Just saw Kingdom of Heaven

operative x

Newbie
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
1,238
Reaction score
0
It was really good, I didn't have much against it other than Orlando's less than stellar performance but it was actually really good and got me thinking about our current period of time. I think it has given me a better opinion on Muslims and a more cautious eye on those in power.
 
just got back from seeing it, the movie grew on me the more I thought about it. It probly exceeded my Orlando Bloom epic picture expectations, however it had its faults, and its positives. some statements (bland statements, hardly spoilers):

1. very cliche, or at least you know what the next line would be said (its not entirely bad, just a statement. As are most epic pictures).
2. there were a few really akward moments that "didn't" work in the movie such as the midle eastern porn music thing they did when Orlando hooks up w/ the princess. Orlando's simple "yes" reply to knighting men. And a few musical cuts that just made me laugh, plus a few framing shots of Orlando that made him look the scrawny and unbelonging figure I would have assumed he is.
3. On a cooler note, the first King of Jerusalem might have been the fuschking greatest character in the whole movie. Badass kiss of death.
4. The princess had one of the most dramatic changes in character I've seen lately, and was actually quite fun to think about when the full transition was complete.
5. The movie actually succeeded in a few comedic moments, such as a few Liam Niasson lines,and the priest yelling "convert to islam, we can repent later!"
6. The violence was much more then i was expecting. However, I think it helped the film and the story as civilizations were regenerated through violence, replacing a civilization with one that is ultimately no better, no worse.

These are just a few points. Besides correcting poitns 1 and 2, the movie could have better when it came to identifying who was fighting who. It wasn't a conflict of muslims vs. christianity, but rather kingdom vs. kingdom. It would have benefited the film if the two types of knights of the crusades (the blue guys and the white guys w/ red cross) were introduced or detailed, and the "opposing" army was often talked of before they were even shown. The movie did such a poor job of identifying sides and specific ideologies that I can't even name the opposing forces. Instead I only know the attacking invaders were of ALL muslim denomination, while the Crusaders tended to be very Christian- and the defense of Jerusalem fell to all parties and all religions of the city.

While the movie had its faults, when the credits role the film left me satisfied not so much in the fact of "giant-produced-epic-movie," but rather in a sense of morality and a tale of differing oppinions. This movie ultimately gets over its slow begining and akward moments to eventually create a movie that left the viewer with more to think about then how ginormous the production was. IMO, it was worth the ticket- and would be a decent selection for a home theatre system- as again, most epic tales tend to be.
 
I just liked the fact that "your mother" jokes existed in the 1100's.

It was a pretty good movie. I also liked when Orlando stomped that guy's throat when he was attacked. I always applaud new yet practical ways of killing while in a desperate situation.

EDIT: While that sounds weird...it's nice to see something that doesn't just follow the flow of tons of other movies.
 
My name is Adrien Chatillon, and my second name is Renaud, wich in inglish is translated as : Reynald ;)
Reynald of Chatillon is actually of my lineage.

I like the modvie , well done, if you think the warparts are not verry well done it's because this movie is more based on characters and their development that war, this way it's no clasified as a war movie, wich Gladiator took the path.

I think some parts could have been better, the part where he was knigted was beatifull, but it lacked the development, the same goes with the funeral.
also the caracters that were not royal, such as Orlando's personal guard was not developed enaugh.

As for the princess it was to clishé. I think that the part where she cuts her hair to help the others has been done to death in other movies.

Kingdom of heaven is definitly one of the est movies I seen in 2 years.

By the way, when we see Arthur, isn't it Ridley Scott ?
 
The first king was pretty awesome, definatley a character you will remember forever.
I thought when orlando got his hand cut, that they were going to cut his hand off. And at the end of the movie, when that guy talks to Orlando, was that Richard the Lionhearted?
 
I'm thinking about going to see this. It looked amazing on the previews when i went to watch The Interpreter...which is a very interesting film and good :D
 
operative x said:
The first king was pretty awesome, definatley a character you will remember forever.
I thought when orlando got his hand cut, that they were going to cut his hand off. And at the end of the movie, when that guy talks to Orlando, was that Richard the Lionhearted?
does brendan gleeson play him? i heard whoever he played was badass.
 
I wanted to watch it but it was 16 and above only and I'm 13.
 
I thought it was really good, bit slow at first but great battling towards the end...edward norton was great but unrecognisable as the king...and yes richard the lionheart was i think brendan gleeson not ridley scott. Good film, bloom was good in it too
 
AWFUL MOVIE.

Well I guess the first thing I should say, is that the director did a fabulous job of not showing the violence. Guess what? We wanna see some violence when we go to this movie.

We've seen the high shudder speed and really shaky handheld shots in battle before, Ridley! We get it that you want us to feel like we're there but that's not possible, because we'd have steady vision, and we wouldn't be staring at Orlando Bloom while he just LIQUIFIES (offscreen) hundreds of people at a time who are much bigger, and MUCH TOUGHER than him. Try something new, like showing some ****ing gore for once. The women in the audience are not going to like this movie. Some might, but most will not. Why turn away every guy in the nation as well?

THERE'S something that really pisses me off. What is with small people kicking big strong people's asses? Orlando Bloom has the muscles of a petite 15-year-old boy, and in this movie, he kills MANY men who are at least 250 pounds of pure head-smashing. How does he do it? He kicks them, or KNOCKS THEM OVER and stabs them. There are quite a few believable kills, but for the most part, it's very unrealistic, and not even fun to watch.

This movie has a few good kills, but none of us would go to watch the love story. I am so disappointed, I was looking forward to this movie. Too bad I spent 8 dollars to see it.

The first 1/4 of the movie gets a 9.9 from me, and the rest gets a 4.
 
JellyWorld said:
I wanted to watch it but it was 16 and above only and I'm 13.
And you made a poll between HL2.net or Sex? hahahaha lI'm surprised you know what sex is
 
So because of the main actor's weak looking body and a shaky camera, you hate the movie? There was so much more to it than that. I thought just about everyone in the movie did an INCREDIBLE acting job.
And did edward norton play the king? They sort of sounded familier but not quiet.
 
xLostx said:
And you made a poll between HL2.net or Sex? hahahaha lI'm surprised you know what sex is
You mean you didn't know what sex was when you were 13? Anyway i tried to get in the movie, but they insisted on seeing ID. I tried to bribe the guy but he just looked at me strangely and told me to screw off.
 
I thought it was a good movie. I stay with my point that they should of done without the Hero approach. Ridley should of done what he did in Black Hawk Down, several different perspectives to the war. I think when your dealing with such a large scale war you shouldn't have just one Hero but wrather several.

I couldn't take Orlando seriously one bit through the entire movie. His fighting was poorly coordinated, he should of died against the first Muslim he fought. That was my major flaw in the movie. Not only did Ridley spoil it with a lone Hero but that hero had to be Bloomy.
 
operative x said:
And did edward norton play the king? They sort of sounded familier but not quiet.
I think he did. I've heard a lot of people say he was amazing in it. I need to see this soon...
 
edward nortons character ruled the movie. and for the guy that said there wasn't enough violence- you go show me where they show just as many neck slittings where blood poors out- or wait- maybe you missed the part where Liam Niasson splits the guys head open :-/ I think the violence was over the top.

However, I wouldn't give this the rave reviews some people are doing here, so I'm kinda loling- id give it a 3.5/5.
 
I said there were some good kills. Did you see the neck get cut though? No, you saw some quick angles, and then blood coming out.

And the head splitting part? That was easily less than half a second.
 
I thought in general the film was pretty good. However, there were some parts that I felt were not necessary
 
who needs to see the neck get cut- go download some kill videos if you are that into shit. it was by far more graphic then Troy or Gladiator :-x
 
you are right, i must be gay- oh how did i miss all the signs :rolleyes:
 
It's alright, just watch passion of the Christ and it'll make you ungay because the violence RULED in that movie. But it might turn you into a big ol' fan of Jesus, so watch out for that part.
 
operative x said:
So because of the main actor's weak looking body and a shaky camera, you hate the movie? There was so much more to it than that. I thought just about everyone in the movie did an INCREDIBLE acting job.
And did edward norton play the king? They sort of sounded familier but not quiet.
Norton sounded like he was doing his Marlon Brando impersonations in the trailer.
 
Kool.....iam going to go and see it one of these day's, looks like a really good movie.
 
Watched this on Saturday...'gotta say, its a really good film!.
 
A lot of people like it because it's color timed to have that gold tint. A la Passion of the Christ, Blackhawk Down. It's pretty sad when people like a movie because of the color. Same type of people like Requiem for a Dream because it has stupid Student Film 101 editing tricks in it.

Yes, some of the shots in Kingdom of Heaven are nice, but every big budget movie has nice shots. Any professional cinematographer can achieve that "epic" and "artistic" look. It has nothing to do with the director or the quality of the movie.

Also, it was portrayed completely inaccurately. The muslims were far more barbaric in their ways. The christian knights were actually decent people. The film depicts them as being ruthless, angry, and evil. I could go into historical detail, but just take my word for it. I'm an art history student, and we spent a great deal discussing this film in our lectures.

Entertaining? Somewhat. A good film? Miles from it.

P.S. Who am I to run my mouth off about quality films? My friend/room mate is graduating from NYU Tisch. He knows his shit.
 
Who the bloody hell said anything about its a good film because of it's colour?.

It's a good film, you're just trolling disagreeing with everyone that thinks otherwise. If you don't like it then you made that quite clear so no need to go on about it. Bye.
 
You said it was good. I'm telling you why you thought it was good. Now go brush your teeth.
 
I never went into any detail why i thought it was good so please, go pester someone else and don't tell me if i think a film's good or not.
 
LOL, over a 130 million dollar budget. It pulled in a whopping 20 million worldwide in the opening weekend. OUCH!! I hope the androgynous elf took the money up front instead of a cut of the revenue.
 
Back
Top