Kingdom of Heaven

LeslieAGD · #1 05-07-2005, 03:59 PM

This movie rocked!

It was so refreshing to see a great war period movie (after the disasters that were Troy, King Arthur, and Alexander)! From now on, I seriously think that only Ridley Scott and Mel Gibson should be allowed to make these kind of movies...everyone else ruins them!

moe.ron · #2 05-09-2005, 05:54 AM

Eva Green is hot yow.

Lady Pi Phi · #3 05-09-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
Eva Green is hot yow.

She may be good looking, but I think she's a terrible actress. I really enjoyed this movie and i thought it was good. She was the only thing that was wrong with the movie.

MysticCat · #4 05-09-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
This movie rocked! It was so refreshing to see a great war period movie

As long as you're not expecting an accurate or even plausible understanding of the crusades.

LeslieAGD · #5 05-09-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MysticCat81
As long as you're not expecting an accurate or even plausible understanding of the crusades.

Was it 100% historically accurate? No...but if you look for accuracy in Hollywood you won't find it. I think it was a well told story that was "fair" to both sides (neither "side" was portrayed as the good guys or the bad guys) and it wasn't too preachy. That's a thumbs up for me.

Lady Pi Phi · #6 05-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
Was it 100% historically accurate? No...but if you look for accuracy in Hollywood you won't find it...

LOL, I had this same conversation with my parents last night. You will never find 100% accuarcy in Hollywood. There movie makers, not historians. They're out to make a buck. I think if you came away from the film entertained, then they did their job.

It might even inspire someone to educate themselves on the crusades...maybe from more accurate sources.

MysticCat · #7 05-09-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
LOL, I had this same conversation with my parents last night. You will never find 100% accuarcy in Hollywood. There movie makers, not historians. They're out to make a buck. I think if you came away from the film entertained, then they did their job.

It might even inspire someone to educate themselves on the crusades...maybe from more accurate sources.

Very valid point, with which I readily agree.

The problem is that too many people don't understand this. They think what they see in a medical or courtroom TV show or movie is how it really is. They watch a "Kingdom of Heaven" and think it is history. They don't get the Hollywood is in the story-telling (and money-making) business, not the history-telling business.

I can suspend my disbelief as easily as the next person and enjoy a good movie where history has been sacrified for a good story. It sticks in my craw a little more where, as in "Kingdom of Heaven," history hasn't just been sacrificed for a good story but for political correctness and imposition of a 21st Century mindset on 12th Century people. It also sticks in my craw a little more when the filmaker does this and still claims that the movie is historically faithful.

Doesn't mean at al that lI won't enjoy the movie. But I will argue that the movie should be seen as fiction and not as history.

LeslieAGD · #8 05-09-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Doesn't mean at all that I won't enjoy the movie. But I will argue that the movie should be seen as fiction and not as history.

You're right; but if you look at my original post, I called it a "period movie" not a "historical" film.

MysticCat · #9 05-09-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
You're right; but if you look at my original post, I called it a "period movie" not a "historical" film.

I caught that. I meant my post to be an addition to yours, not as an argument against it. That's why I put the wink in. Sorry if that didn't come across.

Lady Pi Phi · #10 05-09-2005, 05:05 PM

This is not about the movie, but some may find it interesting to read.

Kings of Jerusalem

James · #11 05-18-2005, 11:12 PM

This was a great movie. I am not an Orlando Bloom fan . . but he certainly didn't ruin this movie.

RACooper · #12 05-18-2005, 11:25 PM

Hmm.... movie didn't really 'click' for me...

The speach at the end was a little flat... I always thought that the pre-battle speach was supposed to be inspirational

James · #13 05-19-2005, 10:02 PM

I agree. i didn't think Orlando Bloom had the personal . . intensity or charisma to carry the role. I found myself half-way through the movie wondering why anyone was paying attention to him.

Contrast him with a George C Scott in the Patton role. But I think a lot of Chicks dig him . . so I guess it made a lot of sense to cast him froma box office point of view.

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Hmm.... movie didn't really 'click' for me...

The speach at the end was a little flat... I always thought that the pre-battle speach was supposed to be inspirational

moe.ron · #14 05-20-2005, 08:22 AM

Bloom didn't do it for me either. I kept on thinking, "Take our your bow and arrow."

MysticCat · #15 05-31-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Hmm.... movie didn't really 'click' for me...

The speach at the end was a little flat... I always thought that the pre-battle speach was supposed to be inspirational

Definitely not the St. Crispin's Day speech. I agree that it was a bit flat and uninspiring.

Visually, the movie was fantastic, but story-wise -- well, all I could think during the seige of Jerusalem was "they're being led by a blacksmith with no military background?"

They call drama the willing suspension of disbelief for a reason, I guess.