*** Official KINGDOM OF HEAVEN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

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).

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.

Hollywood on Crusade
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

James Bs review....

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/mo...om_heaven.html

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.

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

- Colton

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

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

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

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

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.

:frowning:

Let's call it "Stink'em to Heaven"

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