ITT: We rate Veeky Forums kino

Pros
>Supporting cast is pretty damn good. Norton is fabulous.
>Set pieces are gorgeous
>choreography is a nice mix between realism and fun to watch
>Pays homage to the history and captures the spirit of faith during that time in a manner that seemed genuine (to me at least)
>Bloom is good in a large portion of his scenes
>Soundtrack is phenominal. Not typical Zimmer schlock that is commonplace in movies today.
>Ridley Scott and his cinematographers have an eye for lighting and blocking to make a scene compelling. The visuals are breathtaking.

Cons
>Some people view it as a Muslim apologist, Christian shaming view of the Crusades. I don't personally see it but it's a common sentiment
>It took historical liberties, first 30 minutes is pure rubbish as far as history is concerned. Siege is relatively ahistorical, making Balian seem like he's pioneer common siege tactics of the time. The film's reinterpretation of Patriach Heraclius juked a chance for a bit more of a mature handling of the Church.
>Felt Liam Neeson was wasted
>Bloom lacks a charisma that was demanded on him in some scenes. I felt Crowe did as well in Gladiator so I think this is a fault of screenwriters and Ridley Scott rather than Bloom.
>Some dialogue is hamfisted or falls flat ("Does knighting a man make him a better fighter" scene).

I recommend at least one watch of the director's cut of this movie. It's hit or miss around these parts but I always mention it in these threads.

Won't upload image for whatever reason. Movie is Kingdom of Heaven.

Oh good. Was worried that only I was having upload errors.

I love this fucking movie, I don't care what anyone says otherwise. It was definitely a passion project for Stone. GOAT battle scenes, and the music is amazing.
It is really, really, REALLY gay though. It also makes little to no sense as a 3-hour flick. It should have been a miniseries at the least.

The battles are really great and the music was good too if I remember it correctly but the rest, besides the previously mentioned big ol' tiddies, was really bad.

I liked the film in general but didnt like the overly passionate acting. Tommy Wisseau would have fitted right in. It clashes with the overall realistic tone of the movie, its a realistic movie with acting performance best suited for a theatric play.

How does the Marco Polo series stack up Veeky Forums?

Only viewed the first season. Its sole saving grace was Kublai.

>cons:
>no mention of Oliver Stone using fucking massed numbers of Arabs in place of "Persians" and even outright having them say quotes and battle hymns from the Koran and Islamic chants
>dressing up the "fair Roxanne" to be played by a African woman

>not the episode where the Hashashin nearly assassinate Kublai being absolute kino

>Captain Alatriste

I liked it a lot, although people in general don't share this opinion much.

Oliver Stone needed actresses who looked pretty much like Angelina Jolie to stress the fact that everything he liked on women revolved around how his mother was and looked like (Aedipus and the sort of tragedy thing)

>cons
>they play up Alexander's bisexuality
>heavily implied he and Haphaesiton fuck

So it's TOO accurate for you?

>>the ancient macedonians were actually Irish and British
Spartacus was American and Leonidas was Scottish

Alexander

Pros
>Sandor "The Hound" Clegane played Craterus

I like good westerns but I'm too autistic to enjoy most of them.
>anachronistic weapons, guns that were invented in the 1890s already exist in 1860s etc
>half of them are set in Texas but filmed in Arizona where the landscape and vegetation looks completely different (Rio Bravo, Searchers)
>those that actually ARE set in Arizona, like 3:10 to Yuma, are inexplicably filmed in New Mexico
>Indians are all either evil savages (pre 1950s) or misunderstood, magical noble people in touch with nature (post 1950s)
>most westerns run with the same tropes until it gets boring, Clint Eastwood literally plays the same character in every film

They made the Macedonians speak Irish to make them more barbaric compared to the British Greeks.
Oliver Stone thought of this only after Colin Farrel couldn't lose his hard Irish accent.

>Clint Eastwood literally plays the same character in every film
You mean like Morgan Freeman? XD

>dressing up the "fair Roxanne" to be played by a African woman

She's played by a Hispanic Women, but still she definitely ain't an Afgan or an Uzbek.

If it had been three movies rather than one I think it could have worked.

As it stands it just feels like it moves from one episode to the next without much cohesion. I do enjoy Buckingham and Charles trying to kidnap the Infanta though.

>Oliver Stone thought of this only after Colin Farrel couldn't lose his hard Irish accent.

Colin Farrell can do accents fine. The problem with the idea if there's only one non-Macedonian Greek so the whole thing is pointless. Had there been more of a focus on Philip's reign and Alexander very early reign this could have been a good idea, but as it stands it just seems weird.

Rosario Dawson is Latino
Does it really matter on race if they look the part? Besides ancient ethnic groups no longer exist and Colin Farrell is no Helllene

It literally took nothing away from the movie for me. I find it irritating that people like you complained about "Valkyrie"'s British and American actors not using stereotypical German accents the whole movie. On the flipside I find games like Assassin's Creed 2 where the main character speaks in an Italian/English pidgin the whole time insulting. Either let the actors settle on an appropriate dialect in English (Irish is just fine for Macedonians) or use the actual language and subtitle it.

Lawrence of Arabia

Pros are that it's widely recognized as one of the best films of all time. Amazing cinematography and acting.

Cons: none really.

Also HBO's Rome and BBC's I Claudius. Not perfectly accurate but great shows.

>Drag the latin outside the city and fill his mouth with the shit of pigs.

Dude did a great job with the role