2005, 20:53

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.

**Beefy** · 05-08-2005, 21:20

so out of 10 what would you give it?

is it worht going to see

**_Aetius_** · 05-08-2005, 21:58

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** · 05-08-2005, 22:27

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 05-08-2005, 22:32

Originally Posted by _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.

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** · 05-08-2005, 22:40

Originally Posted by _Aetius_

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** · 05-08-2005, 22:43

Originally Posted by Beefy

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/.../50426001/1023

**Pericles** · 05-08-2005, 22:50

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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** · 05-08-2005, 23:20

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** · 05-09-2005, 00:45

Originally Posted by 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).

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...es_hattin.html

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCE...CLES/kedar.htm

**Pericles** · 05-09-2005, 01:01

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** · 05-09-2005, 02:27

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.

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

**Colovion** · 05-09-2005, 04:53

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.

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** · 05-09-2005, 17:31

Originally Posted by Colovion

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!"

**Rodion Romanovich** · 05-09-2005, 17:50

Originally Posted by Pericles

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 :).

Originally Posted by Pericles

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** · 05-09-2005, 17:52

Originally Posted by Spartakus

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.

Thread: Kingdom of Heaven

Thread Tools

Display