-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official KINGDOM OF HEAVEN Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
77 replies to this topic

#1 of 78 Allen Hirsch

Allen Hirsch

    Supporting Actor

  • 532 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 1999

Posted May 01 2005 - 12:02 PM

The current theater trailer makes it look like Gladiator II (which wouldn't be the worst thing, except it's already been done).

If this one doesn't do big box office, following Troy and Alexander as box office bombs, I'd think that would shut down the Hollywood coffers for "swords and sandals" epics for quite awhile.

I may see it, thanks to Norton, Neeson, and Ridley Scott's participation. I wouldn't see it based on the leads of Bloom and Green, or the subject matter (Netflix rental, like Alexander and Troy were).
My DVD Collection
My CD Collection

#2 of 78 Justin Bauer

Justin Bauer

    Supporting Actor

  • 553 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted May 01 2005 - 03:31 PM

When I first saw the trailer I thought it was just to much like Gladiator. But now, I think it is alright to look like Gladiator because that is a good thing. The subject is much different and I cannot wait until Friday to see it. I am not thrilled about Bloom in the lead, but I will still see it anyway. I love Scott's movies and still wish it was him at the helm of Alexander.
We're Texas.

#3 of 78 derek

derek

    Second Unit

  • 497 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1998

Posted May 02 2005 - 04:11 AM

Hollywood on Crusade
http://www.washingto....042900744.html

Excellent article. While it seems like Ridley Scott has hit capturing the period's look on film, looks like he misses the boat with quite a bit of 'revisionist history.' Many are critizing the liberties he takes. Scott's post-modern look at religion clearly betrays the accuracy of medieval faith. One quote really sums it up where he says
Quote:
I don't think anyone historically, really, except historians, cares."
Is this a joke? If I'm going to see a period film (a few recent good ones come to mind The Passion and Master and Commander) I want to see (and expect) historical accuracy and when liberty is taken it is understood and reasoned. I may not know the depths of the particular event but please Mr. Scott don't play your audiences dumb to history and blind to motive.

#4 of 78 ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted May 02 2005 - 04:21 AM

Quote:
If I'm going to see a period film (a few recent good ones come to mind The Passion and Master and Commander) I want to see (and expect) historical accuracy and when liberty is taken it is understood and reasoned.
I don't think most people care if it's accurate or not, as long as it's entertaining. You're part of the exception.

#5 of 78 Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer

  • 10,333 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted May 02 2005 - 04:26 AM

This brings up an interesting issue, as I'm sure the majority of audiences would object to any revision of history from more recent times. So when do audiences START caring? 100 years ago, 50 years ago? Does it only matter if there are people still alive to remember it as it was and can protest it?
One thing leads to another at cameronyee.com

#6 of 78 Andy Sheets

Andy Sheets

    Screenwriter

  • 2,371 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2000

Posted May 02 2005 - 05:00 AM

We'll just have to see when the movie comes out but it sounds like business as usual in historical filmmaking *shrug* I can't say I found the article very good.

#7 of 78 TheLongshot

TheLongshot

    Producer

  • 4,119 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2000

Posted May 02 2005 - 09:46 AM

Quote:
I don't think anyone historically, really, except historians, cares."


Some people do (like my wife), but most don't. See Braveheart. I still have friends who won't see it again because of the liberties they took with history.

Course, there are always people out there who know their stuff who can't enjoy a film because of the "obvious" mistakes.

I think they need to worry more about getting butts in the seats.

Jason

#8 of 78 Bryan Ri

Bryan Ri

    Screenwriter

  • 1,636 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 31 2004

Posted May 02 2005 - 04:09 PM

I just wrote my senior thesis paper on this topic (I'm a History Major, being certified to teach it). There are a great deal of famous Historians (famous in my field at least) that have contributed to the thought process on where Hollywood's place in History lay.

My research shows that the general concensus of Historians feel that the best way to stimulate interest in various parts of history is through moving images. There are a great deal of collaborative books that dispell innaccuracies in historically based books, but still applaud (in some cases) the efforts given by filmmakers.

Speaking as a young Historian myself, contradictions in films are ok as filmmakers should be allowed some dramatic licence to their work.

#9 of 78 JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor

  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 03 2005 - 12:21 AM

James Bs review....

http://movie-reviews....om_heaven.html

#10 of 78 Michael Martin

Michael Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 1,129 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 26 2000

Posted May 03 2005 - 12:51 AM

From James B's review, it sounds like the extended DVD version will ammend the theatrical cut's problems (plots shortened or dropped, less characterization, etc.).
"You know, God has some really weird kids, and I find it hard to be in their company most of the time."
--Paul "Bono" Hewson

#11 of 78 RobLe

RobLe

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 93 posts
  • Join Date: May 02 2005

Posted May 03 2005 - 04:16 PM

I read somewhere that Ridley Scott originally wanted Russell Crowe as the main character. If it were Crowe, atleast I wouldn't have the doubts I have about Orlando Bloom carrying a movie. But the movie already seems alot like Gladiator and having Crowe would just make it even more similar.

#12 of 78 Colton

Colton

    Supporting Actor

  • 795 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2004

Posted May 04 2005 - 08:59 AM

I just got my Advance Screening tickets for a showing tonight. I'll let you know ...

- Colton

#13 of 78 Richard_D_Ramirez

Richard_D_Ramirez

    Second Unit

  • 439 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2001

Posted May 05 2005 - 10:34 AM

I hope the film is much better than the trailer. The trailer certainly makes the film look like a "Legolas who wants to be Aragorn" flick. Please let the film be better!

8^B
A Casualty of Casual Causality: My casual blog on the 'net.

#14 of 78 Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor

  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted May 06 2005 - 03:26 PM

Quote:
Ridley Scott showed some restraint in the use of his patented violent action scenes with the strobe-y effects a la Gladiator.
Ugh. Not again. Main reason I hated Gladiator at first sight (it's grown on me since mostly because of Joaquin Phoenix and mostly, the music). The action was so fast it simply failed to register.

--
H

#15 of 78 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,325 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 06 2005 - 07:20 PM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Kingdom of Heaven" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Kingdom of Heaven" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#16 of 78 AlexCremers

AlexCremers

    Second Unit

  • 432 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 29 2004

Posted May 07 2005 - 01:35 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alien and Blade Runner were groundbreaking for their time, but when viewing them today, they would be considered dated by many in there use of dark shadows, smoke and haze to conceal limitations in production design or visual effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I must disagree, just like a good song, those "visual classics" never get dated. Like all good classics do, they have a way of standing out. I think they still function as an example simply because they have not yet been equaled (photography and set design-wise). I believe the elements in Blade Runner (like smoke) added to the atmosphere. They were not there just to mask poor effects. Ridley Scott also used them in non-effects films like 'Someone To Watch Over Me' and 'Black Rain', but those weren't as controlled as his two masterpieces. And if you look at certain 'Gladiator' scenes, like the haze in the scene where Phoenix poisons Crowe, you'll see that Ridley didn't abandon his "old" style altogether. Does that make 'Gladiator' dated already?
Also, I don't see how filtering a sky pink adds to a grittier atmosphere. I simply find it distracting because, IMO, using filters is a easy solution to cover up uninteresting skies. From what I've seen so far, I honestly find nothing to rave about, which is in stark contrast with my reaction to just about any scene from taken from 'Alien' or 'Blade Runner'. While these films still make my jaw drop, 'Kingdom Of Heaven' looks a little more a bit more common, a little more bland, less innovative and more fomulaic, less Ridley Scott and more Tony Scott. I don't think much will be written about this either, technically or emotionally. In fact, I wonder if people will talk about 'Kingdom of Heaven' the way they still do about 'Alien' or 'Blade Runner'.


Alex

#17 of 78 DanR

DanR

    Supporting Actor

  • 676 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 27 1998

Posted May 07 2005 - 03:15 AM

Saw this last night...did anyone else notice during the "Rise a Knight" scene (the 2nd such scene, not the one with Liam) that they used the music from "The 13th Warrior"? I couldn't beleive it. It totally took me out of the scene and a I was looking for Antonio Banderas and thinking a bunch of Wendols were going to be attacking (instead of Saracens). Just plain weird.

Overall, good movie but lacking in some parts. I will definitely wait for the Extended DVD.

Regards,
Dan

#18 of 78 Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer

  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted May 07 2005 - 04:30 AM

I give it a "C-":

The good: Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, Sets are amazing, Battle scenes are innovative and enthralling, Academy Award quality cinematography.

The bad: fugly leading lady, dreadful acting by Orlando Bloom

The ugly: horrific storyline, perhaps due to a reputed 1 hour cut of materials by idiot studio heads.

I wish I could be more positive as a long-time Ridley Scott fan but I strongly suggest waiting for the Director's Cut DVD on this one.

Posted Image
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#19 of 78 Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer

  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted May 07 2005 - 04:40 AM

Let's call it "Stink'em to Heaven" Posted Image
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#20 of 78 Kain_C

Kain_C

    Screenwriter

  • 1,036 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 17 2002

Posted May 07 2005 - 11:11 AM

Quote:
The bad: fugly leading lady


If you are referring to Eva Green, that's enough right there to invalidate your review for me.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow