~~*Historians*~~ lol. Just watch it. It'll be remembered forever because nobody dares to make movies about The Crusades. It won't happen anymore because the world is more diverse now than ever and you can't make a movie where you're just killing non-whites.
>give my opinion on Cinemaphile >NOOOOOOOOO STOP NOOOOOOOOOOOOO (also i have no self control and had to reply)
What's wrong with the 100 threads that I can't even see? Are they full of people like you?
You have your opinion and it was shit, so you got shit on. If you want to circlejerk over hating israelites you have a whole containment board specially made for you!
This. Poltards who judge movies based on how many black people they spot are about as reliable as liberals who celebrate said people being in the film. Neither are reliable judges of kino and have no place on this board.
there is no reason for a random nagger muslim to be hanging out with crusaders in a crusader movie with zero explanation as to why. his only purpose is to yell at crusaders for pissing upriver while he gets water just so blacks in the theatre can hoot and holler and go DATS RITE, DA MOORS BE TEACHIN YALL HOW TO USE SOAP N SHIET. the movie is not 'kino' just because there are about 5 minutes of it total worth watching, all of which can be found on youtube. stop shilling for propaganda, especially when its mid quality. at least be shilling something kino you cockroach-loving sodomite
6 months ago
Anonymous
If an Irish and an australian teamed up you wouldn't think anything of it because both look white to you. You don't give a shit about movie logic, you want to whine about black people you pathetic pissbaby.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>if an irish and an australian teams up
in what context? in what movie? why the fuck would an australian be in a movie about crusaders? unless you mean an australian actor which is fine since theyre of anglo saxon descent and therefore british blood. what the fuck are you even on about you ESL speaking sandpedo? what the fuck does an irishman and an australian teaming up have to do with anything were talking about? did you forget to type the rest of the sentence? fucking inbred paki fuck
6 months ago
Anonymous
Interesting. You can't seem to grasp what I'm saying no matter how I phrase it. The brainwashing runs deep.
6 months ago
Anonymous
nagger, why would an irishman and an australian teaming up be a problem? what the fuck are you even talking about? are we talking a heist movie? a romcom? like jesus dude, yeah I cant grasp what youre saying because you arent saying anything, youre mumbling like a retard that cant speak english. fuck off back to your shitstain country sandnagger. leave your sister here for my BWC tho
6 months ago
Anonymous
You really seem like an under-age tourist who thinks stringing together slurs and saying edgy shit has any impact on here. Also the fact you're utterly retarded and can't even understand the simple point the guy you replied to was making.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Nta but you're a disingenuous bastard if you can't see why it's insulting to reality to have a black Moor teaming up with Crusaders and then teaching them not to piss upstream and to use soap.
6 months ago
Anonymous
It's a shitty movie anon, that's why it has issues. It wasn't made to capture reality but to appeal to the average retarded audience. The majority of people sperging out in this thread need to acknowledge this.
6 months ago
Anonymous
There is no reason for you to be on this board. We used to actually discuss movies and had a good thing going. Now it's drowned out by people using films just to have a soapbox to rant about their political beliefs. gb2/pol/
6 months ago
Anonymous
lmao this is you
6 months ago
Anonymous
Ironic when your whole life and system of beliefs is based on seething
6 months ago
Anonymous
Is leftism not a belief based on seething, I mean come on at least the right has the status quo enthusiasts
I'm not the other guy, but my god posts like yours are some of the most insufferable
Go scream into a pillow if you have to don't subject us to your homosexualry
Not him but it is pretty inaccurate. Great visuals and acting though.
It's historically daft, following the tired proddie Walter Scott tropes of "le enlightened muslims of the Golden Age" and the barbaric dark ages catholic Europeans but the Director's Cut has a lot of kino in it
Almost every actor is great in (cept maybe Orlando Bloom), cinematography was beautiful, from Scott's Gladiator guy, it features a somewhat insipid but positive message and great battle scenes, horses, armors, banners
Also Evan Green it's at her peak here
She's usually a 10/10 (12 with the tits out) but she's s 12 just on screen
Bro, it had numerous scenes of Muslim barbarism. Remember when Saladin finally beat the armies of Jerusalem? They were beheading survivors left and right.
>Bro, it had numerous scenes of Muslim barbarism
Not nearly enough when compared to Christians.
And the fundamental part is what I said, there's two relevant Muslim characters in the film, they're the magnanimous Saladin and the personable Imad ad-Din.
By comparison, the two big villains of the film are Christians and the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem is a sniveling coward
And the whole film frames the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders as bad
It precisely like I said, like a Walter Scott book. It's not one sided, and I never said it was, but there's a clear bias against catholicism, a romantic view of Islam and a lot faulty historicity
As much as I like the irrigation scene, it's pretty retarded of Ridley to think people living in a desert couldn't figure out irrigation and wells. It has a bias, but it broadly paints everyone as a caveman.
I can't recall if the irrigation scene and all the building Balian does is kn the theatrical (I'm pretty sure it is) but one thing that the Director's Cut really has for it is how much more sense the character makes in it
He seems just like a random blacksmithing from Bumfucké, France in the theatrical. In the DC at least they show that he was a military commander and engineer before, explaining his talent with a sword and engineering skills
Oh yeah, it's not like the Rashidun Caliphate invaded the Levant and warred against the Byzantines
Or that basically what the Muslims did after leaving the peninsula was waging war against Christendom
At no point where the christians the invaders of Palestine. At literally NO POINT in history, ever. Christianity originated in Palestine. The only invaders are the muslims, and the point of the crusades was to throw them the fuck out and stop them from continuing their massacres against the christian population.
I agree with you, I just was addressing how some anons were trying to paint the Muslims as wholly good.
Personally I’m not a fan of the Crusades. Wasting time, money, and life fucking around in the Middle East over some land with some religious significance is stupid.
>I agree with you, I just was addressing how some anons were trying to paint the Muslims as wholly good
You could be reading my first post, In which I summed things perhaps too succinctly and could give that that was my opinion. But as I've later elaborated, it's just a criticisms of the obvious bias in the film >Wasting time, money, and life fucking around in the Middle East over some land with some religious significance is stupid.
Well, I disagree, but at least you understand what the fight is about.
What the film does is echo the provably wrong historiography of the "the Crusades happened because of profit!"
Which is nonsensical balderdash
The Crusades were a religious movement, people, yes even nobles, bishops and popes, believed in it. It bankrupted many a rich man, peasant or lord. It wasn't profitable at all, and it was almost a guaranteed death for some
>DUDE ITS REDPILLED! I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESNT KNOW SHIT ITS SO REDPILLED! DEUS VULT! IS THAT A CRUSADER JPEG?? OMG IM LIKE FEELING THE HOLY SPIRIT RN FRFR
the movie makes the crusaders look bad, makes them look like the aggressors who attacked muslim lands first which is blatant revisionism. youre a dumb christcuck homosexual who spouts about memes and has never even opened a bible or book in general in your life. they have dared to make several movies about the crusades since this one, and they all sucked, they all made the crusaders look bad, they all pretended that israelites and muslims dindu nuffin. go fuck yourself homosexual
The crusades do look bad, I don't even mean that in a lefty way
>the setting is europe circa 1000 ad >feudal society is at its height and everything sucks >christians are all getting hopped up over their arbitrary calendar turning 1000 and meming the that it will be the second coming (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism) >eastern rome gets fucked up and begs the pope for help >the pope sees this as an opportunity for the holy see to establish its own military >sends word out to all of europe calling for soldiers to invade the land of milk and honey >most christians think they are literally migrating the population of europe to jerusalem to be with jesus in the land of milk and honey and drop everything to join up >just a bunch of ignoramuses who looted the eastern romans thinking they were already at jerusalem
The whole thing is just another ugly tale of politics
you have to look at each crusade by its self. most of them were legitmate counter attacks. but the 4th crusade was a sneaky one that the ~~*venetians*~~ did for themselves. but yeah i definately see some popes were just trying to grow their own power.
If they were invading they'd go for egypt then work their way up. Whatever they were doing, it wasn't that. 1000 ad euros were obsessed with things like chivalry and might makes right, they went to the holy land for the purpose of fighting in itself, which meant they ended up not having to fight and pillage each others' lands, so everyone benefited in the end.
I think it's a shame that we are deprived of this. I don't think historical accuracy is necessarily the be all end all, but it can certainly add to a movie's value if done right. Think Tora Tora Tora vs Pearl Harbour. Both are ostensibly the same tale, though Tora is more concerned with historical accuracy, Pearl Harbour is concerned with telling a story and the spectacle of the event - both have good elements in their own right, however I think Tora is the better of the two.
When AI becomes decent enough, I'll feed into it hundreds of historical chronicles about the crusades (mostly christian, but muslim as well) and an historically accurate movie will come out
one thing I won't change though, is mommy Eva Green being there
It's historically daft, following the tired proddie Walter Scott tropes of "le enlightened muslims of the Golden Age" and the barbaric dark ages catholic Europeans but the Director's Cut has a lot of kino in it
Almost every actor is great in (cept maybe Orlando Bloom), cinematography was beautiful, from Scott's Gladiator guy, it features a somewhat insipid but positive message and great battle scenes, horses, armors, banners
Also Evan Green it's at her peak here
She's usually a 10/10 (12 with the tits out) but she's s 12 just on screen
>le enlightened muslims of the Golden Age" and the barbaric dark ages catholic Europeans
Nigga, take your meds, touch grass and have sex.
Bloom's character literally introduces irrigation to the people of the fertile crescent in that movie.
>Nigga, take your meds, touch grass and have sex.
I will do all those things with your mom >Bloom's character literally introduces irrigation to the people of the fertile crescent in that movie.
And? Saladin and the Ayyubids are still on their classical English Romantic perception, contrasted with the greedy, violent reynald de chatillon and guyde lusignan
The only christians portrayed positively are the ones that go against the grain, like Balian, Tiberius and Baldwin
I shouldn't need to spell this out for you anon
He's right, your only real problem with the movie is it doesn't align with your beliefs and politics. I guess you don't see films as anything more than propaganda.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>He's right, your only real problem with the movie is it doesn't align with your beliefs and politics
Read the thread, retard. I'm not gonna stay here all day to try and fix what the public education system did to you. >I guess you don't see films as anything more than propaganda
It's just so tiresome talking with you people
6 months ago
Anonymous
Not anyone involved in this, but he isn't right. The other guy. Maybe its because we see more Crusaders than Saracens but far more of the named Christians are depicted as bad people.
Just fucking count them
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Maybe its because we see more Crusaders than Saracens but far more of the named Christians are depicted as bad people.
This. Half of the Christians were portrayed as complete psychopaths while there was only one major bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist on Saladin's council (consisting of three people total).
6 months ago
Anonymous
>there was only one major bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist on Saladin's council
And he's played by a no name actor and in fact, I believe doesn't even have a name in the film properly
6 months ago
Anonymous
They were. It's accurate
6 months ago
Anonymous
And yet they decide to whitewash the fact that Saladin enslaved most of the Christians that surrendered to him after they couldnt afford to pay him off.
Why are we only exposed to one half of the barbarity that occurred daily in that era? Maybe it was because there was an agenda being pushed or something. But thats probably just crazy talk
6 months ago
Anonymous
You'd see an agenda no matter what. You just want everything to support your agenda and you cry when something doesn't.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I actually like the movie my dude. But its so obviously playing favourites and sweeping all sorts of shit under the rug.
Can't believe this is a controversial take, it was pretty common understanding that Kingdom of Heaven was handling the Saracens with kid gloves.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>media worldwide shits on christianity whenever able, always chickens out when it comes to muslims
you are right in that there is no agenda, its more just that the people who make the media you consume are reprehensible cowards. the type that would offer up their own daughters to be sodomized to save their own skin. btw that daughter is you, and the sodomizing rapists are muslims
6 months ago
Anonymous
Lmao there's the typical unhinged gibbering I like to see. All these homosexuals being disingenuous and beating around the bush, I can appreciate you're at least straight up with it.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>doesnt get biblical references
you think youre smart and clever, but youre a peasant. a slave. keep lmaoing about being a retard and not understanding a thing your betters speak of, your kind are cattle
6 months ago
Anonymous
NATO exists to keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Kek what a pseud thing to say. Funny how you ignored the content of what I said just to try save face by acting like referencing the bible makes you an intellectual. I got your reference, you're obviously still a deluded chud.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Maybe its because we see more Crusaders than Saracens but far more of the named Christians are depicted as bad people.
This. Half of the Christians were portrayed as complete psychopaths while there was only one major bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist on Saladin's council (consisting of three people total).
And the reason it is a problem for people is because they are a chud. People at the time already hated Muslims so driving that too hard would give the wrong impression.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah man, those fucking whities being upset that they lost a couple of buildings.
The trade centres were probably full of racists anyway
6 months ago
Anonymous
Where in my post did I say anything like that? I just stated the climate at the time and that Muslims were generic movie villains at that point.
>Nigga, take your meds, touch grass and have sex.
I will do all those things with your mom >Bloom's character literally introduces irrigation to the people of the fertile crescent in that movie.
And? Saladin and the Ayyubids are still on their classical English Romantic perception, contrasted with the greedy, violent reynald de chatillon and guyde lusignan
The only christians portrayed positively are the ones that go against the grain, like Balian, Tiberius and Baldwin
I shouldn't need to spell this out for you anon
Saladin is the only enlightened muslim in the film. He has to go out of his way to stop his subordinates being dipshit warmongers. If you don't like it fine but don't make up bullshit reasons for it.
And him alone, notice that is both he kings and one or another knight or student close to the king that seemed not retarded. The guy with black robes that yells Allah Arkbah near the catapult is the war monger of Saladin.
>notice that is both he kings and one or another knight or student close to the king that seemed not retarded.
can you even speak english you fucking paki goat rapist?
This was my first exposure to eva green. I thought she was pretty. That was many years ago, and I'm quite antisemitic now, but I still think she's pretty.
this was the historian video i was talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1Zgj7Tct0
they interview an actual historian about reynald de chatillon
honestly for every single first viewing the most optimal experience will always be the theatrical cut. after you watch that it makes sense to go back and watch directors cuts or studio recuts. but the theatrical will always be optimal for a first view. this goes double for when you homosexuals show LOTR trilogy to newcomers so they don't get overwhelmed by 12 hours of content from the extended editions.
People say it's cringe because the Christians are mostly barbarians filled with bloodlust but it's pretty based when you see Orlando Bloom teaching his desert-dwelling vassals the basics of irrigation.
It's overall very kino. Still fairly historically inaccurate but if you enjoy the rest of the film, you can overlook it and it's not as bad. Some Christians/Muslims good, some Christians/Muslims bad is the base theme. Plus the battles and fights are great too.
If people are going to nitpick, they might as well just talk about the off-screen Battle of Hattin or Balian's revised backstory. Stuff that is clearly historically relevant and has kino potential. Aside from that, everything else is solid. Every character has their own motivations and there's enough political intrigue to keep the slower scenes interesting.
never forget a major cause of the crusades to being with was a byzantine emperor asking the pope to call catholics to help their fellow christians fight the turks/muslims. then once the catholics/franks showed up the byzantine emperor proceeded to not help them at all. when the franks were besieging (or being besieged I cant remember) Antioch, the emperor was on his way with an army, but one deserter said "nah its over we lost", so he turned around without confirming. Then he had the audacity to expect the people he fucked over to pay homage to him AFTER they won without his help.
There's a very good reasons why no in Europe gave so much as a fuck if Constantinople fell to the Turks
The Greeks were only fond of callinf for a united Christendom when it benefited them
never forget a major cause of the crusades to being with was a byzantine emperor asking the pope to call catholics to help their fellow christians fight the turks/muslims. then once the catholics/franks showed up the byzantine emperor proceeded to not help them at all. when the franks were besieging (or being besieged I cant remember) Antioch, the emperor was on his way with an army, but one deserter said "nah its over we lost", so he turned around without confirming. Then he had the audacity to expect the people he fucked over to pay homage to him AFTER they won without his help.
Crusade and Jihad were barely ever about religion, it was about capturing rich prince and getting ransom for their life, Richard lionhearted, Frederick Barbarossa and Saladin were all greedy military industrial fuck boys
>Crusade and Jihad were barely ever about religion
Read a history book. >it was about capturing rich prince and getting ransom for their life, Richard lionhearted,
Bankrupted England with his Wars >Frederick Barbarossa
Only joined the Second because if his uncle and died on his way to the Third >Saladin
Had a history much more complicated than just waging Jihad
justified, unironically >be byzantine retard emperor >get deposed in more retarded court infighting >go to army of crusaders on the verge of disbanding due to be severely in debt to venetians >promise to pay off their entire debt and provide them an army to help the crusade if they restore him to the throne (a price the empire cant actually afford) >crusaders agree and successfully take back constantinople >except the usurper emperor fled with most of the empire's gold >byzantine emperor has no money at all to repay the crusaders, starts desperately melting down religious icons to do so >becoming very quickly unpopular, emperor gets murdered and replaced by a different usurper emperor >crusaders request the new emperor pay the debt promised by the former emperor >lol nope prepare for battle >crusaders procede retake the city again and this time just sack the city for all its worth because fuck these greek retards
That was the fourth. And the sad thing is, by the overall track record of crusades, that was actually one of the more successful ones. Because they at least managed to sack a city and enrich themselves, and accomplished somebody's plans, even if it was the Doge of Venice rather than the Pope.
Most crusades completely failed. The first was the only truly successful one, but it's success was in a way a curse. They won too hard, it convinced them crusading was easy and they should do more of it. So even when the next several crusades ended in disaster and/or humiliation they kept doing them, for centuries.
The 4th Crusade. One big reason that other anons forgot to mention was the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople. Greeks chimped out and slaughtered tens of thousands of Christian Western Europeans living in the city and sold thousands of survivors as slaves to the Turks. It happened barely 20 years before the 4th Crusade.
Was this the time an emperor wanted to make the empire great again by conquering all of times old territories, starting with Italy? If I remember correctly the black plague then hit fucking everything up.
I thought the purpose of bloom's irrigation scene was to show that he was a better ruler than the previous guy? been a while since I've seen it but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the previous feudal lord whose land it was was just a negligent and absentee landlord who didnt give a shit.
the movie is pretty bad, the director's cut improve it a little but it still ultimately remains bad.
the issue of its message isn't really "muslims good" as chuds like to say, but rather that it is really on the nose with its rather unprofound take on "religion bad." Ridley Scott seems to be of the opinion that secularism is just in general morally good by default, which is a particularly jarring idea to keep slapping around for a time period in which people really did take religion VERY seriously, often times more seriously then... anything. This isn't some christian cope on my part btw, i'm definitely not a religious person. The movie has other very clear issues (mainly alot of shit characters).
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut not the theatrical holy shit is a good movie in the same way that Braveheart was good. >historians say
That's like black science man telling you star wars is science fantasy. No shit. We. Know. Any "Historical" movie to come out of Hollywood is fanfic and propaganda. Historian ecelebs aren't historians. And they aren't film critics.
>Agree to help the crusaders against the Ottomans at Nicopolis. >End up pulling a Leeroy Jenkins and rush head on because you didn't listen to the main commander's order. >Lose battle. Lose so many men that no new crusader expedition launches until five decades later - enough time for Ottomans to get ready for Constantinople. >Return home after getting ransom paid. >Start a civil war for shits and giggles.
What the fuck was his problem
The problem with this movie isn't that it's historically inaccurate, but that it's boring as shit. Ridley Scott only makes good movies accidentally (Gladiator) or if he has tard wranglers on him (Blade Runner)
Yeah, Ridley Scott has the habit of messing up with historical settings. Nevertheless it is enjoyable from the religious and historical perspective. What is more, the choosing of Orlando Bloom as the protagonist deserves more critique than the historical errors
~~*Historians*~~ lol. Just watch it. It'll be remembered forever because nobody dares to make movies about The Crusades. It won't happen anymore because the world is more diverse now than ever and you can't make a movie where you're just killing non-whites.
You're insufferable
>give my opinion on Cinemaphile
>NOOOOOOOOO STOP NOOOOOOOOOOOOO (also i have no self control and had to reply)
What's wrong with the 100 threads that I can't even see? Are they full of people like you?
Not him but wasnt kingdom of heaven kind of heavy on the whole muzzies being good guys and le ebul christians being dicks?
>What's wrong with the 100 threads that I can't even see? Are they full of people like you?
What? Why do you talk like such a retard
Why would you reply to me if you don't like it? Reply again after I filter the thread. Go ahead.
I don't know what the fuck you're even saying, you're clearly a mentally ill 2016 election tourist
You have your opinion and it was shit, so you got shit on. If you want to circlejerk over hating israelites you have a whole containment board specially made for you!
This. Poltards who judge movies based on how many black people they spot are about as reliable as liberals who celebrate said people being in the film. Neither are reliable judges of kino and have no place on this board.
there is no reason for a random nagger muslim to be hanging out with crusaders in a crusader movie with zero explanation as to why. his only purpose is to yell at crusaders for pissing upriver while he gets water just so blacks in the theatre can hoot and holler and go DATS RITE, DA MOORS BE TEACHIN YALL HOW TO USE SOAP N SHIET. the movie is not 'kino' just because there are about 5 minutes of it total worth watching, all of which can be found on youtube. stop shilling for propaganda, especially when its mid quality. at least be shilling something kino you cockroach-loving sodomite
If an Irish and an australian teamed up you wouldn't think anything of it because both look white to you. You don't give a shit about movie logic, you want to whine about black people you pathetic pissbaby.
>if an irish and an australian teams up
in what context? in what movie? why the fuck would an australian be in a movie about crusaders? unless you mean an australian actor which is fine since theyre of anglo saxon descent and therefore british blood. what the fuck are you even on about you ESL speaking sandpedo? what the fuck does an irishman and an australian teaming up have to do with anything were talking about? did you forget to type the rest of the sentence? fucking inbred paki fuck
Interesting. You can't seem to grasp what I'm saying no matter how I phrase it. The brainwashing runs deep.
nagger, why would an irishman and an australian teaming up be a problem? what the fuck are you even talking about? are we talking a heist movie? a romcom? like jesus dude, yeah I cant grasp what youre saying because you arent saying anything, youre mumbling like a retard that cant speak english. fuck off back to your shitstain country sandnagger. leave your sister here for my BWC tho
You really seem like an under-age tourist who thinks stringing together slurs and saying edgy shit has any impact on here. Also the fact you're utterly retarded and can't even understand the simple point the guy you replied to was making.
Nta but you're a disingenuous bastard if you can't see why it's insulting to reality to have a black Moor teaming up with Crusaders and then teaching them not to piss upstream and to use soap.
It's a shitty movie anon, that's why it has issues. It wasn't made to capture reality but to appeal to the average retarded audience. The majority of people sperging out in this thread need to acknowledge this.
There is no reason for you to be on this board. We used to actually discuss movies and had a good thing going. Now it's drowned out by people using films just to have a soapbox to rant about their political beliefs. gb2/pol/
lmao this is you
Ironic when your whole life and system of beliefs is based on seething
Is leftism not a belief based on seething, I mean come on at least the right has the status quo enthusiasts
I'm not the other guy, but my god posts like yours are some of the most insufferable
Go scream into a pillow if you have to don't subject us to your homosexualry
what did you say to me you little bitch
Shut the fuck up homosexual you don't belong here
Not him but it is pretty inaccurate. Great visuals and acting though.
Bro, it had numerous scenes of Muslim barbarism. Remember when Saladin finally beat the armies of Jerusalem? They were beheading survivors left and right.
>Bro, it had numerous scenes of Muslim barbarism
Not nearly enough when compared to Christians.
And the fundamental part is what I said, there's two relevant Muslim characters in the film, they're the magnanimous Saladin and the personable Imad ad-Din.
By comparison, the two big villains of the film are Christians and the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem is a sniveling coward
And the whole film frames the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders as bad
It precisely like I said, like a Walter Scott book. It's not one sided, and I never said it was, but there's a clear bias against catholicism, a romantic view of Islam and a lot faulty historicity
As much as I like the irrigation scene, it's pretty retarded of Ridley to think people living in a desert couldn't figure out irrigation and wells. It has a bias, but it broadly paints everyone as a caveman.
I can't recall if the irrigation scene and all the building Balian does is kn the theatrical (I'm pretty sure it is) but one thing that the Director's Cut really has for it is how much more sense the character makes in it
He seems just like a random blacksmithing from Bumfucké, France in the theatrical. In the DC at least they show that he was a military commander and engineer before, explaining his talent with a sword and engineering skills
Well, the Christians are the invaders.
Oh yeah, it's not like the Rashidun Caliphate invaded the Levant and warred against the Byzantines
Or that basically what the Muslims did after leaving the peninsula was waging war against Christendom
At no point where the christians the invaders of Palestine. At literally NO POINT in history, ever. Christianity originated in Palestine. The only invaders are the muslims, and the point of the crusades was to throw them the fuck out and stop them from continuing their massacres against the christian population.
The Christians were there before the Muslims.
I agree with you, I just was addressing how some anons were trying to paint the Muslims as wholly good.
Personally I’m not a fan of the Crusades. Wasting time, money, and life fucking around in the Middle East over some land with some religious significance is stupid.
>I agree with you, I just was addressing how some anons were trying to paint the Muslims as wholly good
You could be reading my first post, In which I summed things perhaps too succinctly and could give that that was my opinion. But as I've later elaborated, it's just a criticisms of the obvious bias in the film
>Wasting time, money, and life fucking around in the Middle East over some land with some religious significance is stupid.
Well, I disagree, but at least you understand what the fight is about.
What the film does is echo the provably wrong historiography of the "the Crusades happened because of profit!"
Which is nonsensical balderdash
The Crusades were a religious movement, people, yes even nobles, bishops and popes, believed in it. It bankrupted many a rich man, peasant or lord. It wasn't profitable at all, and it was almost a guaranteed death for some
>DUDE ITS REDPILLED! I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESNT KNOW SHIT ITS SO REDPILLED! DEUS VULT! IS THAT A CRUSADER JPEG?? OMG IM LIKE FEELING THE HOLY SPIRIT RN FRFR
the movie makes the crusaders look bad, makes them look like the aggressors who attacked muslim lands first which is blatant revisionism. youre a dumb christcuck homosexual who spouts about memes and has never even opened a bible or book in general in your life. they have dared to make several movies about the crusades since this one, and they all sucked, they all made the crusaders look bad, they all pretended that israelites and muslims dindu nuffin. go fuck yourself homosexual
The crusades do look bad, I don't even mean that in a lefty way
>the setting is europe circa 1000 ad
>feudal society is at its height and everything sucks
>christians are all getting hopped up over their arbitrary calendar turning 1000 and meming the that it will be the second coming (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism)
>eastern rome gets fucked up and begs the pope for help
>the pope sees this as an opportunity for the holy see to establish its own military
>sends word out to all of europe calling for soldiers to invade the land of milk and honey
>most christians think they are literally migrating the population of europe to jerusalem to be with jesus in the land of milk and honey and drop everything to join up
>just a bunch of ignoramuses who looted the eastern romans thinking they were already at jerusalem
The whole thing is just another ugly tale of politics
Fuck off cunt the Christians dindu nothing. JIDF shill just fuck off please
You mistake me for someone who takes either side when it comes to disputes between governments
you have to look at each crusade by its self. most of them were legitmate counter attacks. but the 4th crusade was a sneaky one that the ~~*venetians*~~ did for themselves. but yeah i definately see some popes were just trying to grow their own power.
If they were invading they'd go for egypt then work their way up. Whatever they were doing, it wasn't that. 1000 ad euros were obsessed with things like chivalry and might makes right, they went to the holy land for the purpose of fighting in itself, which meant they ended up not having to fight and pillage each others' lands, so everyone benefited in the end.
That mask must have been hot to wear
For you.
>historians say its bad
I'm waiting for them to make a kino then
until then, there's nothing better to at least give you the spirit of those beautiful times
>there's nothing better to at least give you the spirit of those beautiful times
That's the thing; Kingdom of Heaven wins because there's nothing better.
I think it's a shame that we are deprived of this. I don't think historical accuracy is necessarily the be all end all, but it can certainly add to a movie's value if done right. Think Tora Tora Tora vs Pearl Harbour. Both are ostensibly the same tale, though Tora is more concerned with historical accuracy, Pearl Harbour is concerned with telling a story and the spectacle of the event - both have good elements in their own right, however I think Tora is the better of the two.
It's not accurate from a historical point of view. Doesn't mean it's not a good movie or an enjoyable one
Directors cut fucks up the pace and adds mostly irrelevant bs. Do the historians like the theatrical cut though?
I saw Kingdom of Heaven and Troy because a history teacher put them on for the lols. That was a great class
When AI becomes decent enough, I'll feed into it hundreds of historical chronicles about the crusades (mostly christian, but muslim as well) and an historically accurate movie will come out
one thing I won't change though, is mommy Eva Green being there
historians can suck my dick
It's historically daft, following the tired proddie Walter Scott tropes of "le enlightened muslims of the Golden Age" and the barbaric dark ages catholic Europeans but the Director's Cut has a lot of kino in it
Almost every actor is great in (cept maybe Orlando Bloom), cinematography was beautiful, from Scott's Gladiator guy, it features a somewhat insipid but positive message and great battle scenes, horses, armors, banners
Also Evan Green it's at her peak here
She's usually a 10/10 (12 with the tits out) but she's s 12 just on screen
>le enlightened muslims of the Golden Age" and the barbaric dark ages catholic Europeans
Nigga, take your meds, touch grass and have sex.
Bloom's character literally introduces irrigation to the people of the fertile crescent in that movie.
>Nigga, take your meds, touch grass and have sex.
I will do all those things with your mom
>Bloom's character literally introduces irrigation to the people of the fertile crescent in that movie.
And? Saladin and the Ayyubids are still on their classical English Romantic perception, contrasted with the greedy, violent reynald de chatillon and guyde lusignan
The only christians portrayed positively are the ones that go against the grain, like Balian, Tiberius and Baldwin
I shouldn't need to spell this out for you anon
The movie is full of good, bad and gray characters on both sides, but you're so deep into your chudness you're not seeing straight.
>but you're so deep into your chudness
Lol
Okay, you got me
Here's your (you)
He's right, your only real problem with the movie is it doesn't align with your beliefs and politics. I guess you don't see films as anything more than propaganda.
>He's right, your only real problem with the movie is it doesn't align with your beliefs and politics
Read the thread, retard. I'm not gonna stay here all day to try and fix what the public education system did to you.
>I guess you don't see films as anything more than propaganda
It's just so tiresome talking with you people
Not anyone involved in this, but he isn't right. The other guy. Maybe its because we see more Crusaders than Saracens but far more of the named Christians are depicted as bad people.
Just fucking count them
>Maybe its because we see more Crusaders than Saracens but far more of the named Christians are depicted as bad people.
This. Half of the Christians were portrayed as complete psychopaths while there was only one major bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist on Saladin's council (consisting of three people total).
>there was only one major bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist on Saladin's council
And he's played by a no name actor and in fact, I believe doesn't even have a name in the film properly
They were. It's accurate
And yet they decide to whitewash the fact that Saladin enslaved most of the Christians that surrendered to him after they couldnt afford to pay him off.
Why are we only exposed to one half of the barbarity that occurred daily in that era? Maybe it was because there was an agenda being pushed or something. But thats probably just crazy talk
You'd see an agenda no matter what. You just want everything to support your agenda and you cry when something doesn't.
I actually like the movie my dude. But its so obviously playing favourites and sweeping all sorts of shit under the rug.
Can't believe this is a controversial take, it was pretty common understanding that Kingdom of Heaven was handling the Saracens with kid gloves.
>media worldwide shits on christianity whenever able, always chickens out when it comes to muslims
you are right in that there is no agenda, its more just that the people who make the media you consume are reprehensible cowards. the type that would offer up their own daughters to be sodomized to save their own skin. btw that daughter is you, and the sodomizing rapists are muslims
Lmao there's the typical unhinged gibbering I like to see. All these homosexuals being disingenuous and beating around the bush, I can appreciate you're at least straight up with it.
>doesnt get biblical references
you think youre smart and clever, but youre a peasant. a slave. keep lmaoing about being a retard and not understanding a thing your betters speak of, your kind are cattle
NATO exists to keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN.
Kek what a pseud thing to say. Funny how you ignored the content of what I said just to try save face by acting like referencing the bible makes you an intellectual. I got your reference, you're obviously still a deluded chud.
And the reason it is a problem for people is because they are a chud. People at the time already hated Muslims so driving that too hard would give the wrong impression.
Yeah man, those fucking whities being upset that they lost a couple of buildings.
The trade centres were probably full of racists anyway
Where in my post did I say anything like that? I just stated the climate at the time and that Muslims were generic movie villains at that point.
The stylishly messy hair really works for her
its called bedhair and it works for all wahmens
It's called benchod hair
Saladin is the only enlightened muslim in the film. He has to go out of his way to stop his subordinates being dipshit warmongers. If you don't like it fine but don't make up bullshit reasons for it.
>Saladin is the only enlightened muslim in the film
Lmao
Didn't watch the film
And him alone, notice that is both he kings and one or another knight or student close to the king that seemed not retarded. The guy with black robes that yells Allah Arkbah near the catapult is the war monger of Saladin.
>notice that is both he kings and one or another knight or student close to the king that seemed not retarded.
can you even speak english you fucking paki goat rapist?
A sory sir bu icant spek ye raipe langugage. A iu gona hef a probrem uih I?
This was my first exposure to eva green. I thought she was pretty. That was many years ago, and I'm quite antisemitic now, but I still think she's pretty.
Are you me?
Eva Green and Seinfeld are basically the only reasons I didn't become the next Hitler.
You're not watching for an accurate history lesson. You're watching for kino.
Some of the israeliteiest shit I've ever seen. Peak fucking reddit trash,
Historians and academics at large are homosexuals.
stop listening to self proclaimed youtube """historians""" then
this was the historian video i was talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1Zgj7Tct0
they interview an actual historian about reynald de chatillon
Do not watch it. Look up the Real Crusades History channel's review. He breaks down why the film is so bad.
honestly for every single first viewing the most optimal experience will always be the theatrical cut. after you watch that it makes sense to go back and watch directors cuts or studio recuts. but the theatrical will always be optimal for a first view. this goes double for when you homosexuals show LOTR trilogy to newcomers so they don't get overwhelmed by 12 hours of content from the extended editions.
>muh historians
who cares lol the movie is kino and I don't give a fuck if it isn't exactly what happened
the cast of this film is legendary. every actor is a super star now
You don't actually need the answer, do you?
Obviously watch the movie, it's fucking great.
Shame that Eddie Northtown's never gotten much credit for this just because you never see his face
What is Jerusalem worth?
People say it's cringe because the Christians are mostly barbarians filled with bloodlust but it's pretty based when you see Orlando Bloom teaching his desert-dwelling vassals the basics of irrigation.
It's overall very kino. Still fairly historically inaccurate but if you enjoy the rest of the film, you can overlook it and it's not as bad. Some Christians/Muslims good, some Christians/Muslims bad is the base theme. Plus the battles and fights are great too.
The irrigation scene was so essential to the pacing of the movie, Ridley was retarded for cutting that, probably for culture war reasons.
If people are going to nitpick, they might as well just talk about the off-screen Battle of Hattin or Balian's revised backstory. Stuff that is clearly historically relevant and has kino potential. Aside from that, everything else is solid. Every character has their own motivations and there's enough political intrigue to keep the slower scenes interesting.
It's kinda retarded tho, it's like isekai anime where the jap teaches the medievals about holding a cup up side up so the water doesn't spill.
>it's like isekai anime
>You go to certain death!
>All death is certain
This motherfucker stole every scene he was in, God bless David Thewlis
The Hospitaller and King Baldwin are the real reasons to watch this movie.
him and the roided out dude where my fav
historians also say europe's population has been at least half black since the dawn of time
And gay
Don't forget gay
>What is Jerusalem worth?
Well Cinemaphile? What would you pay for the holy land?
Which crusade was it where the Christians sacked the major Christian city of Constantinople to fun the crusade? Was it the first?
4th
never forget a major cause of the crusades to being with was a byzantine emperor asking the pope to call catholics to help their fellow christians fight the turks/muslims. then once the catholics/franks showed up the byzantine emperor proceeded to not help them at all. when the franks were besieging (or being besieged I cant remember) Antioch, the emperor was on his way with an army, but one deserter said "nah its over we lost", so he turned around without confirming. Then he had the audacity to expect the people he fucked over to pay homage to him AFTER they won without his help.
Which emperor was this?
alexios I
There's a very good reasons why no in Europe gave so much as a fuck if Constantinople fell to the Turks
The Greeks were only fond of callinf for a united Christendom when it benefited them
Alexios I Komnenos
Crusade and Jihad were barely ever about religion, it was about capturing rich prince and getting ransom for their life, Richard lionhearted, Frederick Barbarossa and Saladin were all greedy military industrial fuck boys
>Crusade and Jihad were barely ever about religion
Read a history book.
>it was about capturing rich prince and getting ransom for their life, Richard lionhearted,
Bankrupted England with his Wars
>Frederick Barbarossa
Only joined the Second because if his uncle and died on his way to the Third
>Saladin
Had a history much more complicated than just waging Jihad
justified, unironically
>be byzantine retard emperor
>get deposed in more retarded court infighting
>go to army of crusaders on the verge of disbanding due to be severely in debt to venetians
>promise to pay off their entire debt and provide them an army to help the crusade if they restore him to the throne (a price the empire cant actually afford)
>crusaders agree and successfully take back constantinople
>except the usurper emperor fled with most of the empire's gold
>byzantine emperor has no money at all to repay the crusaders, starts desperately melting down religious icons to do so
>becoming very quickly unpopular, emperor gets murdered and replaced by a different usurper emperor
>crusaders request the new emperor pay the debt promised by the former emperor
>lol nope prepare for battle
>crusaders procede retake the city again and this time just sack the city for all its worth because fuck these greek retards
That was the fourth. And the sad thing is, by the overall track record of crusades, that was actually one of the more successful ones. Because they at least managed to sack a city and enrich themselves, and accomplished somebody's plans, even if it was the Doge of Venice rather than the Pope.
Most crusades completely failed. The first was the only truly successful one, but it's success was in a way a curse. They won too hard, it convinced them crusading was easy and they should do more of it. So even when the next several crusades ended in disaster and/or humiliation they kept doing them, for centuries.
The 4th Crusade. One big reason that other anons forgot to mention was the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople. Greeks chimped out and slaughtered tens of thousands of Christian Western Europeans living in the city and sold thousands of survivors as slaves to the Turks. It happened barely 20 years before the 4th Crusade.
Was this the time an emperor wanted to make the empire great again by conquering all of times old territories, starting with Italy? If I remember correctly the black plague then hit fucking everything up.
No. You're probably thinking of Justinian (the Justinian plague being named after him) but he ruled during the 6th century.
I thought the purpose of bloom's irrigation scene was to show that he was a better ruler than the previous guy? been a while since I've seen it but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the previous feudal lord whose land it was was just a negligent and absentee landlord who didnt give a shit.
The previous ruler was his father, so I guess Liam Neeson sucked at farming.
the movie is pretty bad, the director's cut improve it a little but it still ultimately remains bad.
the issue of its message isn't really "muslims good" as chuds like to say, but rather that it is really on the nose with its rather unprofound take on "religion bad." Ridley Scott seems to be of the opinion that secularism is just in general morally good by default, which is a particularly jarring idea to keep slapping around for a time period in which people really did take religion VERY seriously, often times more seriously then... anything. This isn't some christian cope on my part btw, i'm definitely not a religious person. The movie has other very clear issues (mainly alot of shit characters).
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut not the theatrical holy shit is a good movie in the same way that Braveheart was good.
>historians say
That's like black science man telling you star wars is science fantasy. No shit. We. Know. Any "Historical" movie to come out of Hollywood is fanfic and propaganda. Historian ecelebs aren't historians. And they aren't film critics.
Baldwin (outnumbered) obliterated saladin's moslem army at Montgisard.
>Agree to help the crusaders against the Ottomans at Nicopolis.
>End up pulling a Leeroy Jenkins and rush head on because you didn't listen to the main commander's order.
>Lose battle. Lose so many men that no new crusader expedition launches until five decades later - enough time for Ottomans to get ready for Constantinople.
>Return home after getting ransom paid.
>Start a civil war for shits and giggles.
What the fuck was his problem
He was Burgundian and therefore hated other French, specially the cunts from Ille-de-Paris
NEVER TRUST A BURGUNDIAN
The problem with this movie isn't that it's historically inaccurate, but that it's boring as shit. Ridley Scott only makes good movies accidentally (Gladiator) or if he has tard wranglers on him (Blade Runner)
I LOVE EVA AND I WANT TO MARRY HER
Bad history, good story and kino overall. The director's cut in the only cut.
I'm listening to the Real Crusader History refute this film due to an anon's recommendation itt. Thanks, anon, it's very comfy.
Historically speaking, it's pretty loose with the facts. Balian of Ibelin is a clear example of historical inaccuracies.
A good film nonetheless.
What are some other recommendations?
Not sure about medieval themed movies, but in terms of modern era films, Tora Tora Tora and Downfall are standouts to me.
>mfw I watch the hammed delivery of THE QUOTE
>"I am the son of Roger de Cormier."
Historians are never happy or satisfied with anything. They make a living writing essays about how history is "problematic". Fuck them.
Don't be like them.
Yeah, Ridley Scott has the habit of messing up with historical settings. Nevertheless it is enjoyable from the religious and historical perspective. What is more, the choosing of Orlando Bloom as the protagonist deserves more critique than the historical errors
Dirctor's cut is 10/10 kino on par with Gladiator