Kingdom Of Heaven

[Axx]

Last night I went with a friend of mine to watch Kindgom of Heaven. Both me and my friend have studied the first three crusades, with particlular focus on the second (which is the most famous). Both of us have studied it from western books (The last book i read on it was Warriors of God, Saladin and Richard the Lionheart in the 3rd crusade) as well as having heard the arab point of view on it (in arab history they are divided in 3 crusades).

A lot of people may have heard of the controversy surrounding the movie, with muslims shouting ISLAMAPHOBIES, and christians shouting LIBERAL LEFT KISSING MUSLIM ASS. So i though id go and judge for my self.

I was deep inside expecting quite a bit of biased scenes, but in the end i was shocked, im sure both sides (christians and muslims) must have left the cinema thinking, Damn, this is historically acurate like hell!

Some people might be a bit confused if they never studied the history of the 3 earlier crusades (western literature has it there were 6, and im more used to thinking of it as 6 crusades), as the movie portrays events leading up to the siege of jerusalem by the massive armies of saladin. Its quite dissapointing they didnt portray the battle of Hittien (Two horns is what that means, as the battle took place on a platform between two horn shaped mountains), maybe its because the crusading forces (led by the templers, christian extremists) were wiped out in a devastating battle that crippled the christian capability to defend jerusalem. This battle was the focul point of the 2nd crusade. I was shocked (i REALLY mean shocked) when Riddley actually focused on why each even took place, the battle of hittien was the result of the templers raiding the caravan of saladins sister, and killing her (there was a peace treaty, which the templers were hell bent on breaking).

It however has a much lighter side of the christians (yes there was, but they were over powered by the pope and templers who quelled a strong support). Ballian (the main charechter) has a much lighter side, and generally despises the templars. You have to watch to understand.

The battle for jerusalem was exagerated quite a bit, but the last bit where they weaken the walls of jerusalem was actually all they atempted all along

Watch it in short, its the movie of the year i thinks

(The muslims who were outraged and the christians are like the templers and the assasins of allepo :P)

[Bushmeister]

Originally Posted by Axx

(western literature has it there were 6, and im more used to thinking of it as 6 crusades)

If so, then why are you referring to the crusade shown in the film as the second? Surely it is the third crusade that is being depicted in this film?

[Panda]

The second crusade isn't the most famous. I would have thought the third one was, which featured Saladin and Richard the Lionheart. The main thing the second crusade is known for is failure.
Templars were not Christian extremists, they were a religious order of monks who fought in battles. (Originally they had been formed to protect pilgrims in the Middle East.)
The Templars didn't break the treaty by attacking the caravan with the AUNT of Saladin. A crusader faction led by a man called Reynald de Chattier (or similar French poncy git) who was keen on destroying the Muslims attacked the caravan iirc.

As for historically accurate, not really. It's set 11 or so years after the death of the leper king, and has been pretty badly hit by historical critics and writers.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I plan to. It looks very good, and with a soundtrack from Harry Gregson Williams, you cannae go wrong

[Reek]

Originally Posted by Bushmeister

If so, then why are you referring to the crusade shown in the film as the second? Surely it is the third crusade that is being depicted in this film?

No.

--
It's a nice film, but it's one of those films which you watch once and forget about.
It may have been historicaly accurate, but that doesn't make a film good.

[Panda]

It's not historically accurate! Thats the point! (To Anakin and Axx.)

[Reek]

I'm pretty sure richard the lionheart led the 3rd crusade, and in the end of the film you see Spoiler:

toggle spoiler

richard setting out on a crusade

[Panda]

He did lead the third crusade, yes

[Axx]

Originally Posted by Bushmeister

If so, then why are you referring to the crusade shown in the film as the second? Surely it is the third crusade that is being depicted in this film?

1st crusade- fall of jerusalem to crusaders
2nd crusade- fall of jerusalem to muslims
3rd crusade- led by richard the lionheart, crusaders stop short before reaching jerusalem, richard the lionheart travels back, his french counterpart, his former lover, chats shit about him making him a wanted man, blar blar blar.

The second crusade isn't the most famous. I would have thought the third one was, which featured Saladin and Richard the Lionheart. The main thing the second crusade is known for is failure.
Relative to the arabs and muslims, 2nd is the most famous, jerusalem fell back into our hands after 100 years.
Also the 3rd crusade is quite famous because of all the back and forth action in it, the compromise, the fragile treaties, and the leaders of both sides (richard was one hell of a warriour)

Templars were not Christian extremists, they were a religious order of monks who fought in battles. (Originally they had been formed to protect pilgrims in the Middle East.)
They were hardliners under command of the pope.

The Templars didn't break the treaty by attacking the caravan with the AUNT of Saladin. A crusader faction led by a man called Reynald de Chattier (or similar French poncy git) who was keen on destroying the Muslims attacked the caravan iirc.
Reynault led whom? Exactly, and it was the SISTER of Saladin who was on a caravan from Damascus down the famous route that led to mecca.

As for historically accurate, not really. It's set 11 or so years after the death of the leper king, and has been pretty badly hit by historical critics and writers.
I was wondering where King Guy went Yeah it has its flaws, its a movie not to forget, but the events, and events that led to them are quite accurate. (The order of events was in place, unlike lets say brave heart where the battle orders where mixed, and where they lost (folkirk) they actually won, and where they won they actually lost, as well as the princess being born like 10 years later)

Of course it's historically accurate, the muslims were shown in a bright light!
And im sure the mood back where you live is Ofcourse its not accurate, the muslims are shown in bright light, ffs, go read a book.

And of course it's the movie of the year, it discusses religion, a subject that's being ignored so much! The hell with the plot, cinematic work etc, as long as we can go over religious issues again!
Its an epic with massive battle scenes, compelling historical charecters, and romance, thats why, any other good movies out this year?

[Bushmeister]

Originally Posted by Axx

2nd crusade- fall of jerusalem to muslims

Fall of Edessa?.

At least if you're going by western standards (which it sounded like you were).

[Axx]

Thats strange, western literature usually has the 3rd crusade as the fall of jerusalem, and whats with nur ud dien, he led in iraq, not the whole muslim mass.

It's a bit early to determine the best movie of the year, considering we're not even half-way through.
But if we're into the last 12 months period, I'd say Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
I generally mean its gonna be one of the movies that mark 2005, not really movie of the year, except on a personall basis. I believe it will be well recieved becauses as i mentioned its an epic, one that beats most of the other recent ones (troy, Alexander, and King Arthur) Watch it, then tell me what you think.

And yes, I suppose the mood in my place is what you said upon the ignorant masses, but the fact people like you immediatly justify the film is as shocking as Trium Planeta being canceled.
It fits in line with the general history ive read, so im pleased, whats shocking?

P.S - I do read books lately. Actually I read 2 in about a week recently. How is it relevant to the discussion?
About Salah Ed dien for gods sake

[Medur]

I watched the film today.

I have no idea of how historically accurate it is (or is not), but as a movie it sucked.

Lots of clichés (especially in photography), some actors didn't fit their roles, shallow dialog and bad pace. Ridley Scott screwed up. Strangely, as Gladiator was great and the story had potential.

[Axx]

I think i enjoyed it cause it was watching the most exciting episode of history on a tv (not to mention the battles where the muslims slaughter the crusading armies )

[Reek]

Troy was better, and alexander and king arthur were shit so it's not such an achievement to out do them.

And Salah a-din's was the only decent actor.

[Medur]

Oh, by the way... if you fancied Eva Green in KoH (she plays Sibylla), watch this... you will NOT regret it. Be sure to get an uncensored version though.

[Aule]

Well, this seems interesting, i was gonna download it, but thepiratebay only had one bad quality copy with german audio...

[Reek]

Originally Posted by Medur

Oh, by the way... if you fancied Eva Green in KoH (she plays Sibylla), watch this... you will NOT regret it. Be sure to get an uncensored version though.

She's easy on the eyes, but has the acting skills of a llama with down syndrome.

[the_angry_monkey]

Watched it of Friday night and I have to say it was complete and utter muffins.......the bad type of muffins.....turd muffins if you will, and here is why:

A) It makes a pretence to be historically accurate. Pretending to be unbiased is far more dangerous than declaring a bias.

B) I felt absolutely no empathy for the characters, they may as well have been blocks of wood.

C) This is a real story about real death or real people and yet, as above, everything was so detached. I am never a fan of films that concentrate on armies and generals and battles and ignore individuals. This felt like a callous overview of themes which dominted the lives of real people, a sensationalisation of death and war. Eveyone spoke in an epic manner all the time - I never saw a single look of fear on a soldier's face. In real life people desert. In real life people die cowering on the floor. In real life people had emotional connections to their causes. This film glossed over any potential religious motivations for either side, and it sucked the humanity out of a tramatic period of our shared history. The people who died during the crusades on both sides deserve so much more than this film can give. This is just a bloodthirsty and politically taboo theme that Scott hopes will gain him recognition.

As mentioned Scott has had successes in the past with Gladiator - I believe this is becasue the story was based around his emotional journey and not around battles. Script and plotline doomed this project long before the actors were allowed to finish the job.

An appauling film - One NOT to watch

[Medur]

Originally Posted by Anakin

She's easy on the eyes, but has the acting skills of a llama with down syndrome.

In The Dreamers her acting was actually excellent. Not to mention you get to see her wee-wee. (!)

[Reek]

WTF why didn't you say so.
*downloads*

[Axx]

hehe, you gies should check out the critics. One votes A+ the one after him votes a d (on yahoo)

I think its based on your own taste (im a fan of medival huge battle movies, braveheart, Gladiator, The messenger, King Arthur, Troy, etc...)
Not to mention, watching one of the phases of history I admire the most was the best part.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Axx

hehe, you gies should check out the critics. One votes A+ the one after him votes a d (on yahoo)

I think its based on your own taste (im a fan of medival huge battle movies, braveheart, Gladiator, The messenger, King Arthur, Troy, etc...)
Not to mention, watching one of the phases of history I admire the most was the best part.

Aye.

Jonathan Riley Smith, medieval historian seems to hate it

[Axx]

Not really. The thing is there seems to be some sort of disagreement over one particular book and historian. Some guy wrote a book in 1885 or somthing like that, and some historians consider his work very accurate, others have discredited him. I seem to find the order of events pretty good, its as accurate as films typically get, but that dosnt meen its a damn documentary.

[CS2x]

I should have watched this for my flipping A level mock hisory exam tomorow.

I'm screwed!

[Axx]

LOL, if you watched thios prepare for an F, its not a history lesson, some things ar re the same but a LOT has been taken out, its a movie (maybe historians are such dickheads, they dont get that?)

[Panda]

It's not historically accurate Rob. It's set like 11 years after the sodding leper died :P

I am also screwed as far as the test goes, however. Lol.