Yes it is. Its historically inaccurate, intentionally so to make christians look bad and muslims look good. Because thats the only way to make that happen, you have to lie.
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
It genuinely scares me there's people who think this. >dude Christians are so evil, don't you know they STOLE Jerusalem? And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water >those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong, poor guys are victims thanks to the STUPID EVIL CHRISTIANS >GOD WANTS to give them back Jerusalem, it's fate, don't you get it?!
Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Ridley Scott clearly has a self-loathing cuck fetish that really shines through the entire film. Orlando Bloom is literally the best Christian and loved by god because he doesn't believe in god and is basically a protestant making up his own shit and ignoring the church completely.
Don't even get me started on the shitastic action scenes with the pajeet tier slowmo shots.
Kingdom of Heaven didn't feel overly hamfisted against Christians, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the West. And its mostly done by yids and former Christians (White lefty homosexuals)
You're reading your lame preconceived notions into it. My preconceived notions were that the crusades were a based expression of Euro chauvinism and were good regardless of portrayals. Just stop being so lame and you won't seethe so much in life.
The persecution fetish is real. It's obvious that there were good christians in this film. The main character is one. Imagine being this dense.
>noooo my cuck movie is actually good you're just s-seething
unironically cope
The only good film Ridley Scott has ever made was the Duelists, it was his first film and everything afterwards a mistake. You can disagree, but it just demonstrates how deeply unintelligent you are.
>everything! >obsession!
Uhh..we're talking about 1 movie here anon. One where the director turns self hate into a 3 hour chore. You're projecting really god damn hard here.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Stop typing like such a moronic sperg.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>moves the goal posts
Ouch, bet that hurt to concede.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but ok sperg
11 months ago
Anonymous
>still replying 5 hours later
lmao you mad as frick
Yeah I'm not sure when I keep pushing that maybe it's cuz I made fun of it a while back but like I was never really engaged or married or had a relationships to be honest I'm not really sure when they keep pushing that one so hard to be honest. Just like the foot thing they keep pushing s*** that is entirely not really relevant to my character and I'm just kind of confused by it not offended I know some people are into that it's not my thing to be honest. Or just women being stupid hoping I'll get envious I guess I don't know I'm not the jealous type.
bro, it's a movie about orlando bloom swining a sword, eva green getting her breasts out, and some big action scenes so ridley can get some nice wides. you're autistic screeching about historical accuracy has nothing to do with a movie (that doesn't advertise itself as a documentary) being entertaining or not.
I used to think this movie was good until I realized the main character maybe says 20 lines in the entire film and 75% of them are him literally repeating word for word things someone else told him. It's unreal what a massive charisma vacuum Orlando Bloom is.
It's inconsistent but it isn't out of nowhere and wrong to give muslims some credit over Christians in their portrayal in earlier Islamic history. Its dishonest to say it "spread by the sword" because there's a wide range of how bad that can be.
Certainly the Early Islamic Conquests were probably the least brutal expansions on anything resembling a comparable scale of the premodern period. Its in fact a known issue and phenomenon in archeology that its hard to notice the Islamic conquests in the archeological record because there's so little disruption, whereas as a rule you expect conquests to look like an apocalypse.
This bears out in contemporary accounts, most strikingly when they first took Jerusalem. They had the Christians cornered, beaten, besieged, and asked them to come out and discuss terms. The Christians were literally dumbfounded that the Muslims offered to let Christians leave the city safely with their property. They were like "why are we even fricking negotiating, of course we accept". Because that is absolutely not how they would have done things and they thought they were going out there to beg for a quick death.
Likewise of course there was severe religious persecution and repression on all sides. It was the middle ages. But as a rule for most early Islamic polities such policies were lightyears better than christian polities as a rule. You're talking pogroms and forced conversions and massacres versus higher taxation as broad rules
Obviously this was all awful and you can find infinite horrible stories and moments, and conditions of life were generally horrible and brutal by modern standards. But people will refuse to ever read a single book or watch a single good lecture or whatever on this stuff, make shit up, and act like its a fact. Obviously the movie is wrong but you've gone wrong in another reductive direction in service to 2023 grievance politics
>This bears out in contemporary accounts, most strikingly when they first took Jerusalem. They had the Christians cornered, beaten, besieged, and asked them to come out and discuss terms. The Christians were literally dumbfounded that the Muslims offered to let Christians leave the city safely with their property. They were like "why are we even fricking negotiating, of course we accept". Because that is absolutely not how they would have done things and they thought they were going out there to beg for a quick death.
If you mean the initial expansion of Islam, they negotiated a truce with the Romans to evacuate the city and then immediately attacked them on the road while they were heading north up into Syria. In the period depicted in Kingdom of Heaven Saladin required a payment for every single Christian to escape and any that did not leave was thrown into slavery because there was zero was for the Crusaders to come up with such a sum.
>But as a rule for most early Islamic polities such policies were lightyears better than christian polities as a rule. You're talking pogroms and forced conversions and massacres versus higher taxation as broad rules
nice asspull
This might blow your mind but historical accuracy has almost nothing to do with the entertainment value of a movie about Orlando Bloom swinging a sword in fight scenes. No the movie isn't good but your criteria is utterly disconnected from the act of watching a movie.
>And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water
Jeremy Irons and Baldwin both call this out as a stupid idea that they shouldn't do, but Guy outmaneuvers them politically into having to do it. >those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong
The other major Muslim character besides Saladin is an overly zealous freak who is obsessed with murdering people, Saladin has like three conversations with the guy having to hold him off from doing something stupid because he's a moron. The very first conversation they have he has to explain warfare to the guy like a child because he wants to just bumrush jerusalem like a fricking spastic. >They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city
It was originally a israeli city, then the Romans murdered and expelled all the israelites. I don't particularly care, history plays out like it plays out, but don't try and say it was originally christian and actually WE were the good guys, and THEY are the bad guys.
It's way more complex than that and you're acting like a little kid.
>It's way more complex than that and you're acting like a little kid.
ironic for a moron crying about things that never happened
protip, the criticism here isn't that the film is historically inaccurate, it's that the story is an incoherent moronic mess that directly spits in the face of reality itself to present an extremely false narrative
reflect on this before replying to me you stupid child
This might blow your mind but historical accuracy has almost nothing to do with the entertainment value of a movie about Orlando Bloom swinging a sword in fight scenes. No the movie isn't good but your criteria is utterly disconnected from the act of watching a movie.
low IQ
I used to think this movie was good until I realized the main character maybe says 20 lines in the entire film and 75% of them are him literally repeating word for word things someone else told him. It's unreal what a massive charisma vacuum Orlando Bloom is.
can't believe i have to agree with the kpopgay
high IQ
downs-syndrome anons should stop embarrassing themselves
point out to leftys that muslims commit terror attacks hourly
they say 'well what about Christians?'
all they have is: 1 militia group in the 1980s, and the Crusades.
also Saladin ran away like a chickenshit on a camel when a group of 12 Crusaders rode into his camp full of thousands and cut down his bodyguard retinue.
pretty lulzy
>act moronic >get called moronic >damn i'm onto something
Lmao give it up samegay and at least change the way you name your photos if you're going to do it so it's not obvious.
>The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
The based brown man is the film's humanitarian though? He's so deep and awesome and never loses? White people are obviously the bad guys of history get over it.
No they left to try and relieve a fortress under attack and then cut off from water sources. That's completely different from the entire army just randomly walking into the desert. And of course Saladdin enslaved everyone that couldn't escape, weird how they don't show that and instead have everyone basically drop dead of thirst and a small battle off screen huh?
Kingdom of Heaven isn't bad because it shits on Christians. It's bad because no religious character, Christian or Muslim is treated as if they really believe in their own religion. Ridley Scott suffers from a lack of theory of mind so he can only transplant his atheism (I'm a fedora tipper too but come on) into the minds of medieval period characters. As a result, the characters behave as if this religious stuff that is so important to the actual Christians and Muslims of the time is some kind of dark joke, and if they could just get over the coordination problem they wouldn't have to fight, never mind the territorial reasons. It's a profoundly DUMB movie.
who is this 10/10 megadime? NAME? >Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Saladin was based. Baldwin was based. The defenders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem are portrayed as heroic. Only the Knight's Templar are depicted as irredeemable and evil.
Well you've convinced me. Imagine what kind of religious maniacs would put the Byzantines to the sword. Definitely not Christians and certainly not Crusaders, I think we can be absolutely certain of that.
Literally everything outside of Norton scenes, the end scene with Saladin, and Tiberious is very meh
It's not shit but it's not good and way overrated on here
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
It genuinely scares me there's people who think this. >dude Christians are so evil, don't you know they STOLE Jerusalem? And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water >those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong, poor guys are victims thanks to the STUPID EVIL CHRISTIANS >GOD WANTS to give them back Jerusalem, it's fate, don't you get it?!
Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Why do people act like such homosexuals over this film? Watched it 2 years ago, thought it was amazing then I go on Cinemaphile and every tradcath zoomer shits on it because their feefees got hurt
>finds fountain of youth >orders the abomination to be destroyed
yeah im thinking based
>Enters with virtually no opposition >Kills the british officer >Acknowledges his bravery >"only faith can provide eternal life" >Destroys the fountain >Refuses to elaborate further >Leaves
You can find a lot of issues with the movie, but was in no way bland. breasts, violence, cartoonish characters, political shit, personal betrayals, DDL at his best, fun quotable dialogue. It is flawed, but it is not bland.
Literally the opposite.Predators us turbo-underrated and Lawrence Fishburne is usually pretty based but his character was by far the worst thing about that movie and honestly the worst character of his career. It was kind of a bait and switch because he was in all the commercials and it was basically his first major appearance since Morpheus and people were like w.t.f.?? with that weird act he played in the movie.
it goes inside the mind of a serial killer that stalks women and uses their dead bodies to fap.
It is interestingly ahead of time and it has a lot of music video aesthetics but they had Jennifer Lopez so
Don't remember much about the movie, except it's also the origin of that image of a super wrinkly old guy you see sometimes posted, but I do still remember Custer smugly calling the protagonist mule skinner. Dead on portrayal of the mythology of the man. A more cinematic Zapp Brannigan.
>kino character in otherwise shit film
pic related
>cries like a little girl when he gets scalped
nah this dude spent the entire film hyping himself up as this big masculine survivor just to piss his pants in front of the red bull
kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
the director's cut is almost passable but the plot really is as lazy and stupid as it gets
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
It genuinely scares me there's people who think this. >dude Christians are so evil, don't you know they STOLE Jerusalem? And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water >those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong, poor guys are victims thanks to the STUPID EVIL CHRISTIANS >GOD WANTS to give them back Jerusalem, it's fate, don't you get it?!
Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Yes it is. Its historically inaccurate, intentionally so to make christians look bad and muslims look good. Because thats the only way to make that happen, you have to lie.
Can u recommen any amount of good historical movies, and also your top more obscure ones overall, thanks
It's a matter of historical record, as it can be read in letters and logs from the time that many experienced crusaders, even from the Holy Christian orders, opposed islamophobia and that they considered prejudiced cruel handling of the muslim locals as a problem, usually from zealous newcomers from western Europe.
What a fricking moron thread. There were lots of good christians, such as Orlando and his father, and the monk and lots of others. What a moron take saying it is anti-Christians
kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
its okay, I wish they did more world building/dialogue between the more interesting characters scenes and less battle/random loves scenes.
have you seen the director's cut?
yes
no its pretty shit
Yes it is. Its historically inaccurate, intentionally so to make christians look bad and muslims look good. Because thats the only way to make that happen, you have to lie.
it's alright but the fight scenes are so ridiculous it feels like one of those cheesy Bollywood action movies
anything starring orlando bloom as the main lead is shit
its alright. saladin was kino too
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
It genuinely scares me there's people who think this.
>dude Christians are so evil, don't you know they STOLE Jerusalem? And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water
>those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong, poor guys are victims thanks to the STUPID EVIL CHRISTIANS
>GOD WANTS to give them back Jerusalem, it's fate, don't you get it?!
Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Ridley Scott clearly has a self-loathing cuck fetish that really shines through the entire film. Orlando Bloom is literally the best Christian and loved by god because he doesn't believe in god and is basically a protestant making up his own shit and ignoring the church completely.
Don't even get me started on the shitastic action scenes with the pajeet tier slowmo shots.
The persecution fetish is real. It's obvious that there were good christians in this film. The main character is one. Imagine being this dense.
Kingdom of Heaven didn't feel overly hamfisted against Christians, but Christians are the most persecuted religion in the West. And its mostly done by yids and former Christians (White lefty homosexuals)
can't believe i have to agree with the kpopgay
You're reading your lame preconceived notions into it. My preconceived notions were that the crusades were a based expression of Euro chauvinism and were good regardless of portrayals. Just stop being so lame and you won't seethe so much in life.
>noooo my cuck movie is actually good you're just s-seething
unironically cope
The only good film Ridley Scott has ever made was the Duelists, it was his first film and everything afterwards a mistake. You can disagree, but it just demonstrates how deeply unintelligent you are.
You're reading cuckoldry into everything. Weird obsession to have.
>everything!
>obsession!
Uhh..we're talking about 1 movie here anon. One where the director turns self hate into a 3 hour chore. You're projecting really god damn hard here.
Stop typing like such a moronic sperg.
>moves the goal posts
Ouch, bet that hurt to concede.
Not him but ok sperg
>still replying 5 hours later
lmao you mad as frick
If you say so Black person
>still going
el emayo
Yeah I'm not sure when I keep pushing that maybe it's cuz I made fun of it a while back but like I was never really engaged or married or had a relationships to be honest I'm not really sure when they keep pushing that one so hard to be honest. Just like the foot thing they keep pushing s*** that is entirely not really relevant to my character and I'm just kind of confused by it not offended I know some people are into that it's not my thing to be honest. Or just women being stupid hoping I'll get envious I guess I don't know I'm not the jealous type.
bro, it's a movie about orlando bloom swining a sword, eva green getting her breasts out, and some big action scenes so ridley can get some nice wides. you're autistic screeching about historical accuracy has nothing to do with a movie (that doesn't advertise itself as a documentary) being entertaining or not.
I used to think this movie was good until I realized the main character maybe says 20 lines in the entire film and 75% of them are him literally repeating word for word things someone else told him. It's unreal what a massive charisma vacuum Orlando Bloom is.
the only time his shit acting worked was with lord of the rings because the role happened to benefit from his naivety
It also helped that his character wasn't the main focus and he had Rhyes Davies and Mortensen to work off of.
>it was originally a Christian city
LMAO
Yes, moron
Even the fricking bible says it wasn't you zoomer christcuck
Just say "I'm a moron" and be done with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636–637)
It's inconsistent but it isn't out of nowhere and wrong to give muslims some credit over Christians in their portrayal in earlier Islamic history. Its dishonest to say it "spread by the sword" because there's a wide range of how bad that can be.
Certainly the Early Islamic Conquests were probably the least brutal expansions on anything resembling a comparable scale of the premodern period. Its in fact a known issue and phenomenon in archeology that its hard to notice the Islamic conquests in the archeological record because there's so little disruption, whereas as a rule you expect conquests to look like an apocalypse.
This bears out in contemporary accounts, most strikingly when they first took Jerusalem. They had the Christians cornered, beaten, besieged, and asked them to come out and discuss terms. The Christians were literally dumbfounded that the Muslims offered to let Christians leave the city safely with their property. They were like "why are we even fricking negotiating, of course we accept". Because that is absolutely not how they would have done things and they thought they were going out there to beg for a quick death.
Likewise of course there was severe religious persecution and repression on all sides. It was the middle ages. But as a rule for most early Islamic polities such policies were lightyears better than christian polities as a rule. You're talking pogroms and forced conversions and massacres versus higher taxation as broad rules
Obviously this was all awful and you can find infinite horrible stories and moments, and conditions of life were generally horrible and brutal by modern standards. But people will refuse to ever read a single book or watch a single good lecture or whatever on this stuff, make shit up, and act like its a fact. Obviously the movie is wrong but you've gone wrong in another reductive direction in service to 2023 grievance politics
>This bears out in contemporary accounts, most strikingly when they first took Jerusalem. They had the Christians cornered, beaten, besieged, and asked them to come out and discuss terms. The Christians were literally dumbfounded that the Muslims offered to let Christians leave the city safely with their property. They were like "why are we even fricking negotiating, of course we accept". Because that is absolutely not how they would have done things and they thought they were going out there to beg for a quick death.
If you mean the initial expansion of Islam, they negotiated a truce with the Romans to evacuate the city and then immediately attacked them on the road while they were heading north up into Syria. In the period depicted in Kingdom of Heaven Saladin required a payment for every single Christian to escape and any that did not leave was thrown into slavery because there was zero was for the Crusaders to come up with such a sum.
>But as a rule for most early Islamic polities such policies were lightyears better than christian polities as a rule. You're talking pogroms and forced conversions and massacres versus higher taxation as broad rules
nice asspull
I was going to call you Muhammad but I doubt that a Muslim would lie this brazenly.
This might blow your mind but historical accuracy has almost nothing to do with the entertainment value of a movie about Orlando Bloom swinging a sword in fight scenes. No the movie isn't good but your criteria is utterly disconnected from the act of watching a movie.
It starts to matter when the narrative of the film is heavy handed and comically demented.
>And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water
Jeremy Irons and Baldwin both call this out as a stupid idea that they shouldn't do, but Guy outmaneuvers them politically into having to do it.
>those Muslims though...they're so wise and cool and strong
The other major Muslim character besides Saladin is an overly zealous freak who is obsessed with murdering people, Saladin has like three conversations with the guy having to hold him off from doing something stupid because he's a moron. The very first conversation they have he has to explain warfare to the guy like a child because he wants to just bumrush jerusalem like a fricking spastic.
>They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city
It was originally a israeli city, then the Romans murdered and expelled all the israelites. I don't particularly care, history plays out like it plays out, but don't try and say it was originally christian and actually WE were the good guys, and THEY are the bad guys.
It's way more complex than that and you're acting like a little kid.
>It's way more complex than that and you're acting like a little kid.
ironic for a moron crying about things that never happened
protip, the criticism here isn't that the film is historically inaccurate, it's that the story is an incoherent moronic mess that directly spits in the face of reality itself to present an extremely false narrative
reflect on this before replying to me you stupid child
You made specific criticisms that I quoted and then proved were wrong. Sorry bub, try harder.
>Um aktuallllllllllllllly israelites existed?!!?! hello?! Hell-oI!?
Wow, gotem.
Did a israelite frick your girlfriend or something?
low IQ
high IQ
downs-syndrome anons should stop embarrassing themselves
point out to leftys that muslims commit terror attacks hourly
they say 'well what about Christians?'
all they have is: 1 militia group in the 1980s, and the Crusades.
also Saladin ran away like a chickenshit on a camel when a group of 12 Crusaders rode into his camp full of thousands and cut down his bodyguard retinue.
pretty lulzy
Literally what is it with Christians and their victim complex, do they get off on it?
You can tell by the sheer amount of seething this caused that anon is onto something.
>act moronic
>get called moronic
>damn i'm onto something
Lmao give it up samegay and at least change the way you name your photos if you're going to do it so it's not obvious.
I'm guessing it's just one reddit-troony seething because their parents made them go to Church one Sunday instead of playing of playing minecraft.
I thought you were a schizo at first but you're actually right, the sheer amount of anti-Christian seething in this thread can't be natural.
samegay
you realize we can see your photo filenames right?
>It genuinely scares me there's people who think this.
lol the movie is bad but you're a giant fricking homosexual
>The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
The based brown man is the film's humanitarian though? He's so deep and awesome and never loses? White people are obviously the bad guys of history get over it.
>White people are obviously the bad guys of history get over it.
That's a good thing btw
>And look they're also STUPID, walking into the desert without water
this literally happened though
No they left to try and relieve a fortress under attack and then cut off from water sources. That's completely different from the entire army just randomly walking into the desert. And of course Saladdin enslaved everyone that couldn't escape, weird how they don't show that and instead have everyone basically drop dead of thirst and a small battle off screen huh?
Kingdom of Heaven isn't bad because it shits on Christians. It's bad because no religious character, Christian or Muslim is treated as if they really believe in their own religion. Ridley Scott suffers from a lack of theory of mind so he can only transplant his atheism (I'm a fedora tipper too but come on) into the minds of medieval period characters. As a result, the characters behave as if this religious stuff that is so important to the actual Christians and Muslims of the time is some kind of dark joke, and if they could just get over the coordination problem they wouldn't have to fight, never mind the territorial reasons. It's a profoundly DUMB movie.
Saladin, Baldwin and bloom's character are all true believers. The only bad guys are the Knight's Templar.
who is this 10/10 megadime? NAME?
>Islam was spread by the sword. They took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire, it was originally a Christian city. The reason everyone fights Saladdin to the bitter end is because defeat meant mass enslavement and torture.
Saladin was based. Baldwin was based. The defenders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem are portrayed as heroic. Only the Knight's Templar are depicted as irredeemable and evil.
You've become the thing you thought you were fighting. Might as well have blue hair, tats about body positivity and problem glasses.
whatever they're paying you to gaslight here
it's too much
lmao you suck at this, I've seen better bot posts
>paying you to gaslight
As I was saying.
Well you've convinced me. Imagine what kind of religious maniacs would put the Byzantines to the sword. Definitely not Christians and certainly not Crusaders, I think we can be absolutely certain of that.
Christianity was spread by the sword too you demented christisraelite. Jerusalem was originally a israeli city not a christian one.
Theatrical cut is shit. Directors cut is kini
Literally everything outside of Norton scenes, the end scene with Saladin, and Tiberious is very meh
It's not shit but it's not good and way overrated on here
yes it was, homosexual zoomer
Why do people act like such homosexuals over this film? Watched it 2 years ago, thought it was amazing then I go on Cinemaphile and every tradcath zoomer shits on it because their feefees got hurt
I'm not sure what the sperging is about either, the director's edition has always been considered kino here
>t. buttmad predditor who's feefees got hurt
imagine being so stupid you brag that youre unable to comprehend a simple film
There's multiple posts explaining why, what's your question?
>39% on RT
it was ok
It was proto-woke propaganda.
They should have cut out the stupid mermaid/priest subplot and given us more of the Spaniard
still the only positive portrayal of a spaniard in all of anglo media
>finds fountain of youth
>orders the abomination to be destroyed
yeah im thinking based
>Enters with virtually no opposition
>Kills the british officer
>Acknowledges his bravery
>"only faith can provide eternal life"
>Destroys the fountain
>Refuses to elaborate further
>Leaves
yup. totally forgot how good the spandiard was
I laughed at that scene
Completely unexpected kino
How did a Catholic Colonizer get a positive depiction in Hollywood?
did Mel Gibson shadow write this movie?
Spanish peepo are brown and catholics are a persecuted minority
t. OP here, forgot to say pic not rel
Gangs of New York was surprisingly bland. I wouldn't call it a shit movie, but I expected more from it.
You can find a lot of issues with the movie, but was in no way bland. breasts, violence, cartoonish characters, political shit, personal betrayals, DDL at his best, fun quotable dialogue. It is flawed, but it is not bland.
Wasn’t a great film but could have been a killer limited series.
We don’t get enough Fat boss fights in movies
This guy was surprisingly kino. You really see fat dudes fight that well these days
Terrible
Closest live action Punisher so far.
The ending felt like I was watching the siege of minas tirith. The similarity felt so blatant. Maybe I'm misremembering.
you know im right
Unfortunately I agree. We are right these people just trying to save face. They only hate me because I'm right
Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York
Laurence Fishburne in Predators
>Laurence Fishburne in Predators
Literally the opposite.Predators us turbo-underrated and Lawrence Fishburne is usually pretty based but his character was by far the worst thing about that movie and honestly the worst character of his career. It was kind of a bait and switch because he was in all the commercials and it was basically his first major appearance since Morpheus and people were like w.t.f.?? with that weird act he played in the movie.
only interesting part of the movie
Recast this movie by replacing JLo and Vince Vaughn with anybody else, and The Cell is kino.
What is this from?
the cell
qrd? Is it kino like anon says
Has a lot of disturbing imagery. It is filmed in an interesting way, lots of nice shots.
it goes inside the mind of a serial killer that stalks women and uses their dead bodies to fap.
It is interestingly ahead of time and it has a lot of music video aesthetics but they had Jennifer Lopez so
Saladin was kino too and also that film is a 10/10
Good answer, real waste of Lee. The funhouse set was cool at least.
Tom Cavanaugh's character in the Flash.
Custer from Little Big Man
Don't remember much about the movie, except it's also the origin of that image of a super wrinkly old guy you see sometimes posted, but I do still remember Custer smugly calling the protagonist mule skinner. Dead on portrayal of the mythology of the man. A more cinematic Zapp Brannigan.
?t=93
Shit film? You definitely don't remember it and Custer is hardly the high point.
>Wasted Potential: The Movie
Still baffling how they squandered the premise and the cast
Hobo wSnt that shit but these 2 would have Made the better movie
Time to admit that Ridley Scott is a hack and has always been a hack.
>kino character in otherwise shit film
pic related
>cries like a little girl when he gets scalped
nah this dude spent the entire film hyping himself up as this big masculine survivor just to piss his pants in front of the red bull
>kingdom of heaven wasn't a shit film doe
the director's cut is almost passable but the plot really is as lazy and stupid as it gets
Can u recommen any amount of good historical movies, and also your top more obscure ones overall, thanks
Uncle Benny of course
Obligatory
It's a matter of historical record, as it can be read in letters and logs from the time that many experienced crusaders, even from the Holy Christian orders, opposed islamophobia and that they considered prejudiced cruel handling of the muslim locals as a problem, usually from zealous newcomers from western Europe.
What a fricking moron thread. There were lots of good christians, such as Orlando and his father, and the monk and lots of others. What a moron take saying it is anti-Christians
Was barely in the fricking movie too
He was unironically the worst part of the movie. I know he can act so what the frick was he doing.