abespam Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 So i just went and watched it at the cinemas, and i thought it was pretty good, i give it 4 stars. Scott uses a lot of his Gladiator style cinematography and story telling to create the film, and im sure it historically inaccurate but the movie was decent. Orlando Bloom did a good job , but i was expecting bigger roles from Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons. I recommend watching it, though ROTS opening next week may cause ppl to forget about this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 I love historical epics, though they are often jokingly inaccurate The Crusades were a fascinating part of history so it is always cool to check out a movie about them... One thing I am cringing though is the portrayal of Saladin and his forces.... I am hoping it is not a stereotypical "Hollywood Muslim" but I am sure It wont be otherwise mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 thats what it look like from the trailers, which are obviously designed to appeal to (christian) middle america. But apparently the film is fairly pro muslim (infact some people have said it is even TOO pro muslim). Mind you, from what i remember of my history the muslims were more technologically advanced and didn't go slaughtering entire cities like the christians did... so maybe they were the good guys after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 What? Troy rocked. King Arthur was below my expectations, but it was semi decent to watch, I wasn't bored by it too much. and I didn't bother to see Alexander because I knew that movie was crap. C'mon. Colin Ferrell? Angelina Jolie? Not to mention Alexander's cheeseball lines.. "Conquer your fear and you will conquer death." X) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abespam Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 well the movie was more pro-muslim nor pro-christian, though there were fanatics on each side. Saladin himself was not portrayed as a fanatic in the movie more of a "general" type character, caring more about winning the battle with minimal loss rather than destroying christians. There were quite a few fanatics on the christian side, especially the knights templar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Orlando is fit for playing an unexperienced soldier (Troy) or an ageless elf. He just doesn't cut it as a big soldier type guy. I'll check this movie out after it comes to DVD so I can see Orlando *goes to watch Eric Bana in Troy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[RAA]-=Chi3f=- Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This movie was alright, not great, but alright. 2 stars +1 for RotS trailer = 3/5stars It was worth seeing it for the trailer alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Just got back from seeing it. It was aight. Good siege scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I do agree that i've got a bit burned out on these historical epics. That is hollywood for you, get one good film and then you end up with 3 years of clones. Like all those comic book movies... or all these gladiator/LOTR clones. Troy was dull, eric bana and orlando bloom had the charisma of a wet blanket, brad pitt wasn't much better. The only good thing about it were the old guys who completely blew them off the screen, acting wise. King arthur was terrible. Dull and meaningless. If it hadn't had ray winstone in it to make me laugh i'd have left the cinema. How does clive owen manage to alternate between being great in some movies and terrible in others? Alexander pretty much skated over and copped out of the gay thing... which version did you watch? (special edition with extra cgi gayness? ) I may watch HoH this week, but i'm not really rushing to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Let's not forget the fact that there is no historical record proving Alexander's sexuality either way, and it's purely conjectural revisionism to state that he swung one way, or swung the other. The best that most historians have been able to come up with is "He was probably bisexual". How non-commital is that! I'm utterly fed up of sexuality being inserted into historical records when it is simply not necessary... unless you have some sort of agenda to further, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 No, no, don't start, keep that in the Senate. Muslims were not that better then Christians truly. Saladin was their best leader. He was the only one who didn't enter Jerusalem by pillaging and raping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokarev Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Another factor which plays a part none of the less is also timing imo.... How long the movie really is which can help make a difference rather than just cramming all of two hours which I prefer in all honesty. Some movies you can fit a set amount of time and some others not, but I suppose it's all on how you're going about historical accuracy on a certain event, a certain timing of it, and so on... I heard KoH could have been better with more added to it aswell and the acting.. All I want is the historical accuracy in a movie and not all the BS fluff to it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I'll watch it later on DVD. I've heard about the bias, though. The Muslims were actually military masterminds and it's the Crusaders who invaded mindlessly and ran away with their tails between their legs. Looking at how America looks at Muslims, I can the word "Bias" painted all over the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sabretooth Looking at how America looks at Muslims, I can the word "Bias" painted all over the movie. Funny you should say that, considering R. Scott is in fact not American but British. People can find a way to blame America for everything they don't like nowadays, it seems. Even the crusades. I remember when Ridley Scott made Black Hawk Down. And all the bitching from scruvier foreign types I had to read or listen to. Nevermind the fact that only a handful of the cast or crew involved in making the movie were Americans. It's a lopsided American story where big bad evil America is portrayed as the hero. Originally posted by Spider AL historical record proving Alexander's sexuality...historians...historical records... Maybe, just maybe, when people watch a movie, they should take into account that for the most part, movies are made for entertainment purposes, and should not always be held to the standard of historical fact. I'll be watching this movie eventually, despite the pc and euro turd picket lines I might have to wade through to do so. And for the simple fact that it's a movie, you know, with actors? People who are paid to act like someone they're not? I'll probably assume all by myself that I shouldn't take any of it seriously, and who knows? I might even be entertained. Dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The simple fact is that we usually don't know anything about the private, personal and emotional details of these historical figures. And any film needs to try and flesh out the characters to more than just a few battle scenes and historical events. Since most of the personalities pasted onto these historical figures are going to be entirely fictional anyway, what does it matter whether they make them gay or straight, or innocent or bitter or any way. In a fictional representation of a character making him gay seems just as valid as making him straight... and at least it might have the virtue of making a slightly unique character... not another cookie cutter hollywood hero. On the other hand, what is usually known about such historical figures is the hard facts (locations, victories, losses, etc..) so its nice if they can at least TRY to stick to the few things that we do know. I've heard a few people mention that scott might be using this movie to try and balance the scales after Black Hawk Down, which might be why he goes a bit overboard on the pro-muslim front. But i'll reserve judgement on that till i can see for myself, as i've also heard a few people say its anti muslim. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Funny you should say that, considering R. Scott is in fact not American but British. People can find a way to blame America for everything they don't like nowadays, it seems. Even the crusades. The movie came out of Hollywood. Hollywood = America. Hollywood + Blame = America + Blame. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abespam Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 seriously it no where near as bias as ppl might think. In fact the movie accentuates the fact that there are some fanatics on either side, but that nearly all of the main characters are not.. of course in terms of military masterminds.. scott couldnt resist , bloom doing some tricks against the seige towers... .. some of it reminded me of Return of the King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sabretooth The movie came out of Hollywood. Hollywood = America. Hollywood + Blame = America + Blame. My 2 cents. Right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 what the fuzz ! this is hilarious..... a flame war about gays and muslims and america being bad in a thread that is about a movie I still havent seen it yet.... CapN.... Ridley Scott might have been born in the UK, but he's hardly a "British" director by *any* stretch of the imagination You want to see some awesome British directors, look up Mike Leigh & Peter Greenaway but I can tell you from historical records that the Knights Templar were indeed fanatics... their code included not bathing, and not burying their dead smelly ! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 CapN.... Ridley Scott might have been born in the UK, but he's hardly a "British" director by *any* stretch of the imagination I'm sorry, that makes no sense. He's British, he's a director, but he's not a British Director? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith I'm sorry, that makes no sense. He's British, he's a director, but he's not a British Director? He isn't a British dirctor, he is a Holywood director. There is a diference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by jon_hill987 He isn't a British dirctor, he is a Holywood director. There is a diference. But he's British, and a director. Thus a British Director. "British" is a description of nationality, not cinema style. I suppose you're one of those people the seperates styles of humour into "american" and "british". Such arrogance is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I think what they meant is that Ridley Scott is a British director who does Hollywood movies while Mike Leigh and Peter Greenaway are drectors who make British movies. If you watch a lot of foreign films, from any place, you'll end up seeing the difference between each countries' style. It's like architecture or the way of thinking of a culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 sithy, calm down.... It is not unusual at all to describe directors according to their style...as opposed to their place of birth.. Scott simply has done most of his work in Hollywood.. how about this description, your majesty : "British Born Hollywood Director" Ridley Scott Go watch a film called "Naked" by Mike Leigh .... even Trainspotting or anything by Guy Ritchie.... they are British Films mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad I think what they meant is that Ridley Scott is a British director who does Hollywood movies while Mike Leigh and Peter Greenaway are drectors who make British movies. I get what they mean, but classification based on nationality comes off as arrogant and elitist. He may make movies in hollywood, but he is British, and that was CapN's point. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad If you watch a lot of foreign films, from any place, you'll end up seeing the difference between each countries' style. It's like architecture or the way of thinking of a culture. The differences are based on their cultural principles. They're not different cinematic styles. They just approach things differently due to their cultural upbringing. A japanese girl may be more subdued when speaking english, but she's not speaking "Japanese english". It's not a different kind of english. It's just cultural upbringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.