PDA

View Full Version : Kingdom of Heaven



János Hunyadi
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 08:35 AM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/kingdom_of_heaven/international/

What are everyone's thoughts on this upcoming film?

Kingdom of Heaven looks really cool to me, but. . . . . . . . . . .

They could've done much better then Orlando Bloom for lead. :annoysigr

I hope that this film won't be "PC" and feature the White crusaders as murderous babarians, whilst portraying the Muslims as peaceful defenders whom carry a civilization which is more advanced and superior to that of Europe during the same era.

So in other words, I hope that this film doesn't turn into a travesty like last years "Alexander"

Death and the Sun
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 01:57 PM
I saw the trailer in a cinema recently. I don't think there's any chance of a full on pro-White take on the issue, but after LotR I think White audiences would not tolerate the complete opposite either.

Orlando Bloom is possibly the worst actor of all time. He was tolerable as Logolas (but still the worst performance along with Liv Tyler), but in "Troy" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" he was just laughably pitiful. He does not look like a hero, he looks like a member of a boy band or an Idols contestant. :gay:

János Hunyadi
Friday, April 8th, 2005, 04:37 AM
I saw the trailer in a cinema recently. I don't think there's any chance of a full on pro-White take on the issue, but after LotR I think White audiences would not tolerate the complete opposite either.

Orlando Bloom is possibly the worst actor of all time. He was tolerable as Logolas (but still the worst performance along with Liv Tyler), but in "Troy" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" he was just laughably pitiful. He does not look like a hero, he looks like a member of a boy band or an Idols contestant. :gay:

I personally think that either Sean Bean, Russel Crowe, or Eric Bana would've been great for the lead.

Death and the Sun
Friday, April 8th, 2005, 04:34 PM
I personally think that either Sean Bean, Russel Crowe, or Eric Bana would've been great for the lead.

Sean Bean is a great actor. I've said this before, but I think he should have played Aragorn in LotR. Apparently he will be the main star in the "Troy" sequel, which deals with Odyssey's journey back home -- as he played Odysseys in Troy.

I'm still not sure about Russell Crowe (I hated "Gladiator") but Eric Bana is definitely very cool. Have you seen "Black Hawk Down"?

János Hunyadi
Friday, April 8th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Sean Bean is a great actor. I've said this before, but I think he should have played Aragorn in LotR.

Nah, Sean Bean was born to play Borimir!!! :viking1:


Apparently he will be the main star in the "Troy" sequel, which deals with Odyssey's journey back home -- as he played Odysseys in Troy.

Look forward to it! :beer-smil


I'm still not sure about Russell Crowe (I hated "Gladiator")

Why so? I personally think that Crowe is an excellent actor! You should see him as Hando in "Romper Stomper" and as John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind"



but Eric Bana is definitely very cool. Have you seen "Black Hawk Down"?

A few years back, didn't know that he was in it though. I'll have to check it out again sometime and see lots of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:brutalo: :nzzer: :m4: . . . . . . . . . . . . :negroid: :negro000:

Take that you dune coons!! :lol00001:

Death and the Sun
Friday, April 8th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Why so? I personally think that Crowe is an excellent actor! You should see him as Hando in "Romper Stomper" and as John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind"



Well, the first reason was the initial battle sequence, where the Roman legions were shown to be totally superior to the barbaric, hopeless Goths. Actually Romans never established any permanent settlements north of the River Rhine. Another reason is that I hate invincible, invulnerable action heroes with no weaknesses at all. This type of portrayals of heroism are escapist rather than uplifting. The best contrast to this would be the LotR, where the heroes, no matter how strong and noble, also have their weaknesses and doubts. Which makes them more human and their heroic deeds all the more admirable for that.

I have "Romper Stomper" on DVD. I don't like to be placed in the same category as the main characters in that film, although many "mainstream" White people probably do.

Having said that, I think it is a good movie -- far better than "American History X". I especially like the "skinhead skinhead" party scene, the first sex scene where Hando grabs the Swazi flag while doing his missus from behind, and of course what is probably the best street fight scene ever done. :viking1:

"A Beautiful Mind" is a good film too, but they took many liberties with the source material. Did you know that in real life Jim Nash was openly gay?

But I admit that Russell Crowe did a great job in "Master and Commander", which is a great war/adventure film in all respects.




A few years back, didn't know that he was in it though.

I'll have to check it out again sometime and see lots of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:brutalo: :nzzer: :m4: . . . . . . . . . . . . :negroid: :negro000:

:D

Bana was the sniper who stopped the Somali warlord's henchman's car with one shot, and later went out into Mogadishu with the Army Rangers to rescue the pilots whose helicopters had been shot down.

If you liked "Romper Stomper", check out "Chopper", another great Australian movie that Bana stars in.

IlPrincipe
Wednesday, April 13th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Well, the first reason was the initial battle sequence, where the Roman legions were shown to be totally superior to the barbaric, hopeless Goths.

Are you sure you saw the same movie as i? Cause in "the Gladiator" i saw were the germans portraided as really honourful facing a huge Roman legio, and the fight by no means superior to the roman side.


If you then liked Return of the King with the standard you just statued, then you should be reaaally disappointed by the battle for Minas Tirith

ChrisDownUnder
Wednesday, April 13th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Nah, Sean Bean was born to play Borimir!!! :viking1:Have you seen LOTR "The Two Towers" special extended edition (probably a silly question :rolleyes:)? Specifically Chapter 41 "Sons of the Steward", which was a new scene, not in the theatrical release.

Here is Boromir's speech to the Gondoran Army after the recapture of Osgiliath:


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/Christopher1488/Web%20Photos/boromir_01.jpg

"This city (Osgiliath) was once the jewel of our kingdom. A place of light and beauty and music. And so it shall be once more!"


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/Christopher1488/Web%20Photos/boromir_02.jpg

(Loud cheer from Army!)

"Let the armies of Mordor know this: Never again will the land of my people fall into enemy hands."

(Another loud cheer!)

"This city of Osgiliath has been reclaimed for Gondor!"

(Army replies - "For Gondor!")

"For Gondor!" (repeats again twice more)

I have often dreamt of giving a similar speech after a victory over our racial enemies - interchanging a major Western city that is beseiged by non-whites for Osgiliath, and Third World scum for the armies of Mordor! :viking1:

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, April 13th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Well, the first reason was the initial battle sequence, where the Roman legions were shown to be totally superior to the barbaric, hopeless Goths.

Are you sure you saw the same movie as i? Cause in "the Gladiator" i saw were the germans portraided as really honourful facing a huge Roman legio, and the fight by no means superior to the roman side.

I interpreted the battle scene in the beginning as showing the Goths as more or less equal in numbers but hopelessly lagging behind in technology (i.e. intelligence) and therefore having no chance to win the battle.

Yes, the Romans were more "civilized" than the Germanic tribes they fought against, but civilization does not mean much in war. I detest rewriting history, and this movie has that in spades.

IlPrincipe
Thursday, April 14th, 2005, 02:24 PM
Eldritch,

Ok! I understand mate...

Death and the Sun
Thursday, April 14th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Of course, I admit that the battle scene in "Gladiator" was visually very impressive. But I think the movie went downhill after that. Or maybe I just was not in the mood for that type of stuff when I saw it, years ago. Perhaps I'll rent one of these days and check it out again.

anonymaus
Thursday, April 14th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Let's steer this back on topic, shall we?

Kingdom of Heaven seems promising in the content, so far, as the trailers portray the Christians(anglos) pursuing crusade to make a better world for all people(unrealistic given the religion they are pushing, but beggars can't be choosers) ..whereas the muslims are besieging them and hurting their efforts in doing such. There seems to be a plot undertone of villainy in the white ranks where one of the Christians wishes to provoke a war instead of living in peace, but that is my inference not a conclusion.

I'll be seeing it regardless, Ridley Scott makes excellent films I think.

Loki
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 07:53 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4544173.stm



A small matter of Crusade history

Jonathan Marcus
BBC World Service correspondent
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif



Who has greater claim to Jerusalem and its holy places, asks Orlando Bloom as he exhorts his Crusader followers to defend the walls of the city against the advancing Muslim army of Saladin.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41141000/jpg/_41141859_crusades.jpg The Kingdom of Heaven has faced accusations of political correctness



It is a question that still resonates today and it is one of the reasons why Ridley Scott's new film, Kingdom of Heaven, is attracting such interest.

In a post-9/11 world where some academics and commentators are talking about a new clash of civilisations between Islam and the West, it is bound to be controversial to revisit that great earlier clash that saw western Christendom's repeated efforts to seize and hold Jerusalem.

History matters. And cinema's portrayal of history matters too. Kingdom of Heaven may be a medieval epic set in 1187, just before a Crusader army was wiped out at the battle of Hattin. But it has already been criticised for being a very 21st century, politically correct, view of the Crusaders' world.

Professor Jonathan Riley Smith of Cambridge University is probably Britain's leading historian of the Crusades. This film has made him angry, for the Crusades are, at the moment, a rather hot subject.

Rewriting history?

"In the Islamic world," he told me, "crusading is believed by many Muslims to be still in train.

"What has been believed now for a century in the Middle East is that the West, having lost the first round of the crusades in the Middle Ages, re-embarked on crusading in the late 19th century, using the techniques of commerce, banking, politics, diplomacy, backed of course by power.

"In those circumstances," he said, "the Crusades have to be treated very, very carefully."

So what is wrong with the history as portrayed in the film?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41107000/jpg/_41107027_ob.203.jpg Balian probably wasn't the nice man played by Orlando Bloom in the film



The story opens during a period of apparent truce between the Christian ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, King Baldwin - a man hidden behind a silver mask - and the great Muslim commander, Saladin. Balian, played by Orlando Bloom, is the film's hero; the knight who takes command of Jerusalem's defences.

But Professor Riley-Smith says that the film has taken real people and simply re-manufactured them. There was no silver mask and the real Balian was known to be harsh to his Muslim tenants.

The Crusading Order of the Knights Templar - who are the film's villains - were no better or worse than any other Crusaders, he believes.

Not all historians have been quite so dismissive. Carol Hilenbrand, professor of Islamic history at the University of Edinburgh, said she believed the film did represent an attempt to grapple with serious issues.

She didn't think that the sort of contacts and mutual respect portrayed in the film between Baldwin and Saladin were out of keeping.

Kingdom of Heaven treads a road paved with good intentions. Its Muslim characters are real people. And there is good and bad on both sides. The battle scenes are orchestrated in a way that only Ridley Scott can. As a film, I enjoyed it. But some historians remain fearful that epic cinema risks creating epic misunderstandings about the past. If you really want to know about the Crusades, the historians say, by all means go and see the film, but then go out and buy a good book.

Loki
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 07:58 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4532075.stm





US-based Lebanese academic As'ad AbuKhalil objected to a scene where Bloom's character Balian appears to show Arab peasants how to dig wells to irrigate farm land. "I was most unhappy, when the hero of the movie took over his estate, and with typical Western 'genius' taught those inferior Arabs how to dig for water, as if they had not been doing that for centuries," Mr AbuKhalil said.
:rotfl:

Death and the Sun
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Well, I saw this earlier tonight.

There has been some criticism that this film is "pro-Muslim" which in my opinion is an exaggeration. This is by no means a pro-White film, but it is no worse than the average Hollywood fare -- and probably better than average in that sense, I think. Yes, it does show the Saracen leader Saladin as an intelligent and capable person, but then again if you've risen to be the leader of a reasonably developed and powerful civilization, you have to be, right? "Kingdon of Heaven" goes for a balanced portrayal of the events -- it has "good" and "bad" guys on both sides, which probably is not too far from the truth.

But where are the Jews ?!?

The story seems built around the structure these films usually have; all the cliches are there: the initial battle scene, the strong independent female who takes no s*** from men, the romance and the sex scene, the climactic battle scene... it all comes at you with the inevitability of a train running down railroad tracks.

Orlando Bloom is awful. He is not a hero, he is a pretty boy for teenage girls' bedroom wall posters. His supposedly "rousing" speech before the final battle at Jerusalem made me laugh: "well, I suppose the enemy has a right to hate us, and the world is not black and white, and some of them are good people... but let's fight as hard as we can anyway!!!" I can't imagine any real crusader, or any military leader anywhere in the history of the world for that matter, speaking to his troops like that just before a decisive battle.

This film would not have been made without the LotR trilogy. Several of the cavalry charge scenes are straight from "Return of the King", as well as the siege towers used by Saladin's troops. I kept expecting a Nazgul to appear from behind them. :D

There are some pretty silly historical mistakes: did these people really walk around with their chain-mail vests on in the desert, all day, every day? Would it not make more sense to put them on just before the battles? Can you reallly learn to be a master fencer after five minutes of practice? Is it really possible that the people in the Middle East did not know how to dig wells in the 11th Century?

I really liked the Finnish strongman Jouko Ahola in his small role, though. :viking1:

RoyBatty
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 09:40 PM
You ask where the Jews are Eldritch?? Oh vey! Zey are closer than you think m'lord. We could start with Orlando Bloom himself. :D

Regarding Saladin:
He was an extremely capable and respected leader. In fact, some historians would argue (with some justification) that in those days, Muslim civilisation was more advanced than the Christian.

Ridley Scott is another great example of what often happens after an artist begins to achieve success, they age and have praise heaped upon them. They become lazy, set in their ways and artistically stagnant or corrupt.

Most of his 1990's + period films are pulp or average at best. They are technically well made but they don't attempt to challenge the viewer, take risks or present a story in an unusual way. It's all about turning out safe sheeple-friendly blockbusters that earn the big buck$$ for the studios and don't confuse or offend the herd who pay to see it.

Lissu
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Most of his 1990's + period films are pulp or average at best. They are technically well made but they don't attempt to challenge the viewer, take risks or present a story in an unusual way. It's all about turning out safe sheeple-friendly blockbusters that earn the big buck$$ for the studios and don't confuse or offend the herd who pay to see it.I think that films which don't challence the viewer are more norm than an exception in Hollywood production. It is really a shame, Hollywood movies are done with an enormous bugdet and then the result is total shyte for most of the time.

RoyBatty
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 11:35 PM
Louhi, have you ever noticed in how many cases there appears to be an inverse relationship between money and art? In the case of cinema, it is often the case that the more a film costs, the lower the "art" content and the higher the "show" content. People often confuse the two.

Some of the wittiest and intelligent films were made with modest means. Not having infinite resources challenges the makers and forces them to derive creative solutions.

fenriSS_
Saturday, May 14th, 2005, 11:59 PM
Of course, I admit that the battle scene in "Gladiator" was visually very impressive. But I think the movie went downhill after that. Or maybe I just was not in the mood for that type of stuff when I saw it, years ago. Perhaps I'll rent one of these days and check it out again.

I simple love the huge germanic dude having 3 arrows shot inside his check before he falls. :viking2: The one with the battleaxe/hammer, if you see what i mean?
And the attack in Tueborg forest(not sure how i spell it) was a genous move made by germans so i wouldn't say they were that poor strategiests.

This movie was crap, just like jan Guillioue's books about Arn de Gothia. If you have read em, you sure understand what i'm talking about :mad:

Lissu
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 01:25 AM
I simple love the huge germanic dude having 3 arrows shot inside his check before he falls. :viking2: The one with the battleaxe/hammer, if you see what i mean?
The big blonde guy, you mean? I haven't seen the film and I may not even go to see it, but I have heard that the German guy who teaches Balian, is played by a Finn :P

Lissu
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 01:34 AM
Louhi, have you ever noticed in how many cases there appears to be an inverse relationship between money and art? In the case of cinema, it is often the case that the more a film costs, the lower the "art" content and the higher the "show" content. People often confuse the two.

Some of the wittiest and intelligent films were made with modest means. Not having infinite resources challenges the makers and forces them to derive creative solutions.Yes, I have noticed it too. Hollywood films are mainly that kind of an entertainment which is enjoyable if one switches the brain off first. Not all Hollywood production though, but all "historical" and action films must be taken with such attitude.

Especially films like Kingdom of Heaven (even if I haven't seen it), Alexander, war films like Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbour or Enemy at the Gates. I have seen these and they were all complete BS. SPR did have very impressing start though, but the first 15 minutes of the movie is not all movie.

RoyBatty
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 05:21 AM
SPR's opening sequence was the only part of the film that I found worthwhile. The rest was rather forgettable :laugh:

Death and the Sun
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 09:25 AM
The big blonde guy, you mean? I haven't seen the film and I may not even go to see it, but I have heard that the German guy who teaches Balian, is played by a Finn :P


http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1145044/photo_08_hires.jpg

That's Jouko Ahola, who plays a character called Odo. His role is very small, and he gets killed with a crossbow dart to the throat right after the scene shown above, at the very beginning of the movie.

Notice how everyone else is wearing wool sweaters/shirts and jackets, but he has a t-shirt with rolled sleeves to show off his arms. :laugh:

fenriSS_
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 11:21 AM
The big blonde guy, you mean? I haven't seen the film and I may not even go to see it, but I have heard that the German guy who teaches Balian, is played by a Finn :P

He is awnsome, but i was thinking about another dude in the gladiator. In the battle where Maximus and the german tribe fight. he has a VERY small role, but i certenly remember him very well. I think he has dirty brown hair, fighting with some hand weapon i canno't place. I think he is supposed to be the leader of the germanic tribes

Lissu
Sunday, May 15th, 2005, 11:38 AM
He is awnsome, but i was thinking about another dude in the gladiator. In the battle where Maximus and the german tribe fight. he has a VERY small role, but i certenly remember him very well. I think he has dirty brown hair, fighting with some hand weapon i canno't place. I think he is supposed to be the leader of the germanic tribes :doh00000:

So we were talking about different films.

Gladiator was a fine film, I liked it a lot :)

Blutwölfin
Monday, May 16th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I have just seen this film and got kind of disapponted. No peak level, I think. And well, to many prayers... :speechles

I thought, there would have been more battles, more orotund scenes, but I was fobbed off with some poor fightings.. except, of course, "my german friend" with the two plaits. But this was right in the beginning, so the film got rather boring quite soon.

fenriSS_
Monday, May 16th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Why do they have such gay people playing, and why the multi culturel speach, was that supposed to encourage the men? It sure did in my case :viking4: :mad:

anonymaus
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 07:26 PM
I just watched this movie the other day, and I was also disappointed. It wasn't a bad film, but the action was rather boring and the story it told was.. dangerous. Socially, politically and religiously dangerous. While it's somewhat inspiring to see a man (if one can call Orlando Bloom a man..) decide what is and what isn't godlike, it's less than inspiring to see him use the same logic to capitulate. At the very end of the film there is an attempt to clarify the meaning of their previous actions, but it is the literal end of the film just before the credits--unlikely to make converts again out of the recently indoctrinated.

I think they simply "missed" with this one.