Kingdom of Heaven

[jwinges]

When I read reviews that this was better than Gladiator I found it hard to believe...but damn this was a great movie. 5 stars all the way...its not to be missed.

[EXO]

I posted this somewhere else...

Just went to go see it... and as expected I loved the film.... my friend that went with me gave it the same "it was just OK" that everyone else is giving it. But I knew I was going to be extremely glad with this film for 2 reasons.

One is that ever since I read the Da Vinci Code, I started reading more about the Crusades and the Knights Templar, which were a big part of the film. Then I went on into reading about how religion started out as a cause and became an excuse to loot the Middle East of it's riches and resources. All of which was touch upon. I would guess this is the boring part of the movie for everyone else.

The other reason is I love Ridley Scott's imagery. There's a scene where there was a thousand carrions circling and feeding off a thousand men in the desert that just told everything about a battle they didn't show. Then a very good storming of Jerusalem in the end.

I was suprised that Orlando Bloom did pretty well, aside from Legolas, which is a bland character anyway, I don't like him much in anything else. Liam Neeson has overdone the part about being the "man who makes heroes out of other men" and we still have Batman to look forward to.

If they don't make another sword epic for a long time after this I'll be glad that this one was the one that punctuated the genre. It's a lot better than Troy or Alexander. I'm betting that it's a lot better than King Arthur, which I haven't seen.

I think if the released dates were switched between this film and Gladiator, this film would have garnered the very same praise that Gladiator did. And Gladiator wouldn't be taken that seriously now.

One thing that bothered me, there was a point in the middle of the film that I think the main character made a idiotic decision. But then again if he didn't make that choice, it would have ended the film early. But it wasn't portrayed as an idiotic choice, but an honorable one... that was what bothered me most. other than that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't expect anyone else to love this film but I'm glad there's finally something that I saw that was worth going to the movies to.

[yellowlightman]

I'm still not sure I'm going to see this, mostly because of how the trailer portrays the movie. There's a fundamental problem to having the movie take place during one of the few periods during the Crusades that Jerusalem was actually controlled by the Christians; by having the Muslims attacking Jerusalem (to retake their land), it seems to make it easy to portray the Muslims as "the bad guys," when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

[Major Johnathan]

I have a hard time feeling bad about the crusades. First, Jews and Christians occupied the 'Holy Land' centuries before Islam even existed. Muslims conquered it, then tried to invade Europe through Spain and were eventually replelled. Then the Crusades took place. The Crusaders are eventually repelled, and what do Muslims do? Try invading Europe again, this time through the Balkans(Kosovo). They were repelled again.

Yet in today's PC world, the West is supposed to hang it's head in shame at the Crusades...? Does the Muslim world feel bad about no less than two 'Holy War's ' against Europe? (not counting todays attempt.) Let alone the original conquest of the Holy Land.

That said, the real fun stuff to read about is the Mongol Invasion of both the Middle East and Europe. The Mongols already conquered China,Russia, central Asia etc. The Muslims(Arabs/Persians) outnumbered the invading Mongols as much as 10 to 1, and still the Mongols conquered, completely. A greaqt irony in history to me is that the Mongols unwittingly saved Europe/Christianity. Had Ghenghis not invaded, Muslims would have squashed the Crusaders like bugs and had PLENTY of troops to invade and conquer Europe.

But the Mongols were equal opportunity invaders. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, among others, saw the Mongols as the apocalypse, absolutely unstoppable, they were God's wrath on Earth. Really quite dramatic times. Contrary to the 'Mongol Hordes' myth, in virtually every battle they fought, the mongols were outnumbered (and in enemy terrain), sometimes very outnumbered. No army in history comes remotely close to their record.

Also, the Mongols were responsible for introducing Europe with Asia, specifically China. I could ramble on and on, but essentially the Mongol 'Hordes' and Ghenghis probably impacted global history more than anyone I can think of.

Now why can't they make a good Ghenghis Khan movie?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Now why can't they make a good Ghenghis Khan movie?

Agree, the Mongols were the single most badass army ever. Nothing could stop them short of really bad weather at sea.

But if they did make a Genghis Khan movie, it would be centered around his unification of the tribes, defeating the Jin Empire and the start of incursions into China. It wasn't until his descendents turn that they went to the mid-east and europe.

They did do a rather ok Genghis Khan TV series. I watched it as a kid.

[EXO]

I agree, there was a mini series based on Gengis Khan a while back, also about Marco Polo. Gengis Kahn was a bigger name than the Crusades back in the 80's.

And if the potrayal of Muslims as barbarians is what's keeping you from watching this, then don't worry about it. This film is so politically correct, I'm glad that it's balanced out by the bloodshed and skull crushing.

[Die, Alien Scum!]

There's nothin' quite like slaughtering countless enemies in the name of your deity. Witness the true evil power of organized religion.

[Ladic]

I'm still not sure I'm going to see this, mostly because of how the trailer portrays the movie. There's a fundamental problem to having the movie take place during one of the few periods during the Crusades that Jerusalem was actually controlled by the Christians; by having the Muslims attacking Jerusalem (to retake their land), it seems to make it easy to portray the Muslims as "the bad guys," when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

don't jump to conclusions and go watch this movie.

I saw it and it was good, not better than Gladiator, but still good.

[eugimon]

Saw the movie last night.. and I thought it really good.. acting was great and as usual, Scott's directing and visuals were impressive and stunning while at the same time being incredibly expressive and moving.

The idiotic move makes perfect sense with this character and his motivations.. this is a man who believed ferverently that this life here was not as important as his life to come.. and he was unwilling to sacrifice his soul and the soul of his wife. This was a man in search of redemption not political gain or glory.

[EXO]

***SPOILER***

I can see that postion taken by the movie. But I thought that by doing so, he knowingly condemned, not only the Knight Templars (who he meant to save by turning down the offer) but he also sent to death the Knights that fought with the Templars, the Muslims that fought against the King, and the men and women of Jerusalem. With one move he could have saved all those people. Surely sacrificing one's own soul can be taken as a path towards redemption. But who's to say, what's the "will of God" right? I'm not even questioning that. I just thought it was the weakest point of the script. I could understand if what he did to save his soul turned out to be a fatal mistake, but everyone in the story, in the theatre, even the muslims knew what was going to happen if the French noble man became the king. He even knew the tactics they were going to use. Why did they give him the choice anyway? The leper should have just done it and then offered him the hand of his sister after the fact...

[eugimon]

Well, it really goes to what you believe the point of life on earth is about... if mortal life is important then that leads your path one way... if you think that all that is important is your immortal soul and that everyone dies anyways and that life is cheap... well, then you make different choices.

bascially, I think we need to look at his choice through the eyes of a deeply religious medieval man and not through our eyes.

[jwinges]

I didn't think they portraid muslums as the bad guys at all. If anything they portraid about 1/2 of the crusaders as the bad guys. I thought the muslums were portraid as rather noble and chivelrous

[EXO]

Well, it really goes to what you believe the point of life on earth is about... if mortal life is important then that leads your path one way... if you think that all that is important is your immortal soul and that everyone dies anyways and that life is cheap... well, then you make different choices.

bascially, I think we need to look at his choice through the eyes of a deeply religious medieval man and not through our eyes.

That's why I said it was a weakness in the script not a religious question of wrong and right. The events that were in the film are not even accurate so it was never a question of morality. No need to search the thinking of a medieval knight's thoughts.

[Mr March]

As a self-diagnosed Ridley Scott whore, I had to go see this film the first day of release. I wasn't impressed by the trailers for Kingdom of Heaven, but Scott created three of my all time favorite films, so I go see his stuff whenever I can.

Once again, I am utterly shocked by the number of complaints Kingdom of Heaven suffered from people calling it anti-islamic prior to release. I often wonder either where are these people's heads (cause they are obviously not on their shoulders) or is this complaining some overused attempt at publicity nowadays. If anything, the subject matter of the film was probably one of the most respectful depicitions of a foreign civilization I've seen in an American made film. The Muslims were depicted as centered, intelligent, and fed up with the duplicity of the Christian leaders. I actually connected more with the Muslims in the film than I did with Bloom's character. Without spoiling the finale, the ending was also very indicative of several of the crusades, in which not much was gained, except a hard lesson.

Getting back on the subject of the actual FILM itself, Kingdom of Heaven was not what I'd hoped. Orlando Bloom's performance is too muted and understated (more a weakness of the script than his actual acting). But I will give Bloom credit; for the most part he kept the movie going and only the most astute viewer will actually step back and say "Hey, at what point did this blacksmith learn so much of mass warfare and how to win large scale battles?" The love story between Eva Green's Sibylla character and Bloom's Balian character was hardly a love story at all. Not much of a chance was given to develop the relationship (despite ample onscreen time) and it came off more as Green's lusting than as any emotional attachment. Though to be fair, Hollywood often butchers love stories with trite writing, so this is merely notekeeping. The performances of Nesson, Irons, and many others were quite good but the most notable performance goes to Alexander Siddig. Siddig's Nasir character was intriguing and received some of the best dialogue in the film. Like Sean Bean's turn in Troy last year, a good performance in a summer blockbuster often comes from the least likely places.

The large scale of the film and the battle sequences were well handled. Even the seige of Jerusalem, which lasted for quite some time onscreen, was kept interesting and dynamic despite the length. Unfortunately, we don't see anything all that new here. I could almost picture a meeting between Scott and Peter Jackson discussing how to shoot a modern mass combat sequence. There is nothing wrong per se and Scott's visual skill is in top form, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. One thing that is great, was the final message that results from these epic battles. The resolution was quite fitting and a very good lesson for those on both sides of the great debate of the supposed "holy land."

Overall, I'd give Kingdom of Heaven a 6 our of 10. Kingdom of Heaven is nowhere near as potent a story as Gladiator, Bloom's character lacks the depth needed to portray a leader of men, and the battles are less interesting than comparable films.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Anyone else here think the steel mask was rather pimp?

I don't quite get the part where Balian immediately assumes that Saladin would slaughter everyone in the city. After the Hattin battle, he didn't even think of suing for a peaceful surrender. He just assumed he had to fight to get that non-genocide ending.

[Stamen0083]

I'm betting that it's a lot better than King Arthur, which I haven't seen.

Ah, don't waste your time with that piece of poo King Arthur. Not even Keira Knightley was enough to save it.

I have been interested in this film ever since I saw Legolas, excuse me, Orlando Bloom, on the cover of a catalogue I received dressed in armor. I want to see it when I have time.

PS: Who here knew that the Mongol army in fact did not capture ALL of Asia? There's a small strip of land south of China that repelled the Mongolian invaders not once but three times, and sent the prince of Mongolia home hiding in a cannon? :-D

[ComicKaze]

My problem is how the film strives so hard to be "politically and religiously correct" but working so hard not to offend anyone.

Yes, these are the Crusades, probably the most politically and religiously incorrect time of warfare, suffering, destruction, raping, pillaging, and cruelty in classic human history. These acts were done under the aegis of religion, whether believed in or abused by those involved. Orlando's atheist character and how everything is played out only in terms of business or political gain, where humanitarism (people within these walls) is trumped over the actual issue of the Holy City is completely wrong for the times and the thrust of human behavior up until the post-modern era.

People don't fight wars for people, people fight wars for land. For cities, for the holy land and all the bounty within it. If hundreds of thousands die in the slaughter, so it was.

I realize that if this film showed either side in a negative light, the controversy about it would be even greater, but as it is, it's merely another costume swordplay spectacle with an all-too wholesome blanket thrown over it all, albeit vastly superior to the horrible film known as Alexander where Alexander had blonde hair, yet forgot to dye his eyebrows. Part of me liked Troy though. Troy is steeped in mythlogy, not real history, and therefore, it's not constrained by reality. It's perfectly fine for mythology to be unoffending and romantic...but Kingdom of Heaven is the crusades, an era after which the world was never the same and reverberates violently with a startling intensity and pertinence in today's world 1000 years later.

I really can't stand Orlando, but as a scifi nut, part of me wants to see it just for Alexander Siddig as somebody other than Dr. Bashir.

Edited May 7, 2005 by ComicKaze

[Hurin]

by having the Muslims attacking Jerusalem (to retake their land)

Yes, it has been their land ever since their very militarily expansionistic faith conquered it. Yet. . .

when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

Words fail me. . . oh wait. . . no they don't. . .

Let's sum up:

Christianity tranforming the Roman Empire peacefully from within = "evil"

Muslims conquering much of the Roman Empire by the sword = "good"

Muslims conquering Jerusalem = "good" because it is somehow "their land"

Christians trying to (re)conquer the same land = "evil"

Wait, I think I can sum it up even better for you:

Anything Western (or Christian) Society does = EVIL.

Non-Western cultures engaging in the very same behavior = GOOD

There. . . that's simple enough.

B

[Phyrox]

It was an alright movie...a bit hamfisted though.

And they watered down everybody. Saladin was a puppy dog, the Hospitallar knight was more a deist that a christian...

And some of the resolution and plot points felt really forced.

Scott has done better. It was a solid B, enjoyable to a point, but not great.

[eugimon]

by having the Muslims attacking Jerusalem (to retake their land)

Yes, it has been their land ever since their very militarily expansionistic faith conquered it. Yet. . .

when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

Words fail me. . . oh wait. . . no they don't. . .

Let's sum up:

Christianity tranforming the Roman Empire peacefully from within = "evil"

Muslims conquering much of the Roman Empire by the sword = "good"

Muslims conquering Jerusalem = "good" because it is somehow "their land"

Christians trying to (re)conquer the same land = "evil"

Wait, I think I can sum it up even better for you:

Anything Western (or Christian) Society does = EVIL.

Non-Western cultures engaging in the very same behavior = GOOD

There. . . that's simple enough.

B

Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of liberal thinking.. where the one religion that teaches people to love one another and teaches equality is bad and evil.. and praises religions that say it's a good and holy thing to blow themselves up in restuarants... teach little kids to hate, keep slaves, fly airplanes into building, teaches that women are nearly sub human, says it's okay to lie and kill in the name of god...

yup. this is western liberalism for you.

[ComicKaze]

by having the Muslims attacking Jerusalem (to retake their land)

Yes, it has been their land ever since their very militarily expansionistic faith conquered it. Yet. . .

when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

Words fail me. . . oh wait. . . no they don't. . .

Let's sum up:

Christianity tranforming the Roman Empire peacefully from within = "evil"

Muslims conquering much of the Roman Empire by the sword = "good"

Muslims conquering Jerusalem = "good" because it is somehow "their land"

Christians trying to (re)conquer the same land = "evil"

Wait, I think I can sum it up even better for you:

Anything Western (or Christian) Society does = EVIL.

Non-Western cultures engaging in the very same behavior = GOOD

There. . . that's simple enough.

B

Fantastic post

[Mislovrit]

PS: Who here knew that the Mongol army in fact did not capture ALL of Asia? There's a small strip of land south of China that repelled the Mongolian invaders not once but three times, and sent the prince of Mongolia home hiding in a cannon? :-D

Iirc there was a bunch of small areas of Asia the Mongols couldn't conquered.

Back to KiH, it already been reported Ridley Scott had cut over a hour of film from the movie to appease the westarn muslim lobbyist groups ie CAIR. Yet they still complain the movie is bias against them.

[EXO]

Thanks for making a thread about a movie about religion...

[Wes]

Now why can't they make a good Ghenghis Khan movie?

Oh, they already made a Genghis Khan movie, the only catch is they gave John Wayne the leading role.

The Conqueror

Like other's said, I'm just utterly discussed by the anti-Christian/American bias in Hollywood and the "entertainment" industry in general. I mean, I was watching the History Channel!! for crying out loud doing a Crusades special, in relation to this release or just because, but I couldn't stand 5 min of it because all they did was have these bums saying how either ignorant or bloodthrusty the Crusaders were. I seem to remember the Muslims destroying The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and pushing into the Byzantine Empire a centry eariler, which began the call for European aid.

I just do not get why if it's "Christian" it has to be bad to Hollywood. I mean, even the Passion, which was supposed to be all about Jesus, those jerks just couldn't get past some supposive "Jew-bashing" when they didn't even see the movie. Now we're getting the similar acussations when the movie is proven to be the exact opposite, but none of those losers are willing to speak up to how this portrays Christians, or those fighting to aid Iraq.

Well, this is it, Hollywood needs to finally get the message: you're all nothing but a bunch of prostitutes. That's right. We hand you 10-20 bucks to get a good time. And it's a bad idea to bad-mouth your customers or you'll just be broke on the street. Don't go whining to your pimp(MPAA) when you find out we'd rather opt out than to pay for your *#$#, your just used goods. Clean yourself up, learn some respect, and quit overcharging us for your 90 min.(and slowly decreasing..) "thrill ride" and maybe we'll do business. And after that, the money's on the dresser, we're thru with you.

[yellowlightman]

Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of liberal thinking.. where the one religion that teaches people to love one another and teaches equality is bad and evil..

yup. this is western liberalism for you.

When did I ever say western religion and/or Christianity was evil? I didn't, I said invading a land that no longer belongs to you for religious reasons was fundamentally evil. War based on faulty reasoning is bad, there's no other way around it. But I suppose if the Native American's rose up and wanted North America back, you'd willingly give up your homes...?

and praises religions that say it's a good and holy thing to blow themselves up in restuarants... teach little kids to hate, keep slaves, fly airplanes into building, teaches that women are nearly sub human, says it's okay to lie and kill in the name of god...

Glad to know Fox News is properly educating you about Islam! Yes, you're right, it's a religion completely devoted to oppression and blowing poo up. Hell, I'm lucky the Muslim friends I had growing up didn't drive their cars into my house!

Slaves, treating women as sub-human, killing in the name of God...? Sounds suspiciously like Christianity a couple hundred years ago.

Edited May 7, 2005 by yellowlightman

[Hurin]

For the record, I think Eugimon stepped over a few lines. . . but I find it interesting that you have chosen to address what he said rather than my initial criticizm. Just going after the low-hanging fruit are we?

But since you ignored what I had to say, I'll have to address what you said to Eugimon:

When did I ever say western religion and/or Christianity was evil?

Hmmm. . . this sound remarkably like that:

when it was most definately the Christian Crusaders who were the more evil of the two groups.

I'm sure you can dissect that sentence and remove any such meaning. But you're pretty much saying that Christianity is more evil than Islam. Then, you remove all doubt when you say:

I didn't, I said invading a land that no longer belongs to you for religious reasons was fundamentally evil.

By that reasoning, every culture on the face of the planet is evil. Every region has been taken from someone by someone. And, your use of the words "no longer" is a bit troubling. When exactly does the statute of limitations run out on your claim to land you once dwelt upon? Will you be telling your Leftie and Muslim friends that it would be inherently evil of them to drive Israel into the sea to reclaim Palestine? Israel has been there for over fifty years and was established by the UN. Palestine "no longer belongs to them". . . so shouldn't they just move on? Tell that to your Leftie friends and see how they respond. Personally, I think it would be good advice. Just as so many other displaced people moved on after WWII instead of living in "refugee camps" for fifty years. . . that have developed into towns and cities of their own!

War based on faulty reasoning is bad, there's no other way around it.

WOW! That is some insight there!

But I suppose if the Native American's rose up and wanted North America back, you'd willingly give up your homes...?

Of course not. Because I accept that all cultures and nations are guilty of usurping land from others. I just don't selectively direct my outrage towards the West.

Slaves, treating women as sub-human, killing in the name of God...? Sounds suspiciously like Christianity a couple hundred years ago. 

Exactly. Much (not all) of the Muslim world is centuries behind the West, especially where human rights are concerned. Granted, there are more liberal Muslim countries. Oddly though, they are the ones most closely aligned with the US and the West.

Your ethical stands of conscience would be more convincing if you were to direct your vitriol equally towards both sides. But it's obvious that you've taken a side. . . so your condemnations and moral outrage ring quite hollow.

Edited May 7, 2005 by Hurin

[Ladic]

there is a Genghis Khan movie with omar sharif

[yellowlightman]

Exactly. Much (not all) of the Muslim world is centuries behind the West, especially where human rights are concerned. Gratned, there are more liberal Muslim countries. Oddly though, they are the ones most closely aligned with the US and the West.

I really didn't want this to turn into a huge religious debate, so I'm not going to argue with you about this because it's just going to get the thread closed.

That said, I fully understand Islam has it's problems, but I think western society is trying to change it in the wrong way, invading countries or condeming them for being "backwards" isn't going to win them over. And I'll fuly admit I don't know there's an easy issue to the problem.

Anyways, I did a poor job of voicing my initial concern over the movie, which was that it might be misconstrued or used as anti-Muslim propoganda. I never said that it was (still haven't seen it), but based upon the trailers that was simply a concern that popped into my mind. Given that the Crusades (and pretty much all of the medieval interactions between Europe and Islam) has such relevance in today's events, I was simply hoping it wouldn't be turned into a black-and-white story about evil Muslims and righteous Christians.

[Phyrox]

I was simply hoping it wouldn't be turned into a black-and-white story about evil Muslims and righteous Christians.

Nope, it was more of a "everyone wants to get along, but one bad group ruins it for everybody."

Doesn't really do justice to the complex motivations or situation of the period, but it is only a popcorn movie.

[Mislovrit]

That said, I fully understand Islam has it's problems, but I think western society is trying to change it in the wrong way,

How, most westarn countries including the U.S.A. are bending over backwards to do everything above and beyond not to offend the muslims.

invading countries

I don't hear or see the majority of Afghanis and Iraqis complaining about their liberations from tyranny.

or condeming them for being "backwards" isn't going to win them over.

Virtual slavery of women, genocide, total disregard for other religions, homophobia and others are valid reasons for calling them "backwards."

[Hurin]

This topic is not anime. Nor is it science fiction. Other than it being directed by Ridley Scott, I can't see why this topic is here. Given what's already been said, this topic can only cause trouble. Any topic where someone feels that the subject gives them license to state unequivocally that one religion/culture is obviously "more evil" than another probably needs to go away, quickly.

H

[yellowlightman]

Any topic where someone feels that the subject gives them license to state unequivocally that one religion/culture is obviously "more evil" than another probably needs to go away, quickly.

Words into my mouth, I said the Christian Crusaders, not Christians in general. C'mon Hurin, you can do better than this. Might help if you pulled your heat out of AgentOne's ass ( ) so you could actually see what people are writing, instead of trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

there is a Genghis Khan movie with omar sharif

Does Bill and Ted's excellent adventure (the one with Keanu Reeves and Genghis with the baseball bat) count as a Genghis Khan movie?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

But I suppose if the Native American's rose up and wanted North America back, you'd willingly give up your homes...?

Of course not. Because I accept that all cultures and nations are guilty of usurping land from others. I just don't selectively direct my outrage towards the West.

Does that mean that if Native Americans started strapping bombs and blowing themselves up in shopping malls, you can't morally fault them anymore then the white people in the shopping mall?

If you do, isn't that taking the line that 'its ok to do that 200-300 years ago, but we are all civilised now, so its wrong to do it now.

[JsARCLIGHT]

In case anyone cares I heard Ridley Scott was on (gasp) Hannity and Colmes a few days ago and Hannity tried to rope him into saying his movie was islam bashing, "islam are the bad guys", how he was making some sort of parallel to modern times, etc. etc. etc. Ridley said "it's just a movie". I agree with Mr. Scott. This is a movie about a period in history that has very little to do with the modern world. Yes the movie has christians and muslims but they are not really the same people they are today. This thread is reminding me of all the antisemetism that Passion of the Christ supposedly spurred on.