Kingdom of Heaven

[Lucius]

I thought it was brilliant, beautifully made, impressive sets (they actually made a copy of Jerusalem in the deserts of Morocco) typical Ridley Scott with his great visuals.

 

The cast also has some good characters, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson are the best IMO, but even Bloom seems to have become more mature, he even looks a bit like, you know, a man now.

 

The film is fairly accurate to what actually took place, the main character of Balian (Bloom) and his life before the events in Outremer is heavily altered though, but nowhere near the extremes of what could be seen in films like Troy or King Arthur.

 

-Minor spoiler, sorta-

Also, as a funny fact to what's been the topic of discussion on this forum of late, the film is fairly anti-religious, and anti-war. It promotes an idea of a Kingdom that could have both jews, muslims and christians coexisting (The Kingdom of Jerusalem), and how blinded those who fanatically worship a deity really are.

 

In short, I'd say this movie is made to promote tolerance. Highly recommended. ^_^

 

PS. There's two Danes in this movie, one of them is a fanatical Templar Master whose standard line throughout the movie is "GOD WILLS IT!" :D

[Baley]

PS. There's two Danes in this movie, one of them is a fanatical Templar Master whose standard line throughout the movie is "GOD WILLS IT!"  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the second one?

 

I migt whatch...it'll debut tomorrow...tho I seem to be broke

[Sophy]

Yes..that movie sounds really good...I really like movies like Troy or Gladiator where the goal isn't only to make cash by putting all the way cool battles with a lot of special effects and bad jokes like triple x

[Darth Flatus]

The film is fairly accurate to what actually took place, the main character of Balian (Bloom) and his life before the events in Outremer is heavily altered though, but nowhere near the extremes of what could be seen in films like Troy or King Arthur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Troy and King arthur are based on myths which have some (supposed) root in fact. The crusades actually happened.

[Laozi]

Luckily I got to see this movie for nothing.

[Baley]

Luckily I got to see this movie for nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any thoughts on it?

[Lucius]

It doesn't change the fact that Troy and King Arthur are grossly inaccurate, even for a myth. But don't change the subject please, this is not what my thread was about.

[WITHTEETH]

1 question, does it make the crusades on the roman byzantine side a just war?

[Laozi]

Well, I went with my film class, and pretty much everyone agreed that this was the standard Epic Tale movie Hollywood has been churning out lately. A hero with a message that we should put into use today. Its the curse of the success LOTR enjoyed. Its like after Braveheart, what was it a year or two before Gladiator came out, falling on the exact same line.

 

First step get reasonable good reviews form critics who the last bad review was probaly Catwoman. Next step for the push to the Oscars to ensure a huge profit.

[Baley]

So a LOTR clone? ...not what I wanna see I'm just gonna waite until the ticket prices fall

[Lucius]

This isn't about the Crusades White, it's about the years before the Third Crusade. So Byzantine is not even mentioned.

 

And, no, not a LOTR clone. I didn't find any similarities, only that I thought the siege of Jerusalem was much more detailed and better made than the siege on Minas Tirith (hides from fanboys)

[Laozi]

Ya its not a LOTR clone, not wizards or orc and such, but is a bunch of swordplay and that sort of thing. Basically its pretty standard. sandwich hamfisted dialogue between epic speeches(can't forget mobs shouting), throw in a betrayal or two, have your hero show his human side with a little doubt, then go apesh1t at the end, move the camera around alot during the battle scenes(like a 7yr. old with ADD has just drank 10 cokes and is operating the camera), show some heads flying off. The fat masses will bring their fat dollars.

[Baley]

I meant it as a clone in style not substance

 

Doesn't really strike me as something I'd love to see "

 

Just one more thing who was the second Dane ?

[Lucius]

He had a minor role in the beginning, a Sherif that gets his ass kicked when he and his men tries to take Bloomie away from his daddy.

 

-Spoiler-

 

You see, Bloomie has been wicked and killed a priest for dissing his dead wife.

[Oerwinde]

move the camera around alot during the battle scenes(like a 7yr. old with ADD has just drank 10 cokes and is operating the camera)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I don't understand with this is that every time a director uses shakycam tactics in a movie, people complain. Critics, audiences, etc. So why do they keep doing it? It just makes it hard to see the action, and hurts the eyes. Same with lightning quick cutting in action scenes. People want to see whats going on.

[Cantousent]

Movies should be judged on how well they entertain the audience. If the audience is happy, then the film must be a success. It's probably just as formulaic as everything. Eventually, everything starts looking formulaic, but that doesn't mean that it isn't entertaining.

[Lucius]

Indeed Eldar, and IMO, LoTR doesn't not have a copyright on huge battles and swords/sandals just because they have a zillion fanboys. (I too liked those films, but c'mon, time to move on.)

[DemonKing]

What I don't understand with this is that every time a director uses shakycam tactics in a movie, people complain. Critics, audiences, etc. So why do they keep doing it? It just makes it hard to see the action, and hurts the eyes. Same with lightning quick cutting in action scenes. People want to see whats going on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish people would watch the closing sequence in Saving Private Ryan - or even my all time favourite - the truck hijack in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to see action done right.

 

In SPR there are sequences where the camera actually follows the character with no cuts for almost a whole minute - and guess what - it looks great and is incredibly visceral.

 

The Shakey-cam/rapid cut technique I fear is probably the legacy of too many music video directors moving to film: actually constructing a scene is too much like hard work for them and they feel that rapid cuts somehow make it "more exciting" for the audience.

[Oerwinde]

What I don't understand with this is that every time a director uses shakycam tactics in a movie, people complain. Critics, audiences, etc. So why do they keep doing it? It just makes it hard to see the action, and hurts the eyes. Same with lightning quick cutting in action scenes. People want to see whats going on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish people would watch the closing sequence in Saving Private Ryan - or even my all time favourite - the truck hijack in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to see action done right.

 

In SPR there are sequences where the camera actually follows the character with no cuts for almost a whole minute - and guess what - it looks great and is incredibly visceral.

 

The Shakey-cam/rapid cut technique I fear is probably the legacy of too many music video directors moving to film: actually constructing a scene is too much like hard work for them and they feel that rapid cuts somehow make it "more exciting" for the audience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just think of the end fight in Blade 2. They have that one good long shot of the two of them fighting from the side, and the rest is all quick cuts. Its so annoying.

[Child of Flame]

I always figured they were trying to show the frantic nature of battle. It works on the level a lot of the time you don't know what the hell's going on (like battle) but it doesn't work on the level you don't have ANY IDEA of what the hell's going on, not a good thing for a movie.

 

DemonKing's examples are really good ways to show the same thing, in a way that works better for screen.

[DemonKing]

I saw it last night...

 

Orlando at least is starting to look a little more like a man rather than a girlie.

 

The battlescenes were ok - there were some awesome long shots, particularly in the siege, but then for the close-ups we got shaky-cam/quick cuts galore with a few showers of blood thrown in.

 

My wife complained that the characters were too black and white, but really the only characters without much grey were Orlando, his dad, and the two Templar leaders. Everyone else was pretty much open to political expediency.

 

Overall it was a solid 7/10 - and with some decent fight direction, it might have been even higher.

[Oerwinde]

A review at CHUD said it would have been awesome if Saladin and Jeremy Irons' character had been the leads. But other than those two, the movie was pretty bland.

[Deraldin]

The battlescenes were ok  - there were some awesome long shots, particularly in the siege, but then for the close-ups we got shaky-cam/quick cuts galore with a few showers of blood thrown in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought the battle scenes were well done on the whole. The close up shots wern't anywhere near as bad as some other movies I've seen. *cough*Chronicles of Riddick*cough* We did get some shaky cam but not too much and the cuts weren't lightning fast so you could at least see what was happening before it changed again.

[Aponez]

I thought it was brilliant, beautifully made, impressive sets (they actually made a copy of Jerusalem in the deserts of Morocco) typical Ridley Scott with his great visuals.

 

 

Not only in Morocco Lucius, one of the fortress you can see in the film is the castle of Loarre (Huesca, Spain)

[Lucius]

Really, that castle was beautiful. How old is it?