| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Kingdom of Heaven | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 25 2006, 01:32 PM (100 Views) | |
| Specialist290 | Dec 25 2006, 01:32 PM Post #1 |
Admin-type Guy
|
Just got this movie today, as a Christmas gift. Anyone else seen it, and if so, what was your opinion of it? |
 AK-47? Check Fedora? Check Fur coat? Check Sunglasses? Check Good to go... | |
 |
 
|
| Chukchi Husky | Dec 25 2006, 01:44 PM Post #2 |
Lone Wolf
|
I have the Extended Director's Cut. |
I beg for my tummy to be scratched... 
| |
|
|
|
| Hlfranklin | Jan 7 2007, 11:56 PM Post #3 |
Reborn Leader
|
No, i haven't seen it yet, what's it about? |
 | |
|
|
|
| Chukchi Husky | Jan 8 2007, 07:15 AM Post #4 |
|
Lone Wolf
|
It's about the the Kingdom of Jerusalem between the second and third crusades. |
|
I beg for my tummy to be scratched...
| |
|
|
|
| Rinoa | May 4 2009, 10:32 PM Post #5 |
Senior Member
|
My Western Civ. teacher last semester said that this movie is actually more historically accurate (in terms of costuming and main events) than a lot of other 'historical' movies. So, loving historical accurateness, I had considered watching it...and was going to until I realized the only one online I could find was all blurry and was put into fullscreen during capture anyway and I much prefer widescreen. Is the movie good? |
|
...An enemy that is pure evil? Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views. ~Squall Leonhart | |
|
|
|
| Chukchi Husky | Jun 22 2009, 04:21 PM Post #6 |
|
Lone Wolf
|
It's more historically accurate than many other historical films that I've seen, even the ones that claim to be historically accurate. One of the bonus features of the director's cut discusses the accuracy of the film. The director Ridley Scott did say that the film isn't a documentary so it's not meant to be accurate, and much of it has been changed to reflect modern viewpoints. The script writer had studied a lot about the period and said that if something isn't accurate it's not because they didn't know it. The biggest change is the character of Balian of Ibelin. In reality he was an old noble in the holy land. In the film as he's the main character that the audience follows he's changed into a younger, educated blacksmith in a French village who discovers his real father is the baron of Ibelin and then follows him to Jerusalem. The film is good depending on the cut. The theatrical cut is considered average, as the studio didn't want a historical epic but an action adventure film. The director's cut (about 45 minutes longer, complete with an overture, intermission and entr'acte) is a lot better, makes more sense and considered one of Ridley Scott's better films. The director's cut is also considered more historically accurate. Edited by Chukchi Husky, Jun 22 2009, 04:23 PM.
|
|
I beg for my tummy to be scratched...
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · All others · Next Topic » |
6:42 AM Nov 8
