>I'm still queen of Ascalon, Tyre, Jaffa...
>Stop being a queen and we'll bang, ok?
Seriously, wtf is wrong with her? Her people needed their sovereign and she just runs away to France to live with a literal peasant.
Outside of the visuals, this movie fricking sucks.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
awful movie
She couldn't lead her people after the death of her son
Eva Green was the only decent thing in this movie
The movie was pretty ludicrous when it came to Bloom's character. He's both a common man and able to romance queens and negotiate with lords. I could buy him as an unusually talented outsider who brings good insight and fresh ideas, but the way everyone at court bends over for him or even takes him seriously is silly. He should be struggling to understand the most basic intrigues, constantly getting outwitted and ignored until someone like Baldwin steps up for him.
Ed Norton was spectacular. I also liked the guy playing Reynard and Saladin, though they were slandered and whitewashed, respectively. Well, maybe not Reynard as he was kinda psycho, but it's dumb the way the movie makes almost all the Christians act that way.
He was an intelligent blacksmith and hie dad was a big deal in the kingdom of Jerusalem, that's why they respected bloom.
her appearance and wardrobe were good.
her character was awful
Eh, a lot of good actors who played their parts well, edward norton, david thewlis, liam neeson. I think the script and plot was just a bit shit.
A fine piece of ass makes this grimy world worth living. As true then as it is now.
The movie has a really weird message about class. According to the film, a good lord is supposed to improve his domain (very protty message, btw), but also to abandon any responsibilities to them the moment a tough decision has to be made.
this flick was unimaginably stupid on many levels
>Christians are... LE BAD
>Muslims are... LE GOOD
>y we no have peace :'^(
Crusades are pretty hilarious clusterfricks, do you really want to see what happened? Would it make for popular entertainment?
Frick yes it would. Historically accurate crusades movies. 4 movies for each of the first four crusades.
Show Jerusalem being sacked by Christians. Show Edessa being torched by Muslims.
All of it.
And they need to be at least three hours a piece but ideally over four hours each.
It'd be great. I don't know why shit writers don't just copy more from history, its infinitely more interesting than any shit they could come up with.
>It is time... to establish.... the Kingdom of Heaven
scenes of messina port were absolute top-tier kino
>Her people needed their sovereign and she just runs away to France to live with a literal peasant.
that's what Aragorn does in Peter Jackson's reimagined characterization and people love it.
>uh don wan it... I never wanted to be king... even though it's literally the only way to unite men and save the world and countless generations of my ancestors have been brought up to eventually rise up to the occasion and it's been my mission since early teens or some shit. I'd rather just let it all go to shit even though I know that those are the stakes.
I get that the unwilling ruler and hero is more interesting to modern sensibilities compared to the medieval character that Tolkien wrote, but if you think about it at all, it makes Aragorn into a little b***h instead of a just ruler.
I think a key difference here is that Aragorn is like Jonah, running from his destiny, whereas Sybilla is like a b***h in heat, running for some dick.
Wut. Hes a king with a big frick you king wedding at the end.
At the end, yes.
In the books he presses hid claim hard. He only promises Frodo to go with him till Gondor because he wants to join the war.
Of course these corn syrup soôy movies couldn't have that.
Yeh book Aragorn talks about reclaiming the throne of Gondor constantly, it's his #1 goal and he's focused on the crown. Movie aragorn is a completely different character
Aragorn is humble. Despite his talents, he's uncertain he can live up to his destiny, so him rising to the occasion is more heroic.
Only movie Aragorn. Book Aragorn is a wienertail confident MFer who knows he's heir of Gondor and is eager to reclaim his throne.
>sexy woman
>christkino
>battles
>good actors
this checks all the boxes
>Christkino
The only Christians portrayed in a good light are all atheists or agnostics. The movie explicitly says the Christians are wrong and unjust.
You are so oppressed. What about the most Christlike character in the movie?
hospitallers are so kino, outlived all other orders (in being landed) and colonized and held islands in the americas
rip julian sands
He's an agnostic, who, "puts no stock in religion," because he's seen fanatics.
Can't recall exact quotes of his, but I'm pretty sure he also shits on faith.
It is heavily, HEAVILY implied that he's an Angel. In his demeanor, words and even things he does. The director's cut goes even further into this.
what about the king? he was always portrayed as a wise man until his death
The adviser that said that killing stains your soul and Ed Norton may be the only Christians in the movie portrayed in a positive light. You can tell it wasn't an entirely israeli production because the bad ones still have motivations that are explained in the film.
The kino scene....
DEVS VULT
CONSTANTINOPOLIS DELENDA EST
The jaffa too? Was she a goa'uld
my wife 🙂
crazy pussy like that, she probably caused all sorts of problems in his little village. why was murderman accepted back there anyway, he can have his sins erased but the people would still hate him.
say what you want about this film but they made some effort in the wardrobe dept.
IF YOU'RE COMMENTING ON THIS THREAD WITHOUT WATCHING THE DIRECTOR'S CUT, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE.
>Sure, I'll frick the princess and future queen regent
>No, I will not marry her if that means the death of her murderous husband even if the kingdom is better for it.
What the frick was his problem?
Not to mention that letting Guy become King would mean he'd break the truce and provoke war, leading to many, many deaths. So, that's a lot of blood on his hands.
Why the frick did they use the name of the dude who married Sybilla's step mum?
>be King of Jerusalem
>be leper
>dying
>hate your sister's husband
>know he'll take power when you die
>idea.pdf
>kill him and have your sister marry the peasant bastard son of the most minor noble
>definitely won't lead to a succession crisis while your enemy has you surrounded
Brilliant
>Verification not required.
I don't know what was the whole point of Guy being a peasant
just copy and paste the actual history and change their personalities I guess? did they think people wouldn't be able to associate with a medieval noble?
>did they think people wouldn't be able to associate with a medieval noble?
This is exactly the reason. This came around the same time as the LOTR movies, where they similarly changed the story to make Aragorn basically non-noble (his hobo form in Fellowship), and a reluctant leader/hero archetype.
As a kid, I really loved this movie. But as an adult, I see that it was only because I loved how it looked - the armies, the cities, the battles and castles.
It's a shame, really. I fear we're never going to get real crusadekino
Awful, anti history, anti Christian, pro Mudslime slop. Its slanderous and dishonest. The directors cut is shit too. Costumes and sets are the only good thing.
>anti-Christian
>Baldwin is one of the most kino Christian movie characters of all time, has everything maxed out, piety, wisdom, courage, empathy, honor, duty
>Hospitalier heavily implied to be an Angel
>Balian the perfect noble knight, able to hold of Saladin with a ragtag group of defenders and save their lives
>and yet the movie also goes out of its way to state that the Christians are badwrong
>movie literally shows that a good part of Muslims just want to zerg rush the crusaders while praying and that Saladin has to do his best to convince them to use actual military tactics while not being labeled a heretic
Saladin and Baldwin mirror each other, they are both wise, honorable and truly pious men who do their best to keep their people on the right path without letting them fall into zeal. Had Saladin died instead of Baldwin his armies would have probably suicide rushed the walls of Jerusalem and been slaughtered.
>pro-Mudslime
its not, its pro-secular, you think its “pro-Muslim” because Saladin is depicted as the enlightened champion of secularism, but thats not really what you care about.
All this movie did was make me sad that I'll never get a Eva Green gf
I see only "christians" calling it a trash movie because their feelings got hurt. Both muslim and christians were portrayed in both ways you autists. The directors cut is great, solid 8/10
We see 3 muslim characters
A brilliant king
A just and righteous lord
A religiously motivated lord
The 3rd one, as a "fanatic," never disobeys his king, never does anything unjust, cruel, etc.
>Muslim fanatics good
>Christian fanatics bad
Pretty straightforward
Yes and only Guy, his brother and entourage are portrayed as the christian fanatics. Why don't you mention the good Christians? Or the muslim commander that insists upon war and calls Saladin out?
I mentioned the Muslim commander. But they really aren't equivalent.
Christian fanatics - blatantly murder, steal, commit atrocities routinely, all around scummy
Muslim fanatics - headstrong and wants to fight the enemy
What atrocities or cruelties are Muslim fanatics shown doing in the movie?
killing prisoners of war
Ok, I'll grant you that.
But I'll counter that the Christians kill an ambassador after murdering (and doing who knows what else) to the Sultan's sister
Did they do that? I forgot. Not memeing, killing ambassadors and messengers was considered a crime and casus belli back then, definitely not cool.
>catholic fanatics - blatantly murder, steal, commit atrocities routinely, all around scummy
Nothing wrong here. Remember that these fricking buttholes are chiefly responsible for the fall of Constantinople.
Alright, but this is a different argument than, "they show both sides as being bad!"
They really don't
I'll grant you that they picked a period of history with the noblest Muslim leader while the crusaders were headed by a moron, and then further romanticized it, but even then Baldwin is every bit as noble and wise as Saladin, and his loyal knights such as Raymond and Godfrey follow suit. It's only Guy's moronic ass and his followers that ruin everything, and you can bet that the guy that b***hed at Saladin would be just as bad were he in a position to act as he wished.
You're missing the point of the whole movie, those 'Christian' fanatics are just glory hungry buttholes like Reynauld. Meanwhile the true Christians are characters like Balian, Baldwin and the Hospitaller and are unequivocally depicted to be the most morally good characters in the film.
Also why do the Muslims need to be shown to commit war crimes otherwise the audience will think Muslim fanatics are good guys or something? Yeah in a WW2 movie we also need to show soviets committing war crimes just so people understand that Communists are also bad just like Nazis.
Kingdom of Heaven was made post 9/11, everyone already knows Muslim fanatics are bad, so why do the writers need to hold your hand and tell you that Muslim fanatics are bad too when to anyone watching the film thats already obvious.
>in a WW2 movie we also need to show soviets committing war crimes
By your points we don't need nazis to be shown to do bad stuff, and yet we get to see it anyway, even though everyone is already on board with "nazis r bad".
You're not making any sense.
The movie obviously runs interference for itself about the portrayal of muslims, even in the historical context of the setting which doesn't put them in a favourable light given their patterned aggression up until this point. It's just the producers of the film cucking out on the principles of the movies anti-fundamentalism angle, and reeks of the mid 2000s atheists slant, where being against religion meant being against Christians, and then came to a full stop one other creeds interspersed.
>What atrocities or cruelties are Muslim fanatics shown doing in the movie?
Existing.
This movie came out at the height of muslim terrorist era and the desert wars.
Ridley Scott was trying to say that while today muslims tend to be the radical religious extremists, back in the day it was the Christian while Muslims were more civilized. In short, it's not the religion that us the issue but extremism and radicalism that is the problem. Baldwin was a noble and good Christian and unifying force. When he went down, extremists took over and the kingdom of Jerusalem went to shit. It's really only knights Templar who were shown as evil, not all Christians
>The 3rd one, as a "fanatic," never disobeys his king, never does anything unjust, cruel, etc.
Because Saladin isn't dying. Were Baldwin in good health you can bet your ass Guy wouldn't so much as look at him sideways.
>The 3rd one, as a "fanatic," never disobeys his king, never does anything unjust, cruel, etc.
He never disobeys his King but is stupid and wants a war with Jerusalem without any preparation because he believes God will give them victory. He is not portrayed in a positive light in anyway
>muh why is reynauld de chatillion portrayed that way
Because its one of the few historically accurate things about the movie, he was a moron who actively started the war with Saladin that ended in Jerusalem falling.
Also considering that the bad Christian fanatics like Reynauld are counterbalanced by the good Christian figures of Balian and the Hospitaller knight. Not to mention that the crusaders are depicted as better fighters while the Muslims rely on numbers, I'd say you're basically whining that a Muslim is depicted in any capacity that isn't entirely negative at all.
>I'd say you're basically whining that a Muslim is depicted in any capacity that isn't entirely negative at all
Not at all. I contend that the Muslims aren't really shown in a bad light *at all.* i don't think the fanatic Muslim commander is portrayed particularly poorly. Throughout the whole movie, starting with seeing the Muslims praying on the beaches of Messina, the Muslims are portrayed as noble and capable of acting with restraint (like listening to your king and *not* zerg rushing the enemy), whereas the Christians are portrayed as being violent and brutish from start to end.
>To kill a heretic is not murder, it is the path to heaven
The film is very much one sided in terms of who is right and who is wrong
The story is told from the Western point of view, obviously. It's a reserved criticism of "our" own past, where religious fundamentalism is the main subject of criticism, and Christianity by itself not at all. The Muslims are the narrative antagonists and depicted in the same terms as the Christians, but are not the main focus of the critique.
Sure, it's Hollywood shit. Hollywood would not be able to create a convincing critique of the Muslim world of this period, or vice-versa.
no, even beyond a religious standpoint the movie is in general, just bad and there are posts itt that make mention of this.
Some days I wish I would get into a horrific facially scarring accident so I could buy a custom-made metal mask inlaid with gold in intricate patterns then walk around everywhere with a hunch and a limp larping like I'm Kind Baldwin. Maybe someday.
I'm afforded the privilege of *inaudible guttural noises*ansom
>jaffa
Goold?
Directors cut is a 10/10 movie you got filtered
They should really have made Blooms character a Sharpe/Uhtred style fictional insert into real history rather than making him a real guy with a fake backstory.
Did Saladin and Baldwin both persecute israelites irl?