Is this movie Veeky Forums approved?

Is this movie Veeky Forums approved?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MOFrB743PgE
youtube.com/watch?v=eqEovnetLFo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No

Is it historically accurate? Not at all. Is it a damn fine movie? Absolutely.

Ridley Scot´s "big" movies suck.

Still waiting for my big budget mainstream Napoleon biopic epic.

No.

Aside from not being historically accurate--which isn't necessarily a problem if that's not what you're looking for--and an awful casting job for the protagonist, the director's cut is a fairly enjoyable "historical" epic.

Takes liberties with historical accuracy to fit modern themes.

But it has a fantastic supporting cast, cinematography, soundtrack, and material design all weighed down by lackluster protagonists and their wasted screen time. Like FFXII.

It's got a weird agenda that I don't quite understand in that it tries really hard to portray the Christians as pure evil and the Muslims as heaven sent angels

What are the modern themes?

And is Baldwin IV at least good?

Saladin is the shit . Even the Christians wanted to get killed by him

>portray the Christians as pure evil and the Muslims as heaven sent angels

It's like everyone who says this never actually watched the movie, or can't pay attention unless they're being triggered and activated by a scene. The only difference between the two sides was screen time, with both sides having very similar characters: a noble but precariously reigning king, a conscientious knight, a violent jerkoff who cares a lot about pride and rights, and a religious warmonger.

Personal faith and righteousness vs murderous fanaticism, the humility and hard work of the lowborn vs the arrogance of the high born, etc. But Baldwin is played pretty well.

>Has a chance to marry Eva Green and prevent a war with Saladin
>Declines the offer because he doesn't want to usurp Guy, and end up having to kill him and all his supporters
Did he make the right choice? Is it ever necessarily, or even good, to commit an immoral action?

It's very hard to find movies that are historically accurate.
It'll get you interested in the subject though.

This is accurate.

>Tfw we will never get a prequel of Liam neeson and his motley band of warriors
>Tfw it will never be called Mount & Blade

>How many people did Guy lead to death because of his stupidity?
>How many of them would still be alive had Balian just usurped him?

His inaction was a mistake and rather than seeing a good man who made a tough decision, he looked more like a coward hiding behind honor rather than making the actual tough and wiser decision.

Why did orlando feel like a bad pick here? The real Ibalin was probably even edgier

It annoyed the hell out of me that they decided to make Balian a young bastard raised as a peasant (presumably to make him more relateable to the audience), when the real Balian was more like Liam Neeson's character.

If this were made with themes of the time (12th century) instead of modern themes, what would the storytelling be like?

...

He wasn't charismatic enough or simply didn't have the acting chops to pull it off and was far too young for the maturity the character was supposed to convey.

Honestly, I think Purefoy wouldve been a better pick.

This. I found it enjoyable but had to overlook a number of things (including nearly everything about the protagonist). Yet my friend claims he's studied a lot about the period and that it's incredibly accurate. I kind of like hanging out with this dude and don't really want to sperg out on him, but I'm rather disappointed.

Still, I second the director's cut. I mean, Lawrence of Arabia is one of my top 3 favorite movies, so historical accuracy isn't the utmost criterion when it comes to film for me.

Because he is a terrible actor.

Ridley Scott's movies all suck. Including the feminazi propaganda known as Alien.

Needed more Baldwin and Saladin and less Orlando Bloom

>Baldwin
>wasn't bald
>didn't win

>dissing Alien
>dissing Blade Runner
>dissing The Duellists

Nigga you came to the wrong town.

But he was bald from the leprosy and he won at Montgisard

>inplying this isnt intentional
>implying the cia sad and sfod-d arent handsomly compensated

Living up to the glory of epic stories and family history versus pragmatic politics with local Christians and Muslims. The wisdom and justice of a chivalrous ruler versus the greed and corruption of middle management figures. Interfaith romances civilizing and converting the spouse to the One True Faith (tm). Noble virtue of the aristocratic class overcoming racial and religious differences while the peasants are fanatics to their tribe and without dignity.

Actually you could have told a pretty modern story using very old themes.

He may be speaking relatively, because compared to most historical movies Kingdom of Heaven isn't so bad when it comes to historical accuracy. At least you could tell there was a clear attempt by much of the studio, if not the writers.

>nothing
>everything

what did saladin the "KKKrusader Killer" mean by this

Jerusalem was worth nothing, but also everything.

>Nothing
"It's just some stupid city in the desert you retards!!111"

>Everything
Promised land of the Hebrews, site of Jesus' crucifixion, and the home of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

...

/thread

no

>christians are evil
>saladin is a good man
>baldwin and orlando are the least christian christians. and theyre the main christian protagonists

>Never saw the movie

>>saladin is a good man
That part at least is accurate to the themes of the time period. Also everyone fanatical is shown in a bad light, it's just that there's literally four Muslim characters with any real speaking lines in the movie. Like said, Saladin and the knight Balian captures and releases are the two honorable guys that parallel Baldwin and Balian in this movie, while the mamluk that tried to kill Balian over a horse and claiming to be a baron and the black-turbaned preacher parallel Guy and the Patriarch/Templar leader.

That there's no Hospitaller style character for the Saracen camp means there's actually more 'good Christian' figures than there are Muslim.

youtube.com/watch?v=MOFrB743PgE

youtube.com/watch?v=eqEovnetLFo

>RCH

Right on cue.

>Truth vs Legend
Legend is the point. Out of all the weird themes pushed by the movie, the legend of Saladin being a just king is the one thing that a 13th century European would recognize above all.

I always thought the Battle of Hattin was a weird choice to center the movie around. I could see the movie being based around better known Christian victories like the battle of Dorylaeum or the siege of Antioch.

as for the movie itself, it's good entertainment, then again big budget hollywood movies will always sacrifice accuracy for entertainment, documentaries are really the place to go if you want just an exposition dump of facts.

It wasn't based around the Battle of Hattin. It's the type of movie where the major battle is just the climax of the middle part of the story. Hell, they don't even bother showing the battle, just the aftermath and everything that changes with it.

It looked more like the writers were looking for someone they could mold into a Hollywood hero and then framed the movie around his character arc.