Is it actually worth watching or is it just a meme?
I'm a little skeptical because Orlando Bloom is a truly dreadful actor so I can't imagine anything he stars in can be good. An exception is Lord of the Rings because he was surrounded by good actors that cancelled out his shitty """acting"""
>he was surrounded by good actors that cancelled out his shitty """acting"""
you said it yourself bud
Are you into history? It's seriously a pretty good movie, just make sure you watch the director's cut.
anyone else feel like playing CK2 after watching this, or vice-versa?
Bloom was terribly miscast for the role but the directors cut version is still good if not just for the historical setting alone
>Are you into history?
I am, especially the crusades. I'm interested in the film because somebody posted this scene the other day
It's a pretty good movie, a bit "muh evil crusaders" and "muh progressive muslims" but still enjoyable if you can look past that.
>>Are you into history?
>I am, especially the crusades.
well that's too bad becauuse this is revisionist as shit
Then you'll enjoy it. It, of course, isn't 100% accurate to the times, but it's one of the best crusade kinos out there.
except for bloom and the meme token black guy in the opening, it's preeeeeetty good. Really rekindled my interest for the crusades. I rewatched it a week or 2 ago.
listen to these youtube.com
It's shit. There i said it.
>a bit "muh evil crusaders" and "muh progressive muslims"
I thought it tried to make both sides look equally bloodthirsty.
scott was trying to get it made since the 90s when it was called "Crusade" and schwarzenegger was attached to star
yeah but where the fuck else are we gonna get crusades visuals with reasonable budget from? Arn is unwatchable.
The weird distortion effect at the end of the word "punished" always bothered me.
Wasn't Crusade a Verhoven pic?
Any other medieval kino you guys could recommend?
The Lion in Winter is great, there's an original version and a remake, I've only watched the original, and highly recommend it, though the remake does star Patrick Stewart so it must be pretty good.
it is absolutely worth watching, only gets better with age and is quite relevant to today's issues in the middle-east and europe.
soundtrack is absolutely amazing as well
not really. half the christians are over the top jokes.
the muslims are all just so peaceable
>tfw they cut 45 minutes out of the theatrical cut because test audiences didn't like it
>it ended up being a fucking mess until Scott got to fix it with a director's cut
Honestly who are these people they use for test audiences? They should burn them all with a flamethrower, so many great films spoiled by faggots who want to cut everything because of their shit taste.
The movie has top cinematography, decors and music.
But the writing, even in the Director's Cut, is absolute trash. To make things worse, the protagonist is one of the most boring characters in the whole movie and is played by arguably the worst actor of them all, Orlando Bloom.
The main plot revolves around a extremely cliché and tired idea that the Crusaders were some blood thirsty thugs while the Muslims were noble, wise and kind. This is by far not an exaggeration, you have scenes where Crusaders slaughter a whole village, with one of the characters saying "well shrugs, someone must do this" right before slicing a woman's throat and you have another scene where for 4 minutes they slaughter a merchant caravan with blood flying all over the place while they look like having the time of their lives. Meanwhile, Saladin's sister is killed and he's super kind and not at all angry about it and he takes every chance he can get to spare Christian lives despite having no reason to do this.
orlando bloom is a good actor.
for you
Didn't he come back with them from the holy land? Not TOO much of a meme.
It's not at all accurate. There's no way a bastard, even legitimized, get the titles of a great noble with no protest from anyone. Ironically the movie's villain is the only single person who clearly objects to this severe breach of feudal customs. The worst thing that this fictionalized version of Balian of Ibelin is way, way less interesting than the real counterpart and there was no reason not to use this instead of this goody-two-shoes action hero that we got.
He's good for supporting characters, he's way too wooden to be a lead.
They wanted to avoid a new troy, which was mostly known in its theater run as 'that movie that is 3 hours long'.
Anty-Christian jew propaganda trash
t. Florida Blume
Difficult movie to judge. Cinematography, soundtrack, some of the actors and overall atmosphere are kino.
The anti-christian revisionist tone on the other hand is quite infuriating.
>muh progressive muslims
>muh western imberialism
Ridley's worst film after Counselor.
Absolute shit meme flick.
this.
this movie is so historically inaccurate its laughable at some parts
all in all a good movie, just something to keep in mind
>tfw the real King Baldwin was hardcore as fuck
>outnumbered and personally chopping through kebabs like a hot knife through butter
>did all this while heavily bandaged with his skin basically falling off
He was too pure for this world.
>
>Is it actually worth watching or is it just a meme?
What is Jerusalem worth?
if you like muslims and hate the west this will be the movie for you.
never got that impression. saladin didn't want to go to war until his imam presses him in, after the templars pushed it (that actually happened), same goes for balduin.
>This is by far not an exaggeration, you have scenes where Crusaders slaughter a whole village, with one of the characters saying "well shrugs, someone must do this" right before slicing a woman's throat and you have another scene where for 4 minutes they slaughter a merchant caravan with blood flying all over the place while they look like having the time of their lives. Meanwhile, Saladin's sister is killed and he's super kind and not at all angry about it and he takes every chance he can get to spare Christian lives despite having no reason to do this.
first of all, the templars DID attack caravans and second of all, saladin didn't let them go for free, only the one who could afford the ransom got out, the rest was slaughtered or enslaved.
The templars are screaming DEUS VULT and half of their screentime is spent either killing defenseless Muslims or talking about killing them. There's no way you can make a case about the movie being balanced
All you need to know
>Christians bad
>Muslims good
the templars made the king a hard time because of their extremism. on the muslim side we only got a peek of the same mechanics. balduin and saladin both did not want to make war, but were forced to act. the message of that movie was, that it does not matter how much peaceful you want to lead in a tense time, if someone will your nation go to war, it will happen.
>this brainlet not getting the point at all
King Baldwin and Saladin were both honourable men that respected each other, the point was to show that it didn’t matter because the powers behind them wanted a conflict.
>Are you into history?
> am, especially the crusades.
lmao
> It's a Sup Forums completely misses the point of the film thread
Just like American History X, you Sup Forumsbabbies take the most shit-tier interpretation of the movie to suit your own worldview. Stop projecting your politics onto everything
>Raynald was the only Christian leader who fought against Saladin in the 1180s. The contemporaneous Ernoul mentioned two raids that Raynald made against caravans travelling between Egypt and Syria, breaking the truce. (...) Before long, Raynald seized a caravan and imprisoned its members. On Saladin's protest, Baldwin IV ordered Raynald to free them, but Raynald did not obey him. His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch.
Its amazingly bad.
>muh father's legacy
>hamfisted love story for no reason/chemistry
>it ends
Three hours of shit movie. The only reason people like it is because of the first 30 minutes and the dude wearing a mask.
>first of all, the templars DID attack caravans
I wasn't denying they did, I was arguing that the tone of those scenes is purposefully chosen to make them look like bloodthirsty madmen as opposed to the cool-headed Muslims
>second of all, saladin didn't let them go for free, only the one who could afford the ransom got out, the rest was slaughtered or enslaved.
Not in the movie they weren't, Ibelin and his gang were let go just because hurr Ibelin much honorable and Saladin very merciful
All quoted together because so much samefagging.
>on the muslim side we only got a peek of the same mechanics
Lul, the imam asked for war while the templars were screaming like madmen for Muslim blood, and then you have that Gleeson scene where he literally says "Well, somebody must do this" before slicing the throat of a defenseless Muslim woman and smearing himself with her blood.
Yeah, totally the same thing.
To be fair the Crusaders were pretty much warmongers. I don't disagree that the movie makes them mustache twirling villains, but conceptually it's not far off from the truth.
Arn the Knight Templar is pretty okay.
Both sides were warmongers. It's not like Saladin was a date farmer that picked up a sword for the first time after the crusaders arrived.
Troy is fucking great, anyone who said that can suck my dick.
they really weren't though, they were probably the most tolerant of muslims in all of Europe and constantly compromised in order to prevent the outbreak of war.
...
What the fuck did he mean by this?
It's a decent watch but it's definitely not historically accurate, it's also pro-islam, to be quite honest.
Cringe shit. Plebs will say it's a good scene
Is there some other essential Crusadercore?
>and there was no reason not to use this instead of this goody-two-shoes action hero that we got.
Ridley Scott wanted the MC to be from Europe so we could get an outsider's POV, so using the real Balian of Ibelin was a no go.
...
Not really. Its an under-explored time period for film, imo.
I've always liked the paint patterns on her hands desu
Politically correct Hollywood trash made by hack director Ridley Scott, with plot tailored to not offend hippie liberal douchebags, muslims and jews. I only watched it for the visuals.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
>every historical movie ever
that was a totally separate Crusader movie
the memes are true this time; you HAVE to watch the directors cut. It takes the movie from a 6/10 to 8/10
Why are conservatives butthurt over everything?
The whole movies redeeming quality lies in its setting/the time period it tackles, cause how much of a rarity that is in hollywood
he really was. Amazing man
It's a good movie. The director's cut, that is. I know nothing of the real history behind this desu so I'm only speaking from an entertainment standpoint. orlando bloom is pretty bad in this though. he's the only thing that sticks out in an otherwise epic film
based
>Why are conservatives butthurt over everything?
im a moderate centrist and i thought this movie was very biased towards muslims and against western people.
>why do people care about things
The movie's a product of its time. 9/11 was still very fresh, while Afghanistan and Iraq were even more fresh.
Movies from those years age like milk due to how obvious they are. I suspect the same will happen with movies that will have been made for the next 8 years
it's absolutely beautiful and should be viewed for that reason
the actions of the characters seem less brainless in the directors cut
but it's still sort of fucked as a film -- you CAN see it had a lot of potential though
Salahuddin is unironically the hero of the movie. He btfo the Crusaders retook Jerusalem. He was a great wise leader and a great conquerer.
WHAT IS JERUSALEM WORTH?
muh noble savage.
Middle East was more advanced than Europe at that time.
Worth it for this scene alone
Lol no. They conquered former Roman lands and used some of the money to buy European expertise. Same then as today.
That's not true at all. The experts were aramaeans not romans. Europe didn't even have stone castles before the crusades, they learnt it from the Middle East.
In some ways (certainly medical), mostly from captured Byzantine scripts.
>Europe didn't even have stone castles before the crusades, they learnt it from the Middle East.
We've now entered WE WUZ territory.
>As William the Conqueror advanced through England, he fortified key positions to secure the land he had taken. Between 1066 and 1087, he established 36 castles
>The First Crusade (1095–1099)
We're done here.
Europe had been building stone fortresses for thousands of years before there even was such a thing as a Muslim.
The experts were Byzantian (as you'd expect from the capital of a thousand year old Empire). When the money ran dry, so did "the advanced Middle East".
I'm pointing out that the MENA was scientifically more advanced that Europe at the time and you got butthurt, calm down. European fortresses at the time were made from wood and packed earth, whereas every town and village in Syria was centred around a fortress. Baghdad was the worlds largest city with over 1 million people
>pointing out historical facts is we wuz
The Middle East had been building cities like Babylon and agriculture before there was even urban villages in Europe. Almost all Greek and roman knowledge came from Assyrians and Phoenicians
Yeah, that was when the region was ruled by white folks. What we're talking about is the crusader middle east.
>Nordic we wuzzer
Kys
>Almost all Greek and roman knowledge came from Assyrians and Phoenicians
Yup. WE WUZ confirmed.
>implying
Read a fucking book pleb.
This. In the theatres as it first came out, I knew it was going to be kino of a sort rarely seen once it started hurtling towards the Hector v Achilles fight.
Assyrians and Phoenicians were Semitic middle easterners not European
It's an awesome movie but Bloom is a weak point. He's not Keanu in Dracula bad. But his inability to have exhibit any nuance of emotion with his face without overdoing it is annoying. Eva Green is great and smoking hot
i really feel bad for all the Sup Forumsturds who can't enjoy anything without spewing their retarded politics into it.
You missed the point
Semites are European. Why do you think we call them caucasoid? There's been a lot of admixture since then, but there's white blood there still. Assad, a modern Syrian, still has the European blue eyes.
Now you understand why so little progress has happened there since it stopped being white.
How does it feel being so insecure that you have to keep repeating the boogeyman's name as a way to avoid having your ideas challenged?
>According to later interviews, the screenwriter was preparing the second draft of the script for "Kingdom of Heaven" when he accidentally hit "paste" instead of "delete," which inserted "Everything" immediately after the intended "Nothing." He and his studio assistants then failed to detect the mistake even after several copyedits. Errors like this are almost always caught and removed by the time the shooting script is prepared, but one or two inconsistiencies inevitably sneak in, only to be discovered during production. Of course the director and actors immediately realized the mistake during shooting, but the line had to be filmed merely to comport with the Writers' Guild rules included in the screenwriter's contract, which is why its delivery is so bizarre and overstated. No one on set expected the line to actually make it into the final cut. But then, in post production, the editor had no choice but to use the footage to maintain lighting consistiencies and direction of motion between shots. Everyone involved was upset with the resulting nonsensical line, but acknowledged it had to stay in for technical reasons. Viewers and critics were of course far less understanding, and this dialogue has gone down in cinematic history as one of the worst nonsequiters ever uttered on screen.
what ideas ? some ideas are not worth wasting time over at all. what i find surprising is the ability and the mental retardedness of injecting these ''ideas'' in everything. '' hey you like that new cake ? ohhhh you mean the cake that was made by subhuman jews to destroy the western civilisation ??'' that's literally how they act. it's either trolling or a legit mental disorder.
Are you arguing that the movie provides a balanced portrayal of the two sides?
What's with this fucking fear of just sitting down and watching a movie? Do you seriously need someone to assure you its good before you do? Is your time so precious that you can't afford to spend two hours watching a movie that turns out to be "just ok"?
>en.m.wikipedia
>Is your time so precious
Yes.