Why does this movie make people seethe so much?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Why does this movie make people seethe so much?
Why does this movie make people seethe so much?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's long and anti-climactic
How so?
The figurative concept he comes up with for what the kingdom of Israel is is globohomosexual incarnate.
Balian is a pragmatic who favors peace over needless war unlike Guy, but ignores Baldwin when he tells him that he needs to marry Sibylla and become king to stop Guy. If he listened to Baldwin the whole second half of the movie wouldn't have happened.
It just ends without a decisive resolution and a title card about war still going on in the middle east. I mean, it wasn't some woke hyper-liberal movie but the medieval setting and the entire plotline complete with court intrigue and external struggle is trashed for some silly commentary on the modern day. It's infuriating because it was an one-of-a-kind movie with so much potential.
Wasn't aware people seethed about it. Not enough action?
I remember watching it and feeling like nothing much happened. Also, Ridley Scott film's are shot in high fidelity, but his images don't have any creativity.
yeah classic ridley
this is why the only movies people remember from him have soulful sets/production design ie alien and blade runner
he's made 50 movies, people remember maybe 5 of them
No nude Eva, no likey
Baldwin doesn’t b***h slap enough people
>christians are le bad(for defending christian lands)
>muslims are le oppressed(for invading from the Arabian peninsula slaughtering everything in their path)
bravo scott
>i didnt watch the movie but i will make up what its about in my head so i can get mad at it
it did be like that Ahmed
you guys were the the OG invaders
Orlando Bloom can't act
It's too long and entirely forgettable except for the costume design of the king.
It's bad history.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2005/05/onward-pc-soldiers-thomas-f-madden/
Scott is Hollywood's most successful hack.
It's definitely the last Scott movie before he lost all touch, but you can still see it creep around the edges of this movie. I don't know I still love it. Lot's of people say t made Christians look like some kind of evil idiots, but Baldwin IV is to epic and the surviving defenders are great in their own right.
The gravedigger guy in the director's cut is kino.
Its shit, gay, and historically inaccurate as frick. Tell me when a non-liberal gay director makes a movie about the crusades.
Holy seethe
He's not wrong. It's very stupid and gay.
>The second major anachronism is the movie’s approach to religion. Most people know that the Crusades were wars of faith. Crusaders underwent extreme hardship, risking their lives and expending enormous amounts of money because of their devotion to Christ, his Church, and his people. Crusader piety also manifested itself in extraordinary devotion to the Virgin Mary and the saints, particularly those saints who had lived in the Holy Land. The Kingdom of Heaven, however, performs the delicate operation of stripping religious piety completely out of the Crusades. Balian and his father appear to be agnostics. Other Crusaders, like the Hospitaller, are openly critical of religion. Indeed, all of the good guys in this movie seem to have no devotion to God at all, only a devotion to tolerance. The bad guys, on the other hand, are all religiously devout, which causes them to be either evil (like Guy and Reynald) or mad (like the glassy-eyed preacher who chants, “To kill a Muslim is not murder, it is the path to heaven”). In other words, the medieval world is portrayed in much the same way that Hollywood views America: Smart people either have no religion or do not take it very seriously. The rest are right-wing Christian fanatics.
>There are no churches in this movie, not even in the holiest of cities. There are no monks, no nuns, and very few pilgrims, all of whom would have filled the streets of medieval Jerusalem. Only two priests appear in the film, one a twisted corpse mutilator and the other a villain whose strategy for defending Jerusalem is to convert to Islam and leave the people to die. Scott scatters a few crosses here and there, but there are no crucifixes, which were much more common in the Middle Ages. Beautiful set decoration of Crusader palaces includes no icons of Mary or the saints, indeed no religious art of any kind. Christians, Muslims, and israelites all live in harmony in this cinematic Jerusalem. Yet, in truth non-Christians were forbidden to live in the Holy City during the reign of Baldwin IV. But it is not just Christianity that Scott sterilizes. Muslims are shown praying a few times in the film, yet the only devout Muslim is a black-robed cleric demanding that Saladin attack the Christians and capture Jerusalem. The message here is clear: Religion leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to war.
>As a matter of plot logic, one might reasonably wonder why all of these Crusaders wearing crosses on their breasts and marching off to hopeless battles care so little for Christianity? When preparing for the defense of Jerusalem, Balian proclaims that it is not the stones that matter, but the people living in the city. In order to save the people’s lives he threatens to destroy all of the Christian and Muslim holy sites, “everything,” he says, “that drives men mad.” Yet if he is only concerned with defending people, why has Balian come all the way to Jerusalem to do it? Aren’t there plenty of people in France who need defending? The truth is that Scott’s Balian has it exactly wrong. It is the stones, the buildings, the city that mattered above all else. Medieval Christians saw Jerusalem as a precious relic sanctified by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The people were there to glorify God and defend His Holy City. The real Balian, faced with the inevitable conquest of Jerusalem, threatened to destroy the Dome of the Rock if Saladin did not abandon his plan to massacre the Christian inhabitants. That plan is airbrushed out of the movie. Indeed, the good and noble Saladin of this movie lets all of the citizens depart with a hearty, good-natured smile on his face. The real Saladin required them to pay a ransom. Those that could not–and there were thousands–were sold into slavery.
>cringe autistic nitpicking over historical fiction
lame as frick review that has nothing to do with the merits of the film
>If I were a film critic I would say that this movie is dead dull. After one hour of ponderous dialogue and assorted arrow wounds I was already checking my watch to see if I might still make that paper on medieval English uroscopy. The film can best be described as a series of bloody medieval battle scenes stitched loosely together with a thin, yet preachy, modern morality play. The moral of the story, which Scott cudgels his viewer with at every opportunity, is that religious tolerance is a good thing and we should all have more of it.
>But I am not a film critic; I am a historian. As a historian it naturally irritates me that there are people who will leave theaters certain that Scott and his writer, William Monahan, have served up something that approximates reality in the Middle Ages. They haven’t. In fact, there is very little that is medieval about The Kingdom of Heaven. It is instead a mixture of 19th-century Romanticism and modern Hollywood wishful-thinking.
This was still at a time when everyone hated muslims after 9/11. It might be the beginning of a wave of propoganda to calm people down after Mission Accomplished. There was another movie a little later called Vantage Point that went further with it too.
protecting Muslim egos is no defense of that shitty movie.
We all know Scott is just a pussy liberal with a tenuous grasp of reality. Gladiator is equally stupid. All his movies are really bad, fundamentally. He's like a psuedointellectual Michael Bay.
You just outed yourself as a moron.
Eat shit brainlet frick. I'm probably much smarter than you. In fact it's almost guaranteed since I'm no joke since I'm top 2 percentile as measured by a variety of standardized tests. You are like a bug to me. You are less than nothing. You don't even register.
Cry more.
>brain damaged catgay hates good movies
pottery
>ridley slop is good
jesus how embarrassing.
So are you underage or just a manchild?
Scott has made maybe 5 good movies out of around 28
Answer the question.
Matchstick Men
American Gangster
both good movies.
the rest... not good bob!
>All his movies are really bad, fundamentally.
Even The Duelists?
>nothing to do with the merits of the film
making an anachronistic period piece that totally hinges on displays of Current Year philosophy is a critique of merit. Scorcese didn't make everyone a 00s era atheist UN peacekeeper in Silence
There's very little Medieval movies being made, so one with actual production value and not a full on boring deconstruction of the setting is a breath of fresh air. Keep in mind this is when shit like that Clive Owen Arthur movie and Russel Crowe Robinhood movies were being made.
Almost all of Kingdom of Heaven has color at least.
there are heaps on netflix with black casts
That’s only seething israelites who feel left out of the conversation. Both Christians and Muslims love this movie.
Not Christian enough for the Christians
Not Muslim enough for the Muslims
Not israeli enough for the israelites
Only fomo gays seethe when everybody lauds it.
In English, doc!
jews mad
You simply can’t appease religiontards, they’re extremely fragile and if you don’t depict things exactly like they are in their headcanon, they go apeshit.
I like the costumes and sets. Also that someone took time to SOME history i.e. Reynald de Chattilon being an absolute bastard
I wish it did not ignore Byzantium. They travel through Messina which was Byzantine territory then I think. Also wouldve been common to travel by road through Constantinople since its the official pilgrimage path for over 100 years
you could make a whole game of thrones like series set in Byzantium but Hollywood hates medieval Greek history
>crusaders were evil
>Catholic church was corrupt
>it's more important to worship God and his gifts over worshipping the church and false men
>This makes Kingdom of Heaven le bad
Why are they like this?
it makes clear distinction between Templars and Crusaders though.
The Templars were massive twats.
This is actually the opposite of reality. The Templars were the nice cops and famed for their chastity, humility, and tolerance.
It's the Teutonics who were the bastards.
What are you talking about? No one is like this except in your fever dreams.
for a historian's perspective.
>hackley scott
never seen this movie but let me guess, someone got/is pregnant and gave birth at some point in the movie