# Kingdom of Heaven



## Mark (Apr 26, 2005)

Kingdom of Heaven

Will the battles be better than in Alexander or Troy ?


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 26, 2005)

Well, a few early words are that it's surprisingly good, and Ridley Scott didn't mess up..

Note that these two articles may contain spoilers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/board/nest/18324037

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-1570727_1,00.html

Hopefully these (p)reviews hold up.

Banshee


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm hoping it's gonna be good.  Although I do admit that I'm getting really tired of Orlando Bloom; he's beginning to replace Ben Affleck at the top of my "Overexposed Actors whose 15 minutes can't get over soon enough" list.


----------



## Allanon (Apr 26, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Will the battles be better than in Alexander or Troy ?




Forget them being better than Alexander or Troy those can hardly be called benchmarks in epic movie battles. I want them to be on par or better than those in Lord of the Rings 

The trailers are showing a lot of promise and combined with the previews it looks like a nice early summer blockbuster.


----------



## Mark (Apr 27, 2005)

Judging by the "Kingdom of Heaven: HBO First Look" special, it'll rival LotR (perhaps, dare I say it, surpass?) in many ways.

The CG stuff looks amazing.  As good as that was for the LotR films, once you see a troll, oliphant, or nazgul, or even an orc, it does jar you out of the pseudo-reality.  The bits of the seige of Jerusalem they showed in the special were incredibly impressive.

They made period equipment (armor, weapons, etc.), so they say, for about 2,500 people.  Of course, for this (as opposed to LotR) they had a real period on which to base their equipment.  Same holds true for the seige weapons.

They, apparently, set a new record for the most people set on fire for a single stunt (56 people).

I've got to say that I felt the LotR films set a standard for movies similar to this (epic battles, fantastical, whether fictional or true, stories, etc.) that I thought would not be topped or even met in my lifetime.  Movies such as Arthur, Troy, and Alexander had me believing that would be true.  It seemed no matter what combination of cast, crew, director, producer, effects department, etc. that was brought together, such magic would not be available in significant quantity to even come close.  It looks to me like Kingdom of Heaven is going to prove me wrong.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 27, 2005)

You forgot to quote your self, Mark!


----------



## Krafus (Apr 27, 2005)

> Will the battles be better than in Alexander or Troy ?




That's not setting the bar high... I'll compare the battles of Kingdom of Heaven to those of LotR - like you, I feel the battles in those movies set the benchmark.


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 27, 2005)

Krafus said:
			
		

> That's not setting the bar high... I'll compare the battles of Kingdom of Heaven to those of LotR - like you, I feel the battles in those movies set the benchmark.




Well, the review I read said the battles were as thorough and well-done as those in Black Hawk Down, and that this was definitely a war movie.

What that entails, I'm not sure.  Same level of gore?  Seriousness?  Special effects?

Ridley Scott has done some awesome work, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.  The trailer looks pretty impressive already, so I'm hoping it's reflective of the movie itself.  I don't know if anyone's done a movie about the Crusades before, so it'll be interested to see.

Banshee


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Apr 28, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Forget them being better than Alexander or Troy those can hardly be called benchmarks in epic movie battles. I want them to be on par or better than those in Lord of the Rings





I'm thinking the Chronicles of Narnia will pull that off nicely, at least based on what i've seen so far.


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You forgot to quote your self, Mark!





Did I? 




			
				Krafus said:
			
		

> That's not setting the bar high... I'll compare the battles of Kingdom of Heaven to those of LotR - like you, I feel the battles in those movies set the benchmark.





Keeping my fingers crossed... 




			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I don't know if anyone's done a movie about the Crusades before, so it'll be interested to see.





I found information on only three of note, IMO - 

The Crusades (1935) (blockbuster)

King Richard and the Crusaders (1954) (blockbuster)

Naser Salah el Dine, El (1963) (blockbuster)

Not surprisingly, all have taken some liberties with the facts to craft a story deemed worthy of the silver screen, as the reviews listed above note that Scott has done, as well.  I've seen the first two of the three I've listed, years ago, and they can surely be considered some of the largest "spectacles" of their times, though the (second) Butler film was not well-received).  I've looked into the availability of the third and have discovered it is highly respected.  It might be fun to get ahold of all three as a Crusadathon Weekend follow up to Kingdom.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> I found information on only three of note, IMO -
> 
> The Crusades (1935) (blockbuster)
> 
> ...




_Alexander Nevsky_ could also be considered a crusader movie, although the crusaders in the movie are the villains (the Teutonic Knights), and the object of their crusade are Russians who are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. The battle scenes in the movie were considered great at the time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm really looking forward to seeing this flick.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 28, 2005)

Yup, it looks cool. I'll probably wait for the video, though.

I wonder what it is about Orlando Bloom that makes movie-makers think, "blacksmith-turned-warrior?"


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 28, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Yup, it looks cool. I'll probably wait for the video, though.
> 
> I wonder what it is about Orlando Bloom that makes movie-makers think, "blacksmith-turned-warrior?"




According to an interview with Ridley Scott, it doesn't appear to be that he seemed like a blacksmith turned warrior, so much as the fact that Scott was really impressed with him during the filming of Blackhawk Down, and believed that Orlando had the potential to be a leading man.

Probably the fact that he's been in several period pieces helped decide on him being the guy for Kingdom of Heaven.

Either that, or the fact that Kingdom of Heaven was the next film on Scott's slate as he was filming Blackhawk Down, and just wanted to give the opportunity outright.

Unfortunately, possible bad press is starting already.  I know that my local paper had a big picture and article about the film, front-page, this morning, asking whether it was smart to release this film right now, and whether it could cause hatred between Muslims and Christians etc.  The film goes out of its way to portray the Muslims as heroes, and Crusaders as villains from what I understand, though the truth wasn't so black and white.

In the interview, as I understood it, Ridley Scott mentioned that the film is more about the dangers of religious extremism, whether that is terrorists or Christian fundamentalists, etc.

I just hope it's going to be an awesome movie 

Banshee


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 29, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Yup, it looks cool. I'll probably wait for the video, though.
> 
> I wonder what it is about Orlando Bloom that makes movie-makers think, "blacksmith-turned-warrior?"



 It's obviously his mighty hurculean physique.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 29, 2005)

Or hephaestian phisique, even!


----------



## Mark (Apr 30, 2005)

Word has it that Bloom worked out like crazy for this and bulked up about twenty pounds for the role.


----------



## ssampier (Apr 30, 2005)

*Yeah baby!*

I'm anxious to see this movie. I have been in movie duldrums since Sin City (it was okay movie, but not what I was expecting). I was waiting for a decent, historical* movie. The fact the movie is on the crusades is only icing on the cake. I'm somewhat apprehensive since Orlando is in this movie. I liked his performance in LoTR, but didn't care for his performance in Pirates of the Carribean.

As for press, bad press doesn't mean much to me. I tend to love some movies that score poorly and hate the highly ranked ones.

* I mean historical in the movie sense, not the slavish, true-to-history sense. Frankly Braveheart is not historical accurate, but I love it anyway.


----------



## Olive (May 2, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, possible bad press is starting already.  I know that my local paper had a big picture and article about the film, front-page, this morning, asking whether it was smart to release this film right now, and whether it could cause hatred between Muslims and Christians etc.  The film goes out of its way to portray the Muslims as heroes, and Crusaders as villains from what I understand, though the truth wasn't so black and white.




From what I understand the film isn't so black and white either, and almost no coverage I've seen has suggested anythign like your newspaper has.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 2, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, possible bad press is starting already.  I know that my local paper had a big picture and article about the film, front-page, this morning, asking whether it was smart to release this film right now, and whether it could cause hatred between Muslims and Christians etc.  The film goes out of its way to portray the Muslims as heroes, and Crusaders as villains from what I understand, though the truth wasn't so black and white.




Damn, some of the reviews that are starting to pop up on the internet already are saying pretty much the same thing.  From what I'm hearing, the movie started out distorting history to portray the Muslims as good guys and villifying the Christians.  Despite this, the makers of the movie were still attacked by some Muslim special interest groups and even recieved a few death threats.  So in response, Ridley Scott slanted the movie's perspective even further until the special interest groups were appeased.  And, even though I'm no stickler for historical accuracy, historians have almost universally panned the movie for it's skewed history and romanticized view of Saladin.

I was really looking forward to this film, but now I'm debating over whether or not I should go to it.


----------



## Mark (May 2, 2005)

Since this has the awkward chance to turn into both a religious and political debate, I'm going to ask people NOT to simply say you "heard" this or that from now on.  If you have a link to a place where something SPECIFIC is being said, give it.  If you want to mention a review, mention who the reviewer was and where their review ran.  In this way people can follow up if they choose to do so and verify the legitimacy of a source.  If you don't have a link, at least cite the source.  I'm not saying anyone here has already done this but I want to avoid third-hand message board rumors from being propped up here as fact if it can be avoided.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 2, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Since this has the awkward chance to turn into both a religious and political debate, I'm going to ask people NOT to simply say you "heard" this or that from now on.  If you have a link to a place where something SPECIFIC is being said, give it.  If you want to mention a review, mention who the reviewer was and where their review ran.  In this way people can follow up if they choose to do so and verify the legitimacy of a source.  If you don't have a link, at least cite the source.  I'm not saying anyone here has already done this but I want to avoid third-hand message board rumors from being propped up here as fact if it can be avoided.




Unfortunately, one of the main articles I referenced was in my local paper...but the print version.  They also place their articles online, but you have to purchase an online subscription to get a login and see them.  So there's no way to place a link.

The other was a big expose/interview I saw on I believe Entertainment Weekly...or the Canadian variant thereof.

There is one final article, which I can reference, which was posted on www.cbc.ca, discussing the fact that an author is suing the Ridley Scott, claiming that he stole the author's idea, and used his characters......given the majority of the characters in the movie are actual historical characters (though possibly a fictitious take on what they did), I'm not sure how someone can have copyright over them.  Does this imply someone could have copyright over me someday?  Maybe I should buy shares now or something 

In any case, the article had a quote I found a little disheartening.....it mentions the writer did 19 months of historical research in order to write the script....but then mentions that he deliberately didn't read the books on the topic, for the precise point of not having a chance that somebody could claim that he copied their work.  So, if he read no books, how did he do his research?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/04/29/Arts/kingdom050429.html

Any search of Rotten Tomatoes, the IMDB, or other sources can turn up plenty of other links to articles discussing the same topics covered in this thread.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 2, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Damn, some of the reviews that are starting to pop up on the internet already are saying pretty much the same thing.  From what I'm hearing, the movie started out distorting history to portray the Muslims as good guys and villifying the Christians.  Despite this, the makers of the movie were still attacked by some Muslim special interest groups and even recieved a few death threats.  So in response, Ridley Scott slanted the movie's perspective even further until the special interest groups were appeased.  And, even though I'm no stickler for historical accuracy, historians have almost universally panned the movie for it's skewed history and romanticized view of Saladin.
> 
> I was really looking forward to this film, but now I'm debating over whether or not I should go to it.




I think it's less that the movie is villifying one group over the other, so much as that Ridley Scott was addressing religious intolerance etc. as a whole.  Everybody did bad things, and he tries to show that in the movie....at least so go the summaries I've heard.

And it seems that for every person saying they've seen it, and finds it balanced, there's somebody else getting angry.  Maybe that's par for the course, because it's a controversial topic?  Could be the same thing as what they say as a general guideline for balancing rules in D20....if everybody thinks it's too weak, or everyone thinks it's too strong, it probably is.  But is you get a mix of people believing each way, it's probably balanced.

Interestingly, IMDB has 507 votes already, and an average score of 8.0 on 10.  Not bad....not bad at all   Regardless of whether or not it is a slightly skewed vision of history may not be the point.  Maybe it has to be skewed to keep everyone happy?  There are plenty of "historical" films that have distorted history....U-571, Braveheart, The Messenger, etc. etc. etc.  Didn't even "Gladiator" have roman soldiers riding around on horses and using stirrups, even though they weren't available to Europeans until years later?  And crossbows in King Arthur?  Weren't they out centuries after the 6th Century?  But that doesn't mean that they weren't good films...

Banshee


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2005)

Thanks for the info, Banshee16. 



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, one of the main articles I referenced was in my local paper...but the print version.  They also place their articles online, but you have to purchase an online subscription to get a login and see them.  So there's no way to place a link.





I'd be interested to know the name of the paper and writer.  Maybe someone else here has access to it but is unaware it is available online.

And for the rest of the info, thanks, again.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 3, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, Banshee16.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure, it was the Ottawa Citizen, and I think it was either Thursday, Friday, or Saturday of the week past.  I didn't get the name of the writer.....I could go look through the garbage to see if I could find it, but that would be a little less appealing than doing an online search 

It was the front page article, above the fold, with a big photo of Orlando Bloom's face in chainmail coif and hood.

Banshee


----------



## Ranger REG (May 3, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm hoping it's gonna be good.  Although I do admit that I'm getting really tired of Orlando Bloom; he's beginning to replace Ben Affleck at the top of my "Overexposed Actors whose 15 minutes can't get over soon enough" list.



Meh. Orlando is much better than a couple of has-beens: Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise.

If I can just one whole year without either of the two because of Orlando, I'm golden.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 3, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Since this has the awkward chance to turn into both a religious and political debate, I'm going to ask people NOT to simply say you "heard" this or that from now on.  If you have a link to a place where something SPECIFIC is being said, give it.  If you want to mention a review, mention who the reviewer was and where their review ran.  In this way people can follow up if they choose to do so and verify the legitimacy of a source.  If you don't have a link, at least cite the source.  I'm not saying anyone here has already done this but I want to avoid third-hand message board rumors from being propped up here as fact if it can be avoided.



Here's the January 2004 article from the Daily Telegraph that first revealed the slant of the film and started the controversy.  It remains to be seen whether or not this article reflects the current cut of the film (Link requires registration).

Another one of the links I read was a Washington Times article that appeared shortly after the film began shooting.  Although, again, it may not reflect the current cut of the film.

A recent New York Times article on the movie quotes "Muslims are bent on coexistance until Christian extremists ruin everything."

More reviews are bound to come out later this week.  I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that the reports of pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias are exaggerated.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2005)

Thanks, Dark Jezter!  It helps a lot to keep things on track if we can point to where these reviews are and in what context.


----------



## Allanon (May 3, 2005)

some quotes and the links to the reviews they're from:



			
				Rich Cline said:
			
		

> Monahan's script, which leans toward thrusting expressions of machismo and corny emotion rather than any real character development. Like both Troy and Alexander, this leaves the film without a firm foundation; it's impossible to engage emotionally on any level. It's like watching a museum history film, although the plot is a bit suspect, since it's clearly been written to appeal to 21st century movie audiences, complete with heavy-handed moralising and obvious parallels to Bush-era politics.








			
				Anthony Lane said:
			
		

> One imagined that a movie about the Crusades would be gallant and mad; one feared that it might stoke some antiquated prejudice. But who could have dreamed that it would produce this rambling, hollow show about a boy?








			
				Michelle Thomas said:
			
		

> Balian has everything to play for, but has nothing to lose, and seems so distant from earthly ambition, so keen to be a perfect knight, that its impossible to care about him. He’s oddly passive, falling into one situation after another, but handily endowed with all the skills that he might need – he is in turns a blacksmith, farmer, irrigation expert, surveyor, general, military strategist and politician. As a medieval blacksmith he’d be lucky if he knew how to read! His perfection and nobility make him, sadly, really dull – he’s not tempted by power, not even for a moment. He just wants to be good.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 3, 2005)

Somewhat related:  I don't know if I'll see this movie (though in general I like Ridley Scott's work, and thought _Blackhawk Down_ was excellent, not to mention _Alien_, of course), but an excellent historical fiction about the Crusades is Evan S. Connell's _Deus Lo Volt!_

It's great, told from the skewed viewpoint of a knight on one of the Crusades, referencing previous Crusades, and chock full of fascinating storytelling.  It does a nice job of addressing much of the gray-area concerns surrounding the Crusades by basically saying, "Everybody does terrible things, and everybody insists their terrible things are the right thing to do!"

The language is very faithful to accounts from the period, and its like reading a wonderful tapestry, full of color and age and strange visual representations.

Highly recommended!

We now return to our regular movie discussion.

Warrior Poet

_edit:  Repaired homonym, retreating to hang head in shame._


----------



## Krug (May 3, 2005)

Seen it and didn't work for me.



Spoiler



Bloom didn't quite pull off the leading man role well. Felt hard to emphatise or be convinced that he could lead a group of men against hordes of Muslim warriors.

Maybe it goes a bit overboard with the 'It was Christians who started it all' angle. But I won't get into too much of that... the battles were pretty entertaining, with Saladin's warriors possessing siege engines of considerable power. Hmm.. must check up on this. 

I guess things had to be sugar-coated, and history be damned!.


6/10 for me.

The Hollywood Reporter likes it though.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 3, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> Seen it and didn't work for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I guess that's the crux of the matter.  I can appreciate if the movie is cool..it might not be 100% historically accurate.  My main concern is what I see in things like that article you just posted, where the writer evidently didn't have a firm grasp of history.....I guess the danger to changing the history in the movie is that somebody could leave there with an incorrect understanding of what actually happened, who started what, etc. etc. etc.  But, I think anybody would have to be foolish to expect truth out of Hollywood in any case.....I've seen very few "historical" films that were very historically accurate.  Especially, unfortunately, those made by Hollywood as opposed to independent or foreign film companies.

I'm looking forward to seeing the film.....just hope it's not *too* distorted that it makes it hard to watch.  But the whole idea of a gritty movie with good costumes, special effects, interesting story, etc., and good or decent acting, about the medieval ages....I'm all for that 

Banshee


----------



## warlord (May 4, 2005)

As long as Orlando doesn't go all Robin Hood on people I think the movie looks great.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 4, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> As long as Orlando doesn't go all Robin Hood on people I think the movie looks great.




That's a pretty good term 

Yes, I hope he's no archer in this movie.

I don't think that he's as bad as some popular opinion would have it....no worse than several other "pretty boy" Hollywood actors were early in their careers.  I'm no fanboy though.

Just, please, no bows.  Walloping with swords, running people over in cavalry charges?  That would be acceptable 

Banshee


----------



## Fast Learner (May 5, 2005)

Saw it tonight, and gave it an 8.

Entertaining throughout, with good storytelling. I don't know much about the crusades and so there were no history issues for me (other than the medieval blacksmith who could 



Spoiler



read, learned massive fighting skills very quickly, knew how to use survey equipment, knew how to defend a walled city against seige,


 and many other amazing things that seemed unlikely.

I thought Bloom was just fine. Not strong, but it wasn't a strong role, in a weird way.

Too much hand-held camera for my taste, made the fights too chaotic. Yeah, I know, I'm sure they were chaotic in real life, but you don't heat up the theater every time they show a desert scene, do you? I want to see what's going on.

As allegory for today, it wasn't too shabby.


----------



## David Howery (May 5, 2005)

I'm not crazy about the idea that the movie has gone all PC and paints the moslems as good guys and nothing but, and the Crusaders as bad guys and nothing but.  There were good and bad guys on both sides... I'd rather they just told the story, and present all of them as people, not saints or devils.

And I'd still like to see a movie on the 1st Crusade...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 5, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the idea that the movie has gone all PC and paints the moslems as good guys and nothing but, and the Crusaders as bad guys and nothing but.  There were good and bad guys on both sides... I'd rather they just told the story, and present all of them as people, not saints or devils.
> 
> And I'd still like to see a movie on the 1st Crusade...




Well, watch for reviews, to see if that's how it was portrayed in the movie.  I *think* that it will be somewhat balanced.  Unless the plotline of the movie is different from what I heard about last night on the Learning Channel, the story does involve Balian organizing the defense of Jerusalem against the Moslems, as opposed to against Crusaders, which is what some reviews and previews have indicated.

As to him being a blacksmith etc. I guess that's one of those historical things where they don't know that he was, but they also don't know that he wasn't.  So, they made some assumptions, in the attempt to tell a better story.

I'm pleased to see some of the reviews and scores that have been coming out so far.  Sounds like it'll be interesting..

Banshee


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 5, 2005)

It's not doing so well at RottenTomatoes, running at 44% at the moment.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/

I was thinking about seeing this over the weekend, but it sounds like it's more like a rental. I've grown to trust RT since it's an aggregate of many reviewers, so the bias tends to get sorted out, and you're left with a pretty good indicator of the quality of the movie.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 5, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I'm not crazy about the idea that the movie has gone all PC and paints the moslems as good guys and nothing but, and the Crusaders as bad guys and nothing but.  There were good and bad guys on both sides... I'd rather they just told the story, and present all of them as people, not saints or devils.



Fortunately the idea you're not crazy about isn't the story of this film. There are good Crusaders, and a bit of bad Saracens.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 5, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I've grown to trust RT since it's an aggregate of many reviewers, so the bias tends to get sorted out, and you're left with a pretty good indicator of the quality of the movie.



Yes, but the number tends to not be useful until the Friday the film opens -- if you look at this one, there are very few "cream of the crop" reviews included in the number, and the "cream of the crop" average is 71% (fresh). I tend to wait until Friday before using the number as any kind of guide, when more reviews are included.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 5, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> It's not doing so well at RottenTomatoes, running at 44% at the moment.
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/
> 
> I was thinking about seeing this over the weekend, but it sounds like it's more like a rental. I've grown to trust RT since it's an aggregate of many reviewers, so the bias tends to get sorted out, and you're left with a pretty good indicator of the quality of the movie.




Well, I wouldn't worry too much....that 44% isn't indicative of the average score, first of all....which is 5.8 on 10.  More importantly, most of these are pre-release reviews, and from minor, minor media, many of whom I don't trust in any case.  The major ones I tend to agree with seem to be scoring it higher.  And if you're just looking for sample size, last I checked, IMDB has something like 600 votes, and is scoring 7.8 on 10.

The fact that in several of the reviews, such as the one by the Hollywood Reporter, there are blatant falsehoods that indicate an incomplete/incorrect understanding of history, and that that misunderstanding led to their poor score, seems to discredit those reviews in the first place.  

I really like (sarcasm) one reviewer who called the main character, Balian of Ibelin, a flat, fictional character.  From the reading I've been doing, aside from the fact that they made him a blacksmith in the movie, he did exist.  There are genealogical records that refer to him, historical references, everything.

In any case, I guess we'll see over the next few days how it turns out.

Banshee


----------



## David Howery (May 6, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> the story does involve Balian organizing the defense of Jerusalem against the Moslems, as opposed to against Crusaders, which is what some reviews and previews have indicated.
> Banshee



??? organizing the defences of Jerusalem against the Moslems?!  In the 3rd Crusade, the Moslems held Jerusalem.. that was the whole point of the 3rd Crusade.  Richard marched on it twice, but decided both times that he couldn't take and hold Jerusalem, and never did conquer it.  Richard did capture several other cities, but not Jerusalem...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 6, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> ??? organizing the defences of Jerusalem against the Moslems?!  In the 3rd Crusade, the Moslems held Jerusalem.. that was the whole point of the 3rd Crusade.  Richard marched on it twice, but decided both times that he couldn't take and hold Jerusalem, and never did conquer it.  Richard did capture several other cities, but not Jerusalem...




The movie doesn't take place during the 3rd Crusade.  It takes place between the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd Crusades.

I would say more, but it would give away the plot of the movie.  But I've been doing some reading, and there is historical basis behind the majority of the plot of the movie.  Balian of Ibelin did exist, and many of the things that happen in the movie did occur.  Details here and there have apparently been tweaked to make a better movie, but the general story is correct.

Assume that the love story, Balian's being a blacksmith, and a few other elements might be completely fictional, but that much of the rest did occur.

I'm a bit upset that I went and did that reading, because now I've got a fairly clear idea of what's going to happen in the movie, but I'm glad that the plot of the movie is not all just made up.

Banshee


----------



## Krug (May 6, 2005)

On Metacritic it's at 66%.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 6, 2005)

Ebert loved it.

RottenTomatoes has it at42% today. 

Stunning, really. I thought it was quite good. A fair bit better than _Crash_, which has 80%. Hard to fathom. Maybe its too much of a religious issue. The Christians aren't portrayed very positively.

Or maybe my taste is just skewed.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 6, 2005)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Ebert loved it.
> 
> RottenTomatoes has it at42% today.
> 
> ...




I trust critics about as far as I can throw them in most cases....case in point, "Sideways" won all this critical acclaim, but when I actually watched it the other week, I was rather less than impressed.  It was supposed to be a comedy?

IMDB has a good aggregate score of regular movie fans...there it's amassed over 1300 votes, with an average of 7.3 on 10.  Even Rotten Tomatoes is a bit deceptive.  The overall score is 42%, but the Creme de la creme score, which is the one that matters is something like 60%.

I'm glad to hear you liked it.  I'm looking forward to it, but probably won't have a chance to catch it until next week.  Hopefully these reviews don't destroys its hopes of good box office for the weekend.

Banshee


----------



## jasamcarl (May 7, 2005)

I'm actually going to see it with my brother next week, though I fully expect it to suck. The Times hated it and they tend to be who I look to for a very 'orthdox' sense of good taste. 

It's always fun to muscle through an overblown epic and then tear it apart in conversation for days afterward.


----------



## Hopping Vampire (May 7, 2005)

not a bad movie at all, esp. considering i hate Orlando Bloom with a passion. It was well written, though not mauch character development.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 7, 2005)

I just got home from seeing this film. I thought the action was great, very similar to Gladiator, to be expected though. I thought the story was good, the  ending was a little ehh for me, but still good. I thought the acting was good as well. I gave it an 8. The movie entertained me for 2+ hrs so I was happy.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 7, 2005)

I really enjoyed. Probably would of liked it even more if not for the goings on in the seat next to me, but it is all good. Gave it an 8.


----------



## Tauric (May 7, 2005)

I saw it a few hours ago, and for the most part, liked it.

The begining was a bit forced, I thought.  It seemed like certain scenes were cut short.  There was not a lot of character development, the motivations of some of the characters were unclear.

I thought the film did a good job showing that there were peace-seeking people on both sides, as well has both sides having their warmongers.

I gave the movie a 7/10 (the script had some flat moments, some of Balian's skills were over the top:  he's a blacksmith, and strategist, a hydrological engineer, etc).

Historically speaking, I gave it a B+ ( I majored in medieval history  at university).


----------



## johnsemlak (May 7, 2005)

Saw it and liked it, but didn't think it was extraordinary.  Much better than previous pseudohistorical epics like Troy, probably not as good as LotR, but worth of comaprison at least for the battle scences.


I thought the main problem is that once King Baldwin dies, the whole direction of the movie is obvious--Raynard leads his army out to a predictable massacre, Saladin besieges Jerusalem, and the city is captured.  The battle scenes are impressive, but otherwise very little happens during that last part of the film thats intriguing.[/spoiler]


----------



## Imperialus (May 8, 2005)

One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys". 

You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.


----------



## johnsemlak (May 8, 2005)

Imperialus said:
			
		

> One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys".
> 
> You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.



 Yeah, that was interesting.  I don't know much about the Knights Hospitaller, or their rivaly with the Templars, but the actions of Reynard, inlcuding his ill-advised aggression towards Saladin and so on, were based on real events.

In general I thnink the religious piety and fanaticism of the Knights and Crusaders was glossed over.  It's probably hard to convey to a modern audience.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 8, 2005)

Saw it today.  I'd vote it a 7 out of 10.  Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson), and the battle scenes were quite good (although claiming that they're as good as the ones in Return of the King is a _big_ stretch).

Thankfully.  The movie didn't portray Christians as evil and Muslims as good like some of the early reviews claimed (although the movie did seem more willing to show Christians commiting atrocities than Muslims, so I guess there was some bias).


----------



## Fast Learner (May 8, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I trust critics about as far as I can throw them in most cases....case in point, "Sideways" won all this critical acclaim, but when I actually watched it the other week, I was rather less than impressed.  It was supposed to be a comedy?



No, it was supposed to be a drama with dark comedy elements. Which it was. I never understood why some people thought it was a comedy. I guess the previews had too many humorous scenes or something.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2005)

Imperialus said:
			
		

> One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys".
> 
> You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.




I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment on their portrayal in the film, but a possible explanation (based on my knowledge of the Knights Templar) may have to do with a much later development, historically, that being their denunciation as heretics and subsequent disbanding and destruction by the Catholic church in the early years of the 12th century. AFAIK, the Knights Hospitaller were never subject to any such inquisition. Perhaps this (admittedly after the fact) treatment of the later Knights Templar is what influenced the filmmakers' decision to cast them in a "bad" light.


----------



## Klaus (May 8, 2005)

Dark Jezter: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson) (...)"

Fixed that for ya: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great [except in the D&D movie], as is Liam Neeson) (...)"


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2005)

The only problem with these early movie threads, is that I come to them hoping to find someone who's seen the movie and comment, and pretty much the entire first page is pre-movie rumors and discussion.  <Sigh>

I'm leaning more and more towards just renting this one after all.  My expectations are pretty mixed based on the reviews I've seen and the comments here.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 8, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Dark Jezter: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson) (...)"
> 
> Fixed that for ya: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great [except in the D&D movie], as is Liam Neeson) (...)"



 Nah, he was great even in the D&D movie.  Even when he's over-acting to a silly degree, he's still great.


----------



## Mark (May 8, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The only problem with these early movie threads, is that I come to them hoping to find someone who's seen the movie and comment, and pretty much the entire first page is pre-movie rumors and discussion. < Sigh >




I like having all of that information (including pre-release conjecture, the rumors from around the Internet, early reviews from some critics, the scoop from Fast Learner or whoever might catch a pre-screening, and the obligatory EN World poll) in one place so that I can find them easily and reference them as many more EN Worlders see the film and form their opinions.  Too often in the past I found that early reviews and rumors would get spread out for a month preceding a movie over several threads and, of course, once the film comes out we wind up with two competing threads because someone has one thread going and someone else starts up a thread with a rating poll.  There were a few movies this year on which I really didn't feel like juggling several (or more) threads.  Still, you and Dark Jezter have convinced me to cease and desist with the early movie threads.  Besides, I think Sin City, Hitchhiker's, and Kingdom of Heaven were the three big flicks I was geared up about this year, so the point is moot.  



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm leaning more and more towards just renting this one after all.  My expectations are pretty mixed based on the reviews I've seen and the comments here.




I'm leaning more toward needing to see it on the big screen because my primary interest is the battle sequences.  Maybe there will be an IMAX version...


----------



## johnsemlak (May 8, 2005)

I think Kingdom of Heaven may suffer from following a large number of pseudo-historical epics (Troy, King Arthur, and Alexander).  People may simply be tired of them, or may have thought that the similar films were mediocre.


----------



## Abraxas (May 9, 2005)

Just saw it, give it an 8.
[SBLOCK]It didn't paint all christians as evil, blood thristy wackos, it just showed some people using religion as an excuse for doing evil things.  The fact that the story is shown primarily from the crusader's side just means we get to see more "so called" christians acting this way, they do however show a few muslim character's acting in a similar manner[/SBLOCK]


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 9, 2005)

Well surprise, I did end up seeing it this weekend. When I was going to visit my parents for Mothers Day, they were on their way to the film so I decided to tag along.

Having gone in with lowered expectations, I'm torn now on how to rate it. The story while interesting, just didn't grab me, and neither did the characters. Actually the most interesting character I thought was King Baldwin, but he isn't explored much. Balian is a bit of a cold character, and tough to empathise with. It doesn't help that his character goes from being a simple blacksmith to an "uber-mensch" overnight? He's literate, green-thumb, hydro-scientist, uncanny strategist, leader of men, and invincible swordsman overnight? It was all just a little too much.   

The film opens with a rushed jumble of hard to believe sequences, then settles in for some interesting character introductions and scenery, only to unravel pretty ho-hum, exactly how you think it will to the end.

The script also left little mystery to be desired. The characters all tell you exactly what is happening, what will happen, or how you should feel. You aren't EVER going to wonder what is going on, or what is coming up, or what anyone might have meant by what they said. It's written very much on a young-adult level.   

Having said all that, it was mildly entertaining, and full of eye candy that is fit for a big screen. Besides I'm a sucker for any movie with knights and swordfights.    I guess I would recommend catching it for an afternoon matinee.

I'm rating it a 6.


----------



## Aeric (May 9, 2005)

I gave it an 8.  Beautiful sets and costuming, the battles were well-paced out...not too much in the way of character development, and Liam Neeson's part was a lot smaller than I had hoped it would be, but I found Bloom to be considerably less annoying in this film than in LotR or Troy (which, quite frankly, bored me).  I would see it again if my friends invited me or something, but I probably wouldn't go on my own volition.  Definitely a DVD I will buy, though.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 9, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Saw it and liked it, but didn't think it was extraordinary.  Much better than previous pseudohistorical epics like Troy, probably not as good as LotR, but worth of comaprison at least for the battle scences.
> 
> 
> I thought the main problem is that once King Baldwin dies, the whole direction of the movie is obvious--Raynard leads his army out to a predictable massacre, Saladin besieges Jerusalem, and the city is captured.  The battle scenes are impressive, but otherwise very little happens during that last part of the film thats intriguing.[/spoiler]




Isn't that the point?  That's what happened in history, isn't it?

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 9, 2005)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> No, it was supposed to be a drama with dark comedy elements. Which it was. I never understood why some people thought it was a comedy. I guess the previews had too many humorous scenes or something.




Ah, I see...we were told it was a comedy by an associate of my girlfriend's.  In all honesty, it had the "feel" of a movie I didn't think I was going to like, but she wanted to see it, since she'd been told it was fantastic.  In the end, neither of us were very impressed.

Banshee


----------



## johnsemlak (May 9, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Isn't that the point?  That's what happened in history, isn't it?
> 
> Banshee




Oh, agreed, I can't blame the film for being preditable for (more or less) correctly protraying historical events.    I guess I wish there had been a bit more depth in the portrayal.


----------



## johnsemlak (May 9, 2005)

Aeric said:
			
		

> Definitely a DVD I will buy, though.




The DVD will have nearly an hour more I believe--I'm looking forward to it already.


----------



## threshel (May 9, 2005)

Saw it yesterday, rated it a 7/10.  A couple of things I liked:  King Baldwin's portreyal is definitely how to get the most out of a guy with a mask on - Edward Norton is brilliant.  The total immersion factor is huge; Ridley Scott really knows how to show you a world.
Oh, and Balian didn't learn all that stuff overnight.  King Baldwin died in 1185, and Jerusalem didn't fall until 1187.  That's two years that the movie passed over in two minutes.  The movie actually takes place over the span of several years, although Ridley doesn't really show it well in this version.
His original cut was 3:40 (to be released to DVD next year), and the theatrical version at 2:22 feels clipped and rushed.  It should with that much cut.  That's the main reason I gave it a 7 and not higher.
I felt that the portreyal of Christians and Muslims was pretty fair.  There was definite bad and good on both sides.
I have very high hopes for the DVD.  I'm a fan of movies being as long as they need to be, and this one needed to be longer.

J


----------



## Wombat (May 9, 2005)

Like most movies with Ridley Scott, I found the film intriguing, but not for the usual reasons people would associate with that statement.  Much like _Gladiator_ he went to a lot of time, trouble, and expense to get so many little things right about Rome, and then went wildly off the mark with large things.  This film fits about the same place for me -- so much work on small details (I was very impressed with the armour for the major characters and the fact that they got the tabards for the different knightly Orders correct), yet the tale just didn't gel for me.

In the end I give it a 5 -- some fun popcorn action, some very good acting, and a "Huh?" story.


----------



## Vonlok The Bold (May 11, 2005)

The movie was really enjoyable to me.  I did see the faults of it in many places but somehow the whole was equal to much more than the sum of its parts.  If I looked at each individual aspect it would have gotten a 5 or a 6.  But I gave it an 8.

Acting - It was all adequate.  There wasn't a bad performance.  There weren't any exceptional performances either, really, but everyone did a suitable job with their parts.

Sets/Scenery - Very nicely done.  I especially loved the shots set in Europe.  It could have shown a little more of the vastness in the middle east setting, similar to the way it was done in Lawrence of Arabia.

Writing - Not overly sappy which is always a real concern with me.  Some characters seemed 2 dimensional and could have used some more develpment.  More background on the philosphy of the Templars, and Hospitlars, would have filled out the movie and characters a little bit as well.  It was adequate.

Direction/editing - Bloom's character did become a master of all trades seemingly quickly and easily, and it was a minor distraction.  It wasn't a huge problem, just something slight that I noticed, and quickly ignored.  It had a slight drag in the middle, and some of the rest of the scenes could have been developed more.

The battle scenes were terrific, and fun to watch.  I especially liked the smaller scale battle scene that takes place before Balian ever reaches the holy land.

Overall - Like I said above, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts in this movie.  It could just be my own bizarre preference, but I liked it.


----------



## shilsen (May 11, 2005)

Wombat said:
			
		

> In the end I give it a 5 -- some fun popcorn action, some very good acting, and a "Huh?" story.




I just got back and that was pretty much my take on it. My main problem with it was that there really was nothing in the movie that really made it stand out for me. None of the characters were developed enough to make one truly interested in them and they were all quite two-dimensional. The story itself wasn't particularly compelling and was fairly predictable, even for someone who doesn't know the history. The action scenes weren't too exciting either, perhaps because I'll never view a siege the same way again after the siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. All in all, it was entertaining, but I wouldn't recommend it to others.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 11, 2005)

I just saw the movie tonight, and really liked it.  There were a few changes, such as Balian's origins, and the way the ending worked out, but aside from that, it seems to have gotten a lot of the history of what happened correct.

Sort of like Master and Commander, this movie really put me in the middle of the 12th Century.  I really enjoyed that aspect, loved the authenticism.

I didn't find Orlando Bloom's acting to be poor.  He's not Russel Crowe, but it was a different kind of role.  Given the claims that there was no character development, I did find some.  The city basically falls, because he refused to do what was necessary, because it would cause him to violate the principles he was trying to live up to, to redeem himself.  At the beginning of the movie, he didn't have that direction.

The action scenes were awesome, and the cinematography was beautiful.

There was one character...one of the Muslims serving Saladin that seemed to bear a huge resemblance to the guy that played Dr. Bashere on Deep Space Nine.  is that the same actor?  I think his name is Alexander Siddig....

The movie did slow down at points, and was not entirely an action movie.  But I didn't see that necessarily as a bad thing, as the story of what was going on was important.  i do think they should have had more datelines and such, to ensure that non-historians would understand what was going on.  I know my girlfriend was a little confused.

Overall, I think the movie deserves a better fate than what the critics would give it.  It's a pretty good movie...just not perfect.  I'd give it a 7 or 8.

Banshee


----------



## Chain Lightning (May 11, 2005)

I've seen better from Ridley.

But even a bad Ridley film is still worth watching.    No where near as good as "Black Hawk Down". I agree with Fast Learner, too much hand held shakey cam. Which I actually don't mind, but its how its done. In "Black Hawk Down" they used hand held too, but I was still able to see what was going on because they'd cut wide more often to re-establish the situation. Or, when they went in close, the didn't go so close as to confuse what I needed to see to make the scene more dramatic. The close in melee fights in "Kingdom of Heaven" were a disappointment to me. 

Same problem I had with "Gladiator". Don't know why cinematographers and directors are still using this style. I really don't. The whole "puts me in the action" reason is silly to me. Point 1: I'm not in the action, I'm witness to it. I'm watching a story, not taking part in one.
Point 2: If I was in the action, my peripheral vision would afford me more to see .... and .... I wouldn't be shaking my head like a crazy man while sword fighting.  

I would love to see an extended version too on DVD. I can tell a lot of stuff was cut out for film length. 

I give it a 7 out of 10. Initially a 6, but the visuals of a lot of scenes were cool enough to elevate the film up one more notch. And the story is semi-decent. Although the plot revolving around the end siege is rather thin and shakey.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 11, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> There was one character...one of the Muslims serving Saladin that seemed to bear a huge resemblance to the guy that played Dr. Bashere on Deep Space Nine.  is that the same actor?  I think his name is Alexander Siddig....
> Banshee




It was the same actor..


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796502/


----------



## Banshee16 (May 11, 2005)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I've seen better from Ridley.
> 
> But even a bad Ridley film is still worth watching.    No where near as good as "Black Hawk Down". I agree with Fast Learner, too much hand held shakey cam. Which I actually don't mind, but its how its done. In "Black Hawk Down" they used hand held too, but I was still able to see what was going on because they'd cut wide more often to re-establish the situation. Or, when they went in close, the didn't go so close as to confuse what I needed to see to make the scene more dramatic. The close in melee fights in "Kingdom of Heaven" were a disappointment to me.
> 
> ...




I was a little confused as to why they didn't mention the ransom the Christians had to pay to leave.....maybe for fear of making the character of Saladin less sympathetic?  Not sure....

I'm interested in finding out what they cut in the movie.  If they put it into a DVD, I'm all over that.  My concern would be that this movie doesn't do well enough in the theatres to justify an extended DVD.  Unless Scott has enough clout to make it happen regardless.  $20M on the opening weekend isn't exactly gangbusters.

I agree though....I didn't think it was Ridley Scott's best film, but I actually liked it better than Black Hawk Down.  BHD was just 1.5 hours of watching people get killed in ugly ways.  Admittedly, they were trying to portray what happened, but I just found that after a while, my brain just shut down.  Maybe I don't have the emotional investment because I'm not American or something, I don't know.  There just wasn't enough time making me care about the soldiers before they started getting killed.

But even a weak film by Ridley Scott is apparently better than what many other filmmakers can create.

Banshee


----------



## Look_a_Unicorn (May 12, 2005)

I enjoyed this movie- not because it was particularly exciting or dramatic- the plot and characters I found to be a bit weak towards the end- but because of ... well...

I won't go into it, because religious debate isn't a topic for these boards, but I really enjoyed seeing the way the religions were presented as being of equal merit- with equal right to their holy place. I thought it was a ballsy move, and it mimics my own thoughts quite closely.

Or maybe I'm only seeing what I wanted to see?


----------



## Flyspeck23 (May 12, 2005)

My anticipations have been rather low, but in the end I liked it (7/10). Much better than Troy - but that doesn't say much, really.

Edward Norton was great - and I didn't even _know_ it had been Norton.




			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I was a little confused as to why they didn't mention the ransom the Christians had to pay to leave.....maybe for fear of making the character of Saladin less sympathetic? Not sure....




Or maybe for fear of making Balian seem less heroic?




			
				Look_a_Unicorn said:
			
		

> I won't go into it, because religious debate isn't a topic for these boards, but I really enjoyed seeing the way the religions were presented as being of equal merit- with equal right to their holy place. I thought it was a ballsy move, and it mimics my own thoughts quite closely.
> 
> Or maybe I'm only seeing what I wanted to see?




No. I'd agree.


----------



## Dr. Talos (May 13, 2005)

It was David Thewliss not Ed Norton, though I do think Ed Norton would have pulled that role off beautifully.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 13, 2005)

Dr. Talos said:
			
		

> It was David Thewliss not Ed Norton, though I do think Ed Norton would have pulled that role off beautifully.




Um?  Thewlis played a hospitaler - Godfrey's friend.

Norton played the masked king.

-Hyp.


----------



## ssampier (May 14, 2005)

I enjoyed the movie alot, but I was hoping Liam Nielsen would have a bigger role in this movie. I find I don't like Orland Bloom as a lead in a movie, but he's a fine as a side-kick (possibly why I didn't care for in Pirates, but enjoyed him LoTR).

Regardless I enjoyed the movie. The middle portion before the king's death was a bit boring to me as I didn't really care who was bickering over what. I felt that portion was missing something that tied everything together and might make me care why they were bickering.

I give it an 8.5, good, but could be better. I would have enjoyed if Bloom's character had another strong character to give him more depth. As such he was fairly flat 



Spoiler



the murder of the priest and the subsequent denial of faith seemed tacked, since he wanted everyone, Christian, Jews, and Muslims to "get along". Did I miss something?


.


----------



## Jeremy (May 15, 2005)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> the medieval blacksmith who could
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yup.  That was my major problem with it too.  The things they teach them french peasants in the Dark Ages...  Amazing.  

But I'm happy, I got to see Liam with a sword again.  Always enjoy that for some reason.  He must be a helluva teacher though.  How many guys do you know that can hold the line when the wall is breached until the bodies pile so high as to halt the battle?  I mean, I saw plenty of defenders dead behind him, and plenty attackers dead in front of him...  But how long can a guy fight with an injured arm and not even take another scrape?  That's skillz!  Good to be the main character.

I think there's a template for that.  +200 HP and +20 AC.


----------



## Dr. Talos (May 15, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Um?  Thewlis played a hospitaler - Godfrey's friend.
> 
> Norton played the masked king.
> 
> -Hyp.




I stand corrected


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 15, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I find I don't like Orland Bloom as a lead in a movie, but he's a fine as a side-kick (possibly why I didn't care for in Pirates, but enjoyed him LoTR).




Bah.  Bloom _was_ a sidekick in Pirates 

-Hyp.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 18, 2005)

Finally saw it yesterday. I have the image of Orlando brandishing his throbbing sword high above his head burned into my memory. It was okay, but I look forward to actually hearing every word said when it comes out on DVD. I thought the the final battle in the movie was the best, especially when the mobile invasion towers went crashing down!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 18, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Bah.  Bloom _was_ a sidekick in Pirates
> 
> -Hyp.



Johnny Depp is to play Willy Wonka in Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. Tehehe!


----------



## Joker (May 18, 2005)

Does anyone know if the Saracenes had those kind of siege towers?

Also, do Trebuchets really have that kind of range on them?  Or is another one of Ridley's examples of ammunition going 678 times further than it should?

I wasn't expecting much so I wasn't too dissapointed when I saw it.  Gave it a 6/10.

Like others have said, the movie felt rushed, like they wanted to get it over with.  It was entertaining though so I won't whine too much about it.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 18, 2005)

I saw it last night. Pretty darn good movie. I was very pleased with it.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 18, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the Saracenes had those kind of siege towers?
> 
> Also, do Trebuchets really have that kind of range on them? Or is another one of Ridley's examples of ammunition going 678 times further than it should?




NOVA's special on them had their test machine smashing a wall at 200 yards with 250-pound ball travelling over 100mph, but a machine with a larger arm would probably have a longer range. Only recently were modern scientists able to figure out how the things worked at all, so Scott's perfectly within his rights to have them toss things however far he wants


----------



## amethal (May 19, 2005)

Just seen the film, really enjoyed it. Gave it an 8. Good fun, sword and shield medieval adventure. 

It seemed historically accurate to me - I'm not an expert, and I don't know what kind of siege equipment the Saracens had, but I don't imagine they were threatening Jerusalem with only log rams and home-made ladders, so catapults and siege towers is fine with me.

I liked the message of religious tolerance, and I am not bothered that the muslims were shown to be more tolerant than the christians, in this one situation. There are plenty of sympathetic characters on both sides.

The only thing I didn't like was the fight scene early on. I don't want to give spoilers, but I'd like to think that given the standard of medieval medicine people would think long and hard before starting a large fight against battle hardened opponents.

The film is well worth seeing, especially on the big screen.


----------



## BronzeDragon (May 19, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I was a little confused as to why they didn't mention the ransom the Christians had to pay to leave.....maybe for fear of making the character of Saladin less sympathetic?  Not sure....





*SPOILERS* 





























For precisely the same reason why they did not mention that Balian actually went to Hittin (Hattin) and fled in order not to be slaughtered.

Same reason why they changed one of the main characters, Raymond of Antioch, into Tiberias (played by Irons), which was actually the name of a city by the shores of the lake of the same name. Raymond (Tiberias) made an alliance with Salah al-Din, then was forced to repent and again make war on the Muslims.

Same reason why they changed Sybila into King Baldwin IV's sister instead of wife, and made her an unwilling partner to Guy de Lusignan, instead of having her fall in love with Guy even before the death of her husband.

Same reason why they make Salah al-Din come to Balian to propose terms, instead of precisely the other way around. Same reason why they make Balian argue for the survival of all inhabitants of Jerusalem right from the start, instead of properly requesting safe-conduct for himself first.

Same reason why they show Balian working on a farm, instead of properly staying away from any kind of manual labor...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2005)

BronzeDragon said:
			
		

> *SPOILERS*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So my point rests....for dramatic purposes, and to make the character more sympathetic, etc. 

Banshee


----------



## Laurel (May 19, 2005)

After seeing this I was kind of disappointed.  I had been looking forward to it, but instead had to satisfy myself that at least Orlando Bloom ran around the entire time looking nice.

Oh and Bashir 

Otherwise though I really just couldn't wait for it to end.  There wasn't enough of anything to make it good.


----------

