skel Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 holy crap 6 hours!?!?! that is a must have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynch Posted May 8, 2005 Report Share Posted May 8, 2005 Yeah that's a DVD that will require a case of beer and a large amount of snackables. Very much looking forward to the DVD to see what I missed out on in theaters, I almost wish they had a showing of the 6 hour version in theaters, it really is an epic film perfect for the big screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Finally got to see it today. I have to agree, Orlando Bloom didn't suck...but the character played into his acting "strengths." It called for a limited and wooden reaction to most circumstances. This he did admirably . As far as the movie, a quick review: 1) History- yeah, like I went to see history with this one. At least it got the names correct, for the most part. Grade: H for Hollywood. 2) Story- Very choppy and propped together. If it were longer, maybe there might be a reason given for the trust given the main character. As it is, it just seems like people respect him because the script told them. We won't even go into how loony and loopy some of the other principles are written. Grade- C 3) Cinematography- A little bit weak for a Ridley Scott film, but still better than most peoples. The battles scenes camera calms down eventually and the speed tricks get tiresome, but they are fairly good. Costuming is average to weak. Special effects are overblown (exploding stones?!!?). Grade B/B- 4) Music- I almost laughed when they stole the music for the dramatic scene of swearing knights for Thirteenth Warrior, especially given the number of northern european bit part warriors, but descent. Grade: B 5) Intangibles- Like feeling immersed in the action/story...feeling what is on the screen. Grade: D But overall, the movie turned out better than the sum of its parts. It is well worth a matinee, though I can't see how it could be six hours on DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 I liked liam neesons character,it would of been better with him as the lead role instead of orlando bloom.Orlandos motivation speaches were rubbish,he wasnt convincing at all The king of Jerusalem had a dignity about him i liked,and the pity you felt for him when his mask was off.But the good acting was spoilt by the very bad cliche remarks" u are your fathers son"there was too many rubbish lines like that.I thought the battle scenes looked good,but the artillery barrage on Jerusalem was a bit much,it was like Salahadin was firing 88s. my favorite line from the film Godfrey "I once fought for two days with a arrow through my testicle" LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 Godfrey "I once fought for two days with a arrow through my testicle" LOL And the kind of roll-of-eyes that the priest did, almost saying: How many times have we heard that before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demson Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 Saw it yesterday. I enjoyed it. The main character was played well. He acted with consience, almost child-like innocence. He had a certain charisma, but nothing quite like the King, Saladin or that leader of the templars. Historically, it was not that bad at all. It focussed mostly on the personal experiences to portrait the situation of 1184 as it could have been. BTW, the templars indeed were blood-sucking vampires. They were bankers with swords and chainmail, for crying out loud. I really don't see how Europe was portraited as uncivilised and backward compared to the Muslim society. I watched the shortened version, which showed in the transition in the sceneplay. I didn't really mind though. It was easy to follow. I guess I could make some bad remarks. But I quite enjoyed, and wil prefer to remember it that way. BTW, some of the music has indeed been used before in other movies. However, remember that those are masterpieces that were not made for the movie industry to begin with. I didn't mind - they fitted in nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 I really don't see how Europe was portraited as uncivilised and backward compared to the Muslim society. i dont get what all the people were saying about that, i mean yah the templars were war hungry and agressive.. but like i said before the whole movie is pretty much somed up with what the priest says to orlandos charactor about religious fanatics. i think that by showing the europeans as the warhungry fantatics (as the muslims are shown today) it is simply just putting the shoes on the other foot so to speak. showing that both side are at fault and are crazy when it comes to proclaiming violence in the name of an intangible spirit such as God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I found the film pretty boring on the whole - it went for two long, and I agree, Longbow, that Liam Neesons character was one of the best, and the film could perhaps have been improved if he hadn't died off so quick. Battle scenes were good, but the jerky/strobe like effect whenever in close action was distracting. I don't know much about the real story or characters involved, so can't comment on accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I thought it was much more enjoyable than the last 10 crap movies I saw in the theater, even with the artificial cheese topping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrrhus Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Richard could have done alot more, had he not been so cautious and terrified at the prospect of attacking Jerusalem. I would dispute that Richard the Lionheart could have done much more than he did. When faced with the prospect of the fortified Jerusalem after a famous victory on the battlefield against the Muslim genius Saladin, the Lionheart knew his troops were tired, and so would not be much use against the city. When Richard went on the crusade, Saladin had control of all the Holy Land, when he left, he didn't. That tells us something of Richards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Justinus Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 Wish I'd have popped on sooner to give my review since I saw it day 1. Overall: well done drama of a historical setting. Riddley's style. While not historically accurate in many places, I didn't expect, or necessarily want it to be. About Muslims better than the Crusaders, or vice versa... Simply put if you go there with a preconceived notion of either side you'll see that portrayed. Honestly Riddley did a fine job of balancing it. Crusaders were vicious in many circles, while there were others that had quite a problem with the concept of "slay all pagans." Likewise you see fanaticsm among the Saracens, some preferring to think that they will cleanse the lands of the invaders. Others, like Saladin prefer to believe war is war and that you should fight with an awareness of God. They make distinctions between religion and spirituality, showing the politics of the Pope (indirectly) and greed of some Crusaders. While others are genuinely concerned for their souls and are attempting to do the right thing. I enjoyed the movie and will be buying it. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.