Tell me about Kingdom of Heaven

[Taelorn76]

I really enjoyed. The battle scenes were very well done. Character depth was a little lacking, but I don;t think it really hampered the story. Someone mentioned Ed Norton's role as the King of Jeruselem, and I totaly agree he nailed that part. Overall a good movie and I would recomend buying.

 

[Kuld]

I just bought the DVD last night and watched it for the first time. I liked it. There were a few really good scenes but the overall movie, at least in the beginning, seemed to be very hurried.

It’s definitely worth watching; renting it at the very least.

 

[Kai Lord]

Easily the worst movie I've seen this year. Orlando Bloom and the female lead were completely uninteresting, there's no good primary antagonist, and even the battles were uninspired.

The film is also very pro-Muslim, anti-Christian. If that's your bag you'll probably enjoy it.

 

[Farganger]

I wanted to like this film, but didn't. I even rented the DvD recently, to give it a second chance since I have always been interested in the period, but found it even less likable and ended up only watching the first half.

There haven't been many specifics/spoilers, so I'll avoid giving much away, but one recurring annoyance was the "Connecticut Yankee in King's Arthur's Court" flavor. One example of many: our soulful blacksmith from the south of France brings his parched new Palestinian holding to life, helping his peasants dig exploratory wells, build irrigation runs, etc. Never mind that the "Hydraulic Civilizations" of the Near East practically invented irrigation, and the new baron comes from a land that thrives on rainfall agriculture . . . before Orlando turns up everyone just poked around in the dry, blowing dust. Yankee ingenuity triumphs again!

 

[Rel]

I just rented it. I watched an hour of it, got tired, paused to take a 30 minute nap, woke up, finished watching it out of a sheer sense of determination.

It resonated with me not at all. I couldn't quite nail whether it was a thin story as an excuse for big battles or a bunch of big battles shown for the sake of preaching. Either way it was thoroughly "meh".

 

[Ranger REG]

The film is also very pro-Muslim, anti-Christian.

You were hoping it would be the other way around? That's taking revisionist history to a whole 'nother level (about 20 levels up in the cloud).

 

[LrdApoc]

The film is also very pro-Muslim, anti-Christian. If that's your bag you'll probably enjoy it.

Hmm. I can't tell if this is a slur or not.. but honestly I disagree.. it put a face to the problems on both sides though the drama of seeing the weakness of the Christian Knights is present because of the storyteller's perspective and characters.. you don't get both sides of the story in this movie as the character can only speak to/portray one side.

I'm not pro or anit either and I thought it was not overly glorifying or damning either side.

 

[Kai Lord]

You were hoping it would be the other way around? That's taking revisionist history to a whole 'nother level (about 20 levels up in the cloud).

Says you and Ridley Scott. I for one am glad that audiences rejected any claimed historical accuracy en masse and laughed it out of theaters. I'm sure there were a few who appreciated the lie that the Muslims were so noble and only resorted to violence (but never against civilians of course) when a beautiful princess was murdered by those religious monsters from the West, but even if that is something you're into the rest of the movie is so wishy-washy in choosing its sides its no small surprise why very few people invest anything whatsoever in the story told on the screen.

EDIT: I would have been fine (with the accuracy at least) if Scott had shown acts of heroism and attrocity committed by both sides, but he didn't. The Christians were shown murdering innocents while the Muslims simply humiliated their most hated foe by parading him around half-naked on a donkey. Who do the filmmakers think they're kidding?

 

[CrusaderX]

You were hoping it would be the other way around? That's taking revisionist history to a whole 'nother level (about 20 levels up in the cloud).

I, myself, was hoping that the film wouldn't be historical revisionism. But it ended up being just that.

 

[werk]

The film is also very pro-Muslim, anti-Christian.

Yeah, without trying to derail this thread and start some sort of religious discussion (NOT MY INTENTION!) I wanted to chime in on this.

It is about the crusades, right? Isn't your statement like saying that the depictions of the holocaust are pro-jew?


Someone mentioned Master and Commander, which was the first thing that popped into my head when I read the OP. If you liked M&C, you'll probably like this one.