PDA

View Full Version : Movie - Kingdom of Heaven


abespam
05-09-2005, 03:17 AM
So i just went and watched it at the cinemas, and i thought it was pretty good, i give it 4 stars.

Scott uses a lot of his Gladiator style cinematography and story telling to create the film, and im sure it historically inaccurate but the movie was decent.

Orlando Bloom did a good job , but i was expecting bigger roles from Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons.

I recommend watching it, though ROTS opening next week may cause ppl to forget about this film.

Astrotoy7
05-09-2005, 12:09 PM
I love historical epics, though they are often jokingly inaccurate :) The Crusades were a fascinating part of history so it is always cool to check out a movie about them...

One thing I am cringing though is the portrayal of Saladin and his forces.... I am hoping it is not a stereotypical "Hollywood Muslim" but I am sure It wont be otherwise :(

mtfbwya

toms
05-09-2005, 12:45 PM
thats what it look like from the trailers, which are obviously designed to appeal to (christian) middle america.

But apparently the film is fairly pro muslim (infact some people have said it is even TOO pro muslim).

Mind you, from what i remember of my history the muslims were more technologically advanced and didn't go slaughtering entire cities like the christians did... so maybe they were the good guys after all.

Mike Windu
05-09-2005, 07:38 PM
What?

Troy rocked. King Arthur was below my expectations, but it was semi decent to watch, I wasn't bored by it too much. and I didn't bother to see Alexander because I knew that movie was crap.

C'mon. Colin Ferrell? Angelina Jolie?

Not to mention Alexander's cheeseball lines.. "Conquer your fear and you will conquer death."

X)

abespam
05-09-2005, 07:46 PM
well the movie was more pro-muslim nor pro-christian, though there were fanatics on each side. Saladin himself was not portrayed as a fanatic in the movie more of a "general" type character, caring more about winning the battle with minimal loss rather than destroying christians.

There were quite a few fanatics on the christian side, especially the knights templar...

Mike Windu
05-09-2005, 09:51 PM
Orlando is fit for playing an unexperienced soldier (Troy) or an ageless elf. He just doesn't cut it as a big soldier type guy.

I'll check this movie out after it comes to DVD so I can see Orlando :D

*goes to watch Eric Bana in Troy*

[RAA]-=Chi3f=-
05-09-2005, 11:59 PM
This movie was alright, not great, but alright.

2 stars +1 for RotS trailer = 3/5stars

It was worth seeing it for the trailer alone :)

RpTheHotrod
05-10-2005, 03:01 AM
Just got back from seeing it. It was aight. Good siege scenes.

toms
05-10-2005, 12:40 PM
I do agree that i've got a bit burned out on these historical epics. That is hollywood for you, get one good film and then you end up with 3 years of clones. Like all those comic book movies... or all these gladiator/LOTR clones.

Troy was dull, eric bana and orlando bloom had the charisma of a wet blanket, brad pitt wasn't much better. The only good thing about it were the old guys who completely blew them off the screen, acting wise.

King arthur was terrible. Dull and meaningless. If it hadn't had ray winstone in it to make me laugh i'd have left the cinema. How does clive owen manage to alternate between being great in some movies and terrible in others?

Alexander pretty much skated over and copped out of the gay thing... which version did you watch? (special edition with extra cgi gayness? :D )

I may watch HoH this week, but i'm not really rushing to do so.

Spider AL
05-10-2005, 01:06 PM
Let's not forget the fact that there is no historical record proving Alexander's sexuality either way, and it's purely conjectural revisionism to state that he swung one way, or swung the other.

The best that most historians have been able to come up with is "He was probably bisexual". How non-commital is that!

I'm utterly fed up of sexuality being inserted into historical records when it is simply not necessary... unless you have some sort of agenda to further, that is. ;)

lukeiamyourdad
05-10-2005, 10:26 PM
No, no, don't start, keep that in the Senate.

Muslims were not that better then Christians truly. Saladin was their best leader. He was the only one who didn't enter Jerusalem by pillaging and raping.

Tokarev
05-10-2005, 11:24 PM
Another factor which plays a part none of the less is also timing imo.... How long the movie really is which can help make a difference rather than just cramming all of two hours which I prefer in all honesty. Some movies you can fit a set amount of time and some others not, but I suppose it's all on how you're going about historical accuracy on a certain event, a certain timing of it, and so on... I heard KoH could have been better with more added to it aswell and the acting.. All I want is the historical accuracy in a movie and not all the BS fluff to it..

Sabretooth
05-11-2005, 03:24 AM
I'll watch it later on DVD. I've heard about the bias, though. The Muslims were actually military masterminds and it's the Crusaders who invaded mindlessly and ran away with their tails between their legs. Looking at how America looks at Muslims, I can the word "Bias" painted all over the movie. :)

CapNColostomy
05-11-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Sabretooth
Looking at how America looks at Muslims, I can the word "Bias" painted all over the movie. :)

Funny you should say that, considering R. Scott is in fact not American but British. People can find a way to blame America for everything they don't like nowadays, it seems. Even the crusades.

I remember when Ridley Scott made Black Hawk Down. And all the bitching from scruvier foreign types I had to read or listen to. Nevermind the fact that only a handful of the cast or crew involved in making the movie were Americans. It's a lopsided American story where big bad evil America is portrayed as the hero.

Originally posted by Spider AL
historical record proving Alexander's sexuality...historians...historical records...

Maybe, just maybe, when people watch a movie, they should take into account that for the most part, movies are made for entertainment purposes, and should not always be held to the standard of historical fact. I'll be watching this movie eventually, despite the pc and euro turd picket lines I might have to wade through to do so. And for the simple fact that it's a movie, you know, with actors? People who are paid to act like someone they're not? I'll probably assume all by myself that I shouldn't take any of it seriously, and who knows? I might even be entertained.

Dumb. :rolleyes:

toms
05-11-2005, 08:36 AM
The simple fact is that we usually don't know anything about the private, personal and emotional details of these historical figures. And any film needs to try and flesh out the characters to more than just a few battle scenes and historical events.

Since most of the personalities pasted onto these historical figures are going to be entirely fictional anyway, what does it matter whether they make them gay or straight, or innocent or bitter or any way. In a fictional representation of a character making him gay seems just as valid as making him straight... and at least it might have the virtue of making a slightly unique character... not another cookie cutter hollywood hero.

On the other hand, what is usually known about such historical figures is the hard facts (locations, victories, losses, etc..) so its nice if they can at least TRY to stick to the few things that we do know.

I've heard a few people mention that scott might be using this movie to try and balance the scales after Black Hawk Down, which might be why he goes a bit overboard on the pro-muslim front. But i'll reserve judgement on that till i can see for myself, as i've also heard a few people say its anti muslim. Who knows.

Sabretooth
05-11-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Funny you should say that, considering R. Scott is in fact not American but British. People can find a way to blame America for everything they don't like nowadays, it seems. Even the crusades.

The movie came out of Hollywood. Hollywood = America. Hollywood + Blame = America + Blame.

My 2 cents.

abespam
05-11-2005, 09:29 AM
seriously it no where near as bias as ppl might think. In fact the movie accentuates the fact that there are some fanatics on either side, but that nearly all of the main characters are not..

of course in terms of military masterminds.. scott couldnt resist , bloom doing some tricks against the seige towers...
.. some of it reminded me of Return of the King

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Sabretooth
The movie came out of Hollywood. Hollywood = America. Hollywood + Blame = America + Blame.

My 2 cents. Right...

Astrotoy7
05-11-2005, 09:53 AM
what the fuzz ! this is hilarious..... a flame war about gays and muslims and america being bad in a thread that is about a movie :D

I still havent seen it yet....

CapN.... Ridley Scott might have been born in the UK, but he's hardly a "British" director by *any* stretch of the imagination :p You want to see some awesome British directors, look up Mike Leigh & Peter Greenaway :)

but I can tell you from historical records that the Knights Templar were indeed fanatics... their code included not bathing, and not burying their dead :( smelly !

mtfbwya

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
CapN.... Ridley Scott might have been born in the UK, but he's hardly a "British" director by *any* stretch of the imagination :p I'm sorry, that makes no sense. He's British, he's a director, but he's not a British Director?

jon_hill987
05-11-2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I'm sorry, that makes no sense. He's British, he's a director, but he's not a British Director?

He isn't a British dirctor, he is a Holywood director. There is a diference.

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by jon_hill987
He isn't a British dirctor, he is a Holywood director. There is a diference. But he's British, and a director. Thus a British Director. "British" is a description of nationality, not cinema style.

I suppose you're one of those people the seperates styles of humour into "american" and "british". Such arrogance is disturbing.

lukeiamyourdad
05-11-2005, 10:27 AM
I think what they meant is that Ridley Scott is a British director who does Hollywood movies while Mike Leigh and Peter Greenaway are drectors who make British movies.

If you watch a lot of foreign films, from any place, you'll end up seeing the difference between each countries' style.
It's like architecture or the way of thinking of a culture.

Astrotoy7
05-11-2005, 10:29 AM
sithy, calm down.... It is not unusual at all to describe directors according to their style...as opposed to their place of birth..

Scott simply has done most of his work in Hollywood..

how about this description, your majesty :

"British Born Hollywood Director" Ridley Scott

Go watch a film called "Naked" by Mike Leigh .... even Trainspotting or anything by Guy Ritchie.... they are British Films :)

mtfbwya

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
I think what they meant is that Ridley Scott is a British director who does Hollywood movies while Mike Leigh and Peter Greenaway are drectors who make British movies.

I get what they mean, but classification based on nationality comes off as arrogant and elitist.

He may make movies in hollywood, but he is British, and that was CapN's point.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
If you watch a lot of foreign films, from any place, you'll end up seeing the difference between each countries' style.
It's like architecture or the way of thinking of a culture. The differences are based on their cultural principles. They're not different cinematic styles. They just approach things differently due to their cultural upbringing.

A japanese girl may be more subdued when speaking english, but she's not speaking "Japanese english". It's not a different kind of english. It's just cultural upbringing.

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
sithy, calm down.... It is not unusual at all to describe directors according to their style...as opposed to their place of birth..

British is a nationality, not a cinematic style.

Originally posted by Astrotoy7
Scott simply has done most of his work in Hollywood..

That still doesn't automatically change his nationality to "hollywood". Lucas does most of his work in England and Australia, yet noones called him a "British" or "Australian" director.

Originally posted by Astrotoy7
how about this description, your majesty :

"British Born Hollywood Director" Ridley Scott

How about just, "British Born Director" Ridley Scott.

Originally posted by Astrotoy7
Go watch a film called "Naked" by Mike Leigh .... even Trainspotting or anything by Guy Ritchie.... they are British Films :)
I already have. I have seen many "British" films.

Astrotoy7
05-11-2005, 10:59 AM
jeezalu....forgotten to take your tablets sithy??:(

I am looking forward to KoH tho, coz Orlando = HUNK ;)

mtfbwya

lukeiamyourdad
05-11-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith

A japanese girl may be more subdued when speaking english, but she's not speaking "Japanese english". It's not a different kind of english. It's just cultural upbringing.

English is quite a uniform language, with only very minor variations from one place to another.

But that is not the case with a lot of other languages.
French for example, differs from Quebec to France. The core is the same, but it more then a matter of regional terms and such.
In spanish, there's also Latin America spanish and the one spoken in Spain. Again, at the core, they're the same, but many differences exist, enough to differenciate them.
Even vietnamese is different from region to region. The people of the North speak a VERY different vietnamese then the people of the South.
Furthermore, during WWI, commanders had the hard task to translate their orders in different french dialects, yet all where considered french.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
That still doesn't automatically change his nationality to "hollywood". Lucas does most of his work in England and Australia, yet noones called him a "British" or "Australian" director.


Of course not. He makes movies for Hollywood. If you film a movie in Lybia, it doesn't make it a Lybian movie if your studio is a Hollywood one, your director's from Hollywood and the movie is made for the American market.

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Of course not. He makes movies for Hollywood. If you film a movie in Lybia, it doesn't make it a Lybian movie if your studio is a Hollywood one, your director's from Hollywood and the movie is made for the American market. I fail to see how this makes something a cinematic style though. Scott makes movies for himself with no specific audience in mind. The only thing I'll grant you is the hollywood studio. But that's just a hazard. It doesn't make him a "hollywood" director. It doesn't change his nationality, which was the original discussion.


Cinematic style isn't nationally specific. Someone could be pushed into a style though by their cultural uprbringing. Someone raised in a culture where you're to be more sublte, will make more sublte style movies. Someone raised in an outspoken culture will make movies with an outspoken style, no subtilty. These aren't nationally specific styles. That's my arguement.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
English is quite a uniform language, with only very minor variations from one place to another. That's not my point though. I'm saying because she's more subtle (because of her cultural upbringing) with the way she speaks, doesn't mean she's speaking a different type of english.

Let's say she's speaking the type of english commonly spoken in area A. Just because she doesn't say it in a more outspoken manner, doesn't mean she isn't speaking the type of english spoken commonly in area A. She is, she just says it more subtilty.


Anyway, this is a pointless debate as it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the post that started the whole ordeal. CapN was commenting on a post made by another member talking about american bias, Capn commented that Scott is infact british and therefore can't have "American" bias. "British" bias perhaps, but not "American".

And on top of that I'm having a hard time properly explaining myself and therefore any attempts to continue would only make myself look like a fool.

My apologies for dragging this out.

Astrotoy7
05-11-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
...And on top of that I'm having a hard time properly explaining myself and therefore any attempts to continue would only make myself look like a fool.

sithy, dont worry about it...we all have those days... I remember I had one back in 1987 ... JK ! :p

in the meantime, dont forget

Orlando = HUNK

mtfbwya

El Sitherino
05-11-2005, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
sithy, dont worry about it...we all have those days... I remember I had one back in 1987 ... JK ! :p

Evil. <3


Originally posted by Astrotoy7
(I)n the meantime, dont forget

Orlando = HUNK

mtfbwya Definitely.

Samuel Dravis
05-12-2005, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
One thing I am cringing though is the portrayal of Saladin and his forces.... I am hoping it is not a stereotypical "Hollywood Muslim" but I am sure It wont be otherwise :(

mtfbwya Saladin was a cool guy. I've read of some of his battles, and even played through some of them in Medieval TW scenarios. An interesting person. :)

toms
05-12-2005, 10:52 AM
Yeah... he basically kicked Richard's butt most of the time too... but then just as he was about to win he pretty much got voted out of power by his own generals. Sucks to be a military leader...

--------

Many, if not the majority of, hollywood films are filmed in canada and australia... but they are still clearly "hollywood films".

Personally I wouldn't describe Scott as a british director but a hollywood one. His first film was a big budget hollywood film, and all his films since have beent he same. I very much doubt he has lived in the UK since the 70s.

That isn't to say he has sold out, or that hollywood is somehow worse (though its definately less innovative). But there is a definate "hollywood style" and it is closely associated with the world's view of the US. Scott's films are much more associated with that view and style than british viewpoints or styles.

Many "hollywood directors" aren't american, but their nationality isn't really important to viewers, only their style.

El Sitherino
05-12-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by toms
Personally I wouldn't describe Scott as a british director but a hollywood one. His first film was a big budget hollywood film, and all his films since have beent he same. I very much doubt he has lived in the UK since the 70s.

That isn't to say he has sold out, or that hollywood is somehow worse (though its definately less innovative). But there is a definate "hollywood style" and it is closely associated with the world's view of the US. Scott's films are much more associated with that view and style than british viewpoints or styles.

Many "hollywood directors" aren't american, but their nationality isn't really important to viewers, only their style.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
CapN was commenting on a post made by another member talking about american bias, Capn commented that Scott is infact british and therefore can't have "American" bias. "British" bias perhaps, but not "American".

We've already settled it. No need to drag it on.

lukeiamyourdad
05-12-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by toms
Yeah... he basically kicked Richard's butt most of the time too... but then just as he was about to win he pretty much got voted out of power by his own generals. Sucks to be a military leader...

Uh, where did you get that?

Saladin made a treaty with Richard allowing christian pilgrims to go to Jerusalem unharmed after the war ended in a draw.

toms
05-13-2005, 08:51 AM
Yeah, but at the time saladin was basically about to win with one final push, but the other military and civil leaders had had enough of the war and wouldn't let him finish it. So he basically became a weakened leader who had little real power.

Its probable, though not certain, that if he had been allowed one final push he'd have beaten Richard (who was out of men, and worried about losing his throne back home), and might well have expanded into a lot of europe.

lukeiamyourdad
05-13-2005, 11:21 AM
He couldn't have. He died one year later after the Ramla peace treaty...and nobody could've replaced him as a military leader.

Feanaro
05-13-2005, 08:58 PM
I've seen Kingdom of Heaven and I must say, I liked it. I didn't find the movie bias towards Muslims or Christians at all. They were depicted as people who are more about the sanctity of life rather than Muslims are better than Christains, or vise versa. Of course the movie does have its villians and heros.

Prime
05-14-2005, 12:53 AM
I just saw it tonight. There isn't anything wrong with it, and the battles are quite good, but it just wasn't very memorable for some reason...

toms
05-16-2005, 10:00 AM
I finally saw it last night, so i can give an informed (:eek: ) opinion at last :p

It seemed pretty even handed to me as well. Bascially more anti-organised-religion rather than anything else. I still think that the trailers gave a different impression though.

As a film though i thought it sucked. Probably one of the worst films i've seen in the last year or so.
Disjointed, cliche ridden plot, lines and characters. Every scene was predictable from the very start.
("Dad makes him an offer, he turns him down, then rides after him later", the horse int he desert, the "spares enemy, enemy spares him", the "love story", "finds water in the desert and turns it into a green parand on and on...)

If they had made him an ex-navu seal then they might have managed to get a few more predictable cliches in there, but not many :D

Several scenes seemed like complete rip-offs of gladiator (from the opening snow setting to the "guys come to execute him, he kills them" scene).

Orlando bloom was ok, but i never had much sympathy for his character. His ability to have a 2 minute sword-fighting lesson and then suddenly be able to defeat multiple armed knights at once was impressive though ;)

Even the battle scenes, which i had hoped might save it, were disappointing and unmemorable. In gladiator they had energy and rythmn and you knew what was going on, in Kingdom they just seemed like lots of repeated random quick cuts of "forces crashign into each other" and "random close ups of impacts".

All in all i spent most of the film wishing i'd gone to watch ong-bak instead, and i saw three seperate groups of people get up and leave during the film, something i've never seen before.

Not recommended.