Kingdom of Heaven
Discussion
Yup, another movie thread from me.
I was invited to a preview of KoH last night in Edmonton and I really enjoyed it (erm, the movie, not Edmonton).
I'm not posting this as an "ooh, I saw it first" type proclamation- but as a reaction to some of the less than positive reviews that have appeared in the press today due to these screenings.
Some years ago, I read two acclaimed books on the Crusades and can honestly say that what Ridley Scott shows in this film certainly depicts what happened in the Holy Land at the end of the 12th century. In fact, of the main characters, only one didn't exist!
Scott has been slammed as being a Muslin sypathizer- a Cambridge academic has accused him of voicing "Bin Laden's version of history".
On the other hand, he received death threats from extreme Islamic groups whilst filming this in Morocco.
Bear in mind that none of these parties had (nor have) seen the movie!
This is a long film (even then, you can spot where they've edited it drastically!, so there must be a LOT of material for the (I guess) double DVD later this year) and, inevitably it's going to be compared to Gladiator (not quite as good IMHO).
But, by his own admission Ridley Scott is not a documentary maker. Instead, he has realistically (albeit with some poetic licence) depicted a story that is very pertinant to our times.
Ignore any mediocre review, go and see this film and judge for yourself.
I was invited to a preview of KoH last night in Edmonton and I really enjoyed it (erm, the movie, not Edmonton).
I'm not posting this as an "ooh, I saw it first" type proclamation- but as a reaction to some of the less than positive reviews that have appeared in the press today due to these screenings.
Some years ago, I read two acclaimed books on the Crusades and can honestly say that what Ridley Scott shows in this film certainly depicts what happened in the Holy Land at the end of the 12th century. In fact, of the main characters, only one didn't exist!
Scott has been slammed as being a Muslin sypathizer- a Cambridge academic has accused him of voicing "Bin Laden's version of history".
On the other hand, he received death threats from extreme Islamic groups whilst filming this in Morocco.
Bear in mind that none of these parties had (nor have) seen the movie!
This is a long film (even then, you can spot where they've edited it drastically!, so there must be a LOT of material for the (I guess) double DVD later this year) and, inevitably it's going to be compared to Gladiator (not quite as good IMHO).
But, by his own admission Ridley Scott is not a documentary maker. Instead, he has realistically (albeit with some poetic licence) depicted a story that is very pertinant to our times.
Ignore any mediocre review, go and see this film and judge for yourself.
kenny chim 4 said:
Ignore any mediocre review, go and see this film and judge for yourself.
I am really looking forward to it, although, I am not sure what period of history that is covered in this movie, I think its the 3rd Crusade.....
There was a really interesting BBC documentary about the relationship between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, and the negotiations that took place between them, such as the proposed marriage of Richards sister to Saladins brother (put forward by Richard).....
IOLARE, the Knights Templar (and Hospitalers) are depicted very solemnly and correctlly. I will give no spoilers here but there is a slow, after conflict, death scene that illustrates their reverence to God and the Knights.
That said, the film illustrates the extremist values a few of them held.
The point being- I applaud Scott for making a historically truthful film.
I think he must be our best living filmaker and should be lauded as much as Hitchcock and Lean!
That said, the film illustrates the extremist values a few of them held.
The point being- I applaud Scott for making a historically truthful film.
I think he must be our best living filmaker and should be lauded as much as Hitchcock and Lean!
968, much as a lot of what I have read concerns the 3rd crusade, this film is about the peace that prevailed under Baldwin IV and how extreme Christians just wanted to murder Muslin "insurgents".
Again, no spoilers, but the film ends with the start of the 3rd crusade (follow up? I hope so.
Sal-a hadin, to me is portrayed perfectly in KoH.
Again, no spoilers, but the film ends with the start of the 3rd crusade (follow up? I hope so.
Sal-a hadin, to me is portrayed perfectly in KoH.
kenny chim 4 said:
IOLARE, the Knights Templar (and Hospitalers) are depicted very solemnly and correctlly. I will give no spoilers here but there is a slow, after conflict, death scene that illustrates their reverence to God and the Knights.
That said, the film illustrates the extremist values a few of them held.
The point being- I applaud Scott for making a historically truthful film.
I think he must be our best living filmaker and should be lauded as much as Hitchcock and Lean!
You've piqued my interest Kenny!!
I have researched the Templars for about thirty years, so it will be of great interest to me.
I would agree with you about Scott; I thought Gladiator was a masterpiece, and totally different from what I expected. I found it deeply spiritual and very moving, particularly the death scene at the end.
For me, as a musician, I think Hans Zimmer is one of the greatest score writers alive today, and the music in Gladiator could not have been improved upon: just superb!
IOLAIRE- I have to agree but, though Hans Zimmer was originally to have written the score to KoH he was replaced and for that alone, this film will never have the impact that Gladiator had.
I'm sure you are aware of the British actor David Thewlis. He portrays the perfect Knights Templar in Kingdom of Heaven and he plays the part well..
I'm sure you are aware of the British actor David Thewlis. He portrays the perfect Knights Templar in Kingdom of Heaven and he plays the part well..
IOLAIRE said:
I thought Gladiator was a masterpiece, and totally different from what I expected. I found it deeply spiritual and very moving, particularly the death scene at the end.
I dislike any historical epic that doesn't feel true to history-and Gladiator falls into that catergory.
Great action scenes and some good acting, but always ruined for me by the sense that this was not a Rome I had ever read about.
Ridley Scott 
Kingdom of Heaven however i'm not too excited about, and certainly not as much as Star Wars!!
Got nothing to do with the facts, fiction or historical accuracy (I don't know much about the crusades at all) but simply the fact that I can't picture Orlando Bloom as a leading man, and also that all the trailers make it look like a poor man's Return of the King (Battle Wise) I'll definitly be taking a look though, and hopefully i'll be wrong.
As for Scott, he's very high on my favourite directors list. Alien is one of my all time favourites, and he directed a very underrated movie from a year or two ago called Matchstick men starring Nic Cage and Sam Rockwell. Not his usual type of film but a really great character movie about con men with a cracking twist at the end. I'd highly recommend it.
Kingdom of Heaven however i'm not too excited about, and certainly not as much as Star Wars!!
Got nothing to do with the facts, fiction or historical accuracy (I don't know much about the crusades at all) but simply the fact that I can't picture Orlando Bloom as a leading man, and also that all the trailers make it look like a poor man's Return of the King (Battle Wise) I'll definitly be taking a look though, and hopefully i'll be wrong.
As for Scott, he's very high on my favourite directors list. Alien is one of my all time favourites, and he directed a very underrated movie from a year or two ago called Matchstick men starring Nic Cage and Sam Rockwell. Not his usual type of film but a really great character movie about con men with a cracking twist at the end. I'd highly recommend it.
JagLover said:
I thought Gladiator was a masterpiece, and totally different from what I expected. I found it deeply spiritual and very moving, particularly the death scene at the end.
I dislike any historical epic that doesn't feel true to history-and Gladiator falls into that catergory.
Great action scenes and some good acting, but always ruined for me by the sense that this was not a Rome I had ever read about.
Not quite with you there JL; the scene where the gladiators first enter Rome and the camera takes you up to an aerial scene of the Colosseum just transported me instantly to ancient Rome.
You could almost smell the animals, the gore and the crowds.
The problem is, could anyone really ever accurately portray an historical environment from 2000 years ago with absolute certainty.
I think it far more important to capture the essence of the era, rather than the actual events, to give the viewer a real sense of what it was like to be in Ancient Rome.
I think Scott achieved this beyond all expectations.
IOLAIRE said:
Not quite with you there JL; the scene where the gladiators first enter Rome and the camera takes you up to an aerial scene of the Colosseum just transported me instantly to ancient Rome.
You could almost smell the animals, the gore and the crowds.
How many Emperors of Rome fought gladiators in the colosseum?.
How many gladiators could have turned their back on the Emperor and lived?.
JagLover said:
Not quite with you there JL; the scene where the gladiators first enter Rome and the camera takes you up to an aerial scene of the Colosseum just transported me instantly to ancient Rome.
You could almost smell the animals, the gore and the crowds.
How many Emperors of Rome fought gladiators in the colosseum?.
How many gladiators could have turned their back on the Emperor and lived?.
In answer to that JL, I don't really know, I don't think anyone does with any certainty.
But the idea made a terrific movie and that was what it was all about. It wasn't an historical documentary.
catretriever said:
How many Emperors of Rome fought gladiators in the colosseum?.
As far as I'm aware, the Emperor Commodus is actually believed to have fought in the arena many times
The power of internet search engines
'Commodus fought 735 times and paid himself such a high fee for each appearance that a new tax had to be levied. No harm came to him in the arena, if only because he furnished his opponents with weapons of lead'
So I will rephrase that how many Emperor's of Rome fought to the death in the arena?.
IOLAIRE said:
In answer to that JL, I don't really know, I don't think anyone does with any certainty.
But the idea made a terrific movie and that was what it was all about. It wasn't an historical documentary.
It always destroys the movie for me if I see something that doesn't seem right.
In something like Gladiator it really doesn't bother me, as it doesn't claim to be anything other than a fictional story set in an interesting period of history, all be it with some references to factual figures and incidents.
However what does drive me mad is when films that are supposedly telling the story of an actual event in history are completely inaccurate, see: The Patriot, U571 and countless others!
However what does drive me mad is when films that are supposedly telling the story of an actual event in history are completely inaccurate, see: The Patriot, U571 and countless others!
milfordkong said:
In something like Gladiator it really doesn't bother me, as it doesn't claim to be anything other than a fictional story set in an interesting period of history, all be it with some references to factual figures and incidents.
However what does drive me mad is when films that are supposedly telling the story of an actual event in history are completely inaccurate, see: The Patriot, U571 and countless others!
I don't mind if it is fantasy too-I had no problem with Troy.
It is not the events that annoy me so much as the misrepresentation of Roman culture-it is after all supposedly set in Rome.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff