To this day, I cannot understand why Kingdom of Heaven ranks so low with people... It's one of my favorite movies. Beautiful scenery, great acting, and a compelling plot, this movie was majestic. The two main whines I read about it were 1. Orlando Bloom plays the hero. People seemed to believe that he was a miscast. I don't see how. He was pretty good. I think it's more of the macho BS people seem to puke out every so often. Granted, he overstayed his welcome with the Pirate Franchise, and he has done a bunch of movies that were cloyingly repulsive, but this movie scored points with me for him. 2. It wasn't historically accurate. This is true. But plenty of movies that weren't historically accurate still received praise. It does irk me a little to see some of the deviations from actual history, though, but it wasn't that big of a deal. Gone With th Wind is one of my favorite movies as well and...it's not accurate. Ah well, I just watched the Director's Cut and it just reminded me of what a great movie this was. And how unreliable user ratings can be...
I think one reason it's so disliked here is that it actually depicts Muslims as human beings. In Lebanon, I've heard, audiences came to their feet in applause when Saladin righted the cross, they are so used to seeing Muslims depicted as unyieldingly evil . Most of our "Code" of Chivalry was a reaction by the Crusaders themselves to the contrast between their own barbarity vs the Arabs graciousness in making war at that time. It was inaccurate as to some historic details but remained true to the general history of the time, IMO. Most important was the idea that the Holy Land was a place where the lowborn could become nobility, and the nobles often lost everything through their own bloody-mindedness and the stubborn wooden-headedness. that would eventually cause the Protestant Reformation centuries later but was just beginning then. Orlando Bloom does chew up the scenery as usual , but that was sort of what this movie called for.
I liked the movie and it matched my collection of Crusade History essays written by Muslims. The King of Jerusalem Baldwin IV and his affliction, Leprosy. Sybilla was described as so committed she kissed his open sores. The ill planned Battle at the Horns of Hattin was well depicted from essays of it, I have read in Military History magazine and the like. Yes, the Christian leadership was "bonkers". And, Balian of Ibelin is written of as being "just". http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Historians-Crusades-Islamic-World/dp/0520052242/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445656107&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=francisco+gabrieli+crusades Fun book because it is a collection of essays by Muslims at the time and not a cover to cover book. Well indexed. The Movie would have worked better in America if Balian had saved Jeruseleum from Saladin, married Sybilla and lived happily as a just and noble king. The Movie would have worked better in Japan if Balian dies at the end and Sybilla is left mourning herself to death. And the Movie would have worked better in China if there were more action scenes that go on endlessly like the Danial Craig, Bond movies - adapted for Chinese appreciation. BTW they don't like humor quips. So, without some cultural adaptations for the audience, the movie was doomed. Still, the story remains, true - Give Or Take A Lie Or Two Moi r > g View attachment 38845 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us. Notice How Many members here leave their location - unfulfilled , or not fully filled.
It's always been one of my favorite movies since I first saw it... and I generally hate movies out of boredom or irritation at unreasonable drama.
That's wrong. The Arabs were not gracious in war, neither were the Europeans. The Muslims were not peaceful neighbors either. Part of the reason for the Crusades was 400 years of Muslim war and conquest. By the start of the 8th century the Muslims had conquered North Africa which was not even Arab but conquered as a result of Muslim conquest. Then the Muslims crossed at Gibraltar and conquered Spain and Portugal, moved into Gaul (France), and were only stopped by the Franks at the Battle of Tours (considered one of the great turning points in history because it stopped the Muslim invasion of Europe - don't people learn history?). The Muslims continued their military attacks on Europe, until in 1095 they had conquered most of what is today Turkey and were preparing to move against either Greece or the Balkans. That's when the 1st Crusade was undertaken.
I think Saladin was known for being more gracious than most, but not as gracious as depicted in the movie. IIRC he spared civilians, while most crusaders/jihadists did not. Edit: Per Wikipedia a little more complicated than that, but essentially correct:
Throughout that period, the siege of a city was a long and difficult and expensive process - often the attacker lost more troops to sickness and desertion than to the actual battle, and sieges could last months tying up an army and stopping a conquest. To avoid the costs in money, men, and time, the common practice for an army was to offer a city to pay a ransom and let the residents leave. Fighting men could usually pay the ransom, or someone would pay their ransom as soldiers were valuable. Common people were another story. Cities that did not pay the ransom and forced the siege and were overrun, usually suffered complete butchery or slavery of all residents as a lesson to other cities and to recover some costs of the siege. Muslims followed this practice, so did Europeans. There were exceptions on both sides.
It ranks low because first impressions are huge and the theatrical cut was subpar. If the Directors Cut had been originally released in theaters things would probably be different.
The Muslims turned back at Tours were a completely different group from the ones the Crusaders fought and they in their turn were not really the same people in this movie. The Muslims in Jerusalem in 1095 were the Seljuk Turks and they never got even a majority of Asia Minor before they were supplanted by the Ottomans, The Ottomans didn't take Constantinople until 1453, 350 years later, and only seriously threatened the Balkans after that. Right wingers like to telescope the 1400 years between 742 and today so as to make the bad relations between Christianity and Islam seem continuous, but that does serious damage to the real history which sees the two religions at overall peace until the Crusades embittered the conflict The massacre of the entire population of Jerusalem in 1095 is noted for being particularly bloodthirsty even for a bloodthirsty age. Even the Pope was shocked, wondering why the Crusaders killed all the Christians without mercy as well. "God will know his own" he was told
"Right wingers like to telescope the 1400 years...." Left wingers are far worse, how often do they excuse current day Muslim atrocities by citing the Crusades from 1000 years ago?
If you want a good movie about similar concepts watch Arn.... superior movie As far as this particular one....casting Justin Beiber would have been a more masculine choice then freaking Orlando Bloom.
