Kingdom of Heaven

Users who are viewing this thread

What a crappy movie, poor combat scenes, horrible main character, historical nonsenses (worst of them the speech in beseiged Jerusalem).

A movie totally void of any educational or dramatic content.
 
maybe because it is played by that wuss orlando bloom

man i just wanna just a iron staff and ram it so far in his crotch. then proceed to beat him to near-death, then i would take his riveted hauberk, then piss on him

and last but not leasti would throw his ass off a 20 story building

(well, i dont think i could do that, i just stick to complaining

Ian
 
Lol, please, tell us how you really feel :lol:

The clips I saw looked ok, no real rush to see it tho. How would you compare it to the crap-fest that was that King Arthur movie (with the delicious Ms. Knightly...MMmmmm)



Only good thing about that movie.
 
I haven't seen a single good hollywood version of the King Arthur- legend.

Well ok, Excalibur (I don't know if that was the name, it's been a while) was a good one. But there was this awful mini series that in the end of which Morgana was killed by people not believing in her.
 
In my opinion, the legend of King Arthur hasn't (yet) had a good film representation because the legend is British and Americans have a habit of interpreting things differently to us. Like Nairagorn's (I think) old sig - "The difference between a Brit and an American is that a Brit thinks 100 miles is a long way and an American thinks 100 years is a long time". Added to that is the very nature of a legend means that it gets warped and changed over the years and everyone ends up with a different version of the same story. But we're straying off the point here - this topic is about 'Kingdom of Heaven'. But I've not seen the film and I don't know much about the crusades.

I've finished my rant now, feel free to continue ppl. :grin:
 
Army of Darkness = best medieval movie ever.

Black Knight (starring Marting Lawrence) < King Arthur

Even though I've never seen Black Knight, I can pretty much say it sucks worse than King Arthur. There really hasn't been a decent medieval movie in a while (Troy was OK and Gladiator was good but, they aren't medieval are they?). And from what I am reading on IMDb, the next medieval movie is called "Tristan & Isolde" and is a romance so it will in all probability suck.

Kingdom of Heaven while hyped as being accurate was indeed a terrible movie. Very long and not a whole lot going on. Best scene is when Liam Neeson slaps Orlando Bloom across the face to "remember it".
 
There are some older films (Excalibur I think was actually the name of a fairly decent one). I'd have to disagree and say that Black Knight wasn't nearly as bad as King Arthur, especially considering, IIRC, Black Knight wasn't actually supposed to be Arthurian. I believe Troy and Gladiator are considered ancient, and don't have anything to do with Arthur either.
 
I think that Kingdom of heaven was a decent movie. Not a masterpiece, but not utter **** either. Besides, it had a Finnish actor in it. Chest swells with pride.
 
My wording was poor in my reference to Troy and Gladiator and I apologise for the confusion. It seems that people here are looking for an epic movie both in story and battle scenes and the 2 most recent movies that come to mind are Troy and Gladiator. However, everyone wanted to see a medieval movie and, while those were good movies, they didn't fit the genre. So when I said, "They aren't medieval are they?" I meant it more in a rhetorical sense.

The whole Black Knight reference was just to show everyone that while King Arthur is the most recent sucky medieval movie, it is not the only/worst one. Though judging by your response, it might be.
 
Surprisingly i enjoyed an old robin hood movie from the 40's, it was great, i cant remember the complete name, i think it was with Errol Flynn as main actor. The historical movies that come from hollywood these days are always bad in a way or another, they are pure entertainment and are very uninteresting for anyone who knows history and medieval combat tactics. Braveheart wasnt bad at all, the people did at least have untrimmed beards, stuff that you wont see in new movies alot.

Oh and i forgot: Those damn women using latest mascara. And everyone seem to use fancy colors on their clothes, only rich people had colored clothes in medieval times.
 
Cataphract said:
Oh and i forgot: Those damn women using latest mascara. And everyone seem to use fancy colors on their clothes, only rich people had colored clothes in medieval times.

And as far as I know glass was extremely rare and expensive. Yet in most hollywood productions it's fairly common.
 
Rando said:
The whole Black Knight reference was just to show everyone that while King Arthur is the most recent sucky medieval movie, it is not the only/worst one. Though judging by your response, it might be.

It came on television, and I have a tendency to watch even dodgy movies if they come on and I happen to be sitting there with nothing to do. Judging it on its basic premise, Black Knight wasn't too bad a movie (certainly not great, but it was what it was supposed to be, a light comedy). Now, I'm not a fan of Martin Lawrence, and I didn't actually seek out the movie. All in all though, it wasn't nearly the atrocity that King Arthur was, especially since it claimed to be historically accurate, etc.
 
Knights Of the Round Table, 1953
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045966/

Richard Taylor as a knightly, but uncharacteristicly chaste Lancelot, and Mel Ferrer as the best King Arthur EVAR. Even though they butchered the story, they still mannaged to stay truer to Arthurian ledgend than any move except Excalabur.
And since Excalabur had its own weird **** going on with the pseudo-pagan fertility cult god-king substitution, you might even say KOTR is even closer to the legend as it was told. It's certainly a better movie.


As for Kingdom of Heaven, I'm content to wait for the DVD. I did the same for Troy, and I'm glad I did. I'll never forgive Troy for BUTCHERING the greatest epic of all time, torching the plot, pissing on the ashes and marketing the soot. :evil:
...although, Brad Pit DID nail Achillies so dead-to-rights that it was scarey. Every time I re-read the Illiad and see Achilles acting like a bi-polar demigod, I think of Brad Pitt, and it actually works.
 
I didn't think kingdom of heaven was half bad.

When i saw that Orlando Bloom was going to be in it, i thought it was going to be another Troy, but Bloom's acting has improved somewhat since then. His face also somehow looks different, which is good, because it makes a nice change from the hunky 20 year old face that girls swoon over. It's still perhaps too perfect, when you compare it with other people in the film. One of the people who was burying his wife looked like he had syphilis sores all over his head. Why couldn't Orlando have syphilis?

I thought the fight scenes were fairly good. The final siege in particular. It was good that it happened over several days and nights, to dispell the popular idea brought on by Lord of the Rings that a siege can be resolved by lunchtime.


has anybody else noticed that orlando bloom hasn't actually starred in any (proper) film where he actually plays someone in the 21st century?
 
I think it's a shame they didn't show Hattin


and there's at least one movie where he is a 21st century guy :lol: :twisted: :

calcium_kid_cover_klein.jpg
 
Frankly, I really enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven. The acting was reasonable, the battles were interesting and not too overdone. Couldn't imagine better subject matter, even if it was treated more as allegory than a recreation for medievalists, for this day and age. Seeing Saladin and the King of Jerusalem each having to fend off religious zealots while trying to pursue a peaceful course, well, kinda rings some bells.

What might make for an even more interesting story is a prequel. I'd like to see how we went from the massacre of Muslims and Jews in the First Crusade's taking of Jerusalem to this, in the film anyway, paradise of cooperation between peoples. The old crusader's bodyguards early in the film were as interesting, if not moreso, than anyone else in the film even for the brief while they were onscreen. I'd like to know more about how they came together...

At any rate, this is one picture that can only be improved by an extended director's cut. A little more narrative and character development would have helped out a great deal. But largely it did what it set out to do and I enjoyed the ride.
 
KoH wasn´t as horrible as King Arthur. Although King Arthur had some Zimmerman´s epic elevator music.

Even Orlando Bloom wasn´t so lame, and atleast he didn´t pull a bow from his arse... still nightmares from Troy. And Saladin looked badass.

And yes, that Finnish bodybuilder/actor (Jouko Ahola) was the best thing in the whole movie, he even butchered english language the way most famous finns do. Too bad he ... well, no spoilers.
 
Back
Top Bottom