User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:05:53 AM EDT
[#1]
it was ok. really made me realize how pointless the crusades were.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:06:39 AM EDT
[#2]
It was... meh.
Orlando Bloom cannot pull off the lead role. Historically inaccurate. Epic battle scenes were... meh. I give it 5 out of ten ARs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:06:58 AM EDT
[#3]
Why are you so fixated on religion?
Half of your threads take back-handed pot-shots at the church. Please tell me this is all coincidence, and not a sign of a deep-seated insecurity of some sort..... *cough* |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:07:01 AM EDT
[#4]
It was a fairly well made movie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:07:24 AM EDT
[#5]
They ended three centuries of invasion by Muslims. That enough of a point for ya? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:07:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Obviously, you got all you know about the Crusades from watching this movie.  Perhaps some historical study would be in order? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:08:10 AM EDT
[#7]
It was not bad. Not awsome. But not bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:10:57 AM EDT
[#8]
i also just finished watching the two-hour history channel special on the crusades this morning. and now i think they're even more pointless. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:11:03 AM EDT
[#9]
Long boring movie. I watched it three times on a transatlantic flight back in sept.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:11:19 AM EDT
[#10]
its a decent flick imo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:12:42 AM EDT
[#11]
I thought it was awful....and I love those kinds of movies.
I thought the acting (Liam Neeson not withstanding) was average at best, and the story line very difficult to follow. I fell asleep 2/3 of the way through it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:13:12 AM EDT
[#12]
None of these type of movies(Troy, Kingdom, Alexander 13th Worrier, ect) even come to Braveheart. Braveheart was the absolute best sword play movie ever made and it was accurate too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:15:48 AM EDT
[#13]
Yeah, Jeremy Irons wiped the floor with him when they were on the screen together. The boy can't do much besides stand around and look pretty. It was basically a lame, mindless entertainment movie that ascribed 21st century thinking and motivations to medieval people, thus making the history completley incoherent. Not theater-worthy, goes down OK after a couple beers on DVD. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:16:08 AM EDT
[#14]
just another media politicaly correct BS film...you guys just don't realise how indoctrinated / brainwashed you realy are...sigh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:16:44 AM EDT
[#15]
I loved that movie, but accurate? Nope. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:17:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Well be glad you have the ability to think that in english, would probably be thinking it in Sarachen if not for the crusades. The crusades were a direct counter-attack to arabic invasion of christians lands. I turned the movie off halfway through, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I cant stand historical movies, I have read far too many history books to watch them. I had to turn ALexander off when the persian horses charged right into the macedionian lines, yeah a horse will chrage right into a phalanx. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:17:31 AM EDT
[#17]
I usually love movies like that, and it wasnt bad, but it could have used a plot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:17:33 AM EDT
[#18]
That program was waaaay skewed. Mentioned only once in quick passing that Islam built it's kingdom by the sword. I think a good study of history is in order.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:19:13 AM EDT
[#19]
no kidding islam built it's kingdom by the sword. in many ways, so did christianity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 11:20:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Did you think Rob Roy was better in that regard??? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:05:02 PM EDT
[#21]
It doesn't seem they took quite so many liberties, but researching the Rob Roy MacGregor character had to be a lot easier. There are many centuries separating them. William Wallace, historically, is not very well documented. They're both nice movies, but they are, basically, hollywood interpretations of (somewhat murky) historical characters and events. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:13:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Yes I enjoyed the movie very much. I've always loved fantasy/midieval times and historical movies with swords and honor and man to man fights. The movie was pretty well acted and I thought the story was a good summary of what actually happened, we studied that period in one of my classes in college.
- rem |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:17:27 PM EDT
[#23]
good production values, but no real soul to it. sadly, not enough story to counterweight the eye candy. thematically weak, also.
let me put it this way: for such a huge production, not a single moment of the film sticks with me, and isn't most of the moviegoing experience based on the memories? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:27:40 PM EDT
[#24]
I thought the movie was almost funny.
How they got the main character to not take sides in the eyes of the audience and yet fight for one side is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:32:44 PM EDT
[#25]
i thought it was ok. not great but not horrible either. I bought it while i was on the road to have somehting to watch. I've watched it a few times.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:35:42 PM EDT
[#26]
How is this a potshot at religion? Or anything? Half your threads are efforts to twist things into insults. Please tell me this is all a coincidence, and not a sign of a deep-seated insecurity or persecution complex of some sort... *cough* (Really, ARowner you need to cut back on the caffeine, or get laid, or something...) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:42:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Let's see.... There's a movie forum, but you chose to post this (a thread about the movie highlighting the worst moments for the church) in GD. Your thread about the guy wanting to borrow money 'a guy I know from church'. Your sick friend's husband - you make a big deal out of his going to church. Slasher's thread in the religious forum this morning - you use it as a chance to jump on your soapbox. You get the idea. Don't deny it - your constant back-door insults to the church are no different than your little ruse to draw out SGTAR15, or your trolling thread about your daughter working for the murder factory, or any of that stuff. Pathetic, I tell you. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:45:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Hey AROwner, I have a lot more against sanctimonious assholes than I do against the religions they practice. Start a thread in the pit if you like, and I'll jump right in.
In the meantime, did you want to make any constructive comments about the movie? No? Bye, then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:47:13 PM EDT
[#29]
*yawn* I made my point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:52:03 PM EDT
[#30]
 By historical study I meant actually READING and STUDYING the voluminous information on the Crusades. Maybe even go the library. But hey, I guess a two hour history channel special is just as good.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 12:55:14 PM EDT
[#31]
So you just can't get the concept that the main character would not do wrong by ordering someone killed, thus committing a dishonorable act? He wouldn't become king because he felt that he did not deserve it. He wouldn't become king and order his enemy killed and take his wife, because it was dishonorable. Thus, the kingdom was lost to the warmongering but rightful heir to the throne.
He fought to protect the people INSIDE jerusalem, his duty was to the people not to the ground, walls, stones, churches, etc. He explained it pretty clearly when he knighted all men of fighting age and stated his purpose. He never took a fucking side in the fight, and he respected the muslims and their leader. He was in a tough spot and sided with the people inside. He didn't hate the people he was fighting. - rem
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 1:09:11 PM EDT
[#32]
you're right. that post did make me sound like a dumbass. however, i have indeed studied the crusades through books and other "more scholarly" resources, and still believe that they were a massive, pointless waste of life. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 1:09:36 PM EDT
[#33]
I thought it was a good movie(obviously I'm the minority in that line of thinking), I mean, not every movie is gonna be "Braveheart".
As far as historical accuracy......not so much. Resurrecting a massive upsurge in peoples interest in the crusades is the thing I like most about it. I've had to loan out almost all of my crusades literature to feed my friends' interests. And yes, the crusades were a massive bone-head play initiated by the church. I don't consider that a crack against the church, just a fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 1:52:55 PM EDT
[#34]
 he was the "Blacksmith"
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 1:54:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Someone's bought into revisionist history ;Sad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 1:56:51 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:23:50 PM EDT
[#37]
You see that was the problem. The plot less artistic lisence to condense about 8 years into 2 hours and add a love story that never happened was pretty close to historic. Balian did in fact hold Jereuselem for 3 days but he wasn't smart enough to not ride out in the desert where after the Christian Army was destroyed, he begged Salidin to let him go to his sick wife after capture. The movied used actual names and many actual events adding some historic credence to it. I especially enjoyed the economic aspects of the Crusades for that played actually more of a historic role than political and relgious reasons. Europe simply had two many second son's and not enough land to be subdivided. This btw was also a major factor in the English Empire expansion lasting through the 19th century as second son's joined the military. The trick to really enjoying that movie is reading the history then watch the movie. You'll find the Leper king did indeed exist and was loved by his people and respected by his enemies. Of course the movie leaves out his sickly son who only rules for about a little over a year before asshat takes over and destroys the Christian army in desert. Shown in the Arab world this movie was very much hated with all kinds of formal protests against it. Hey, if those shits hate it, it can't all be bad. Tj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:30:16 PM EDT
[#38]
I actually kinda liked the movie - but not because it was any good. I liked it more as an insight to the liberal mind than anything else. Orlando was the perfect liberal anti-hero.
(1) He was a bastard - free love! (2) He was a blacksmith - long live the proletariat! (3) Somehow, he was good with a sword, despite the fact that generally only noblemen had any experience with a sword. If he had ever gone to war, it would have been with a pike or halberd - He's the invincible peasant insurgent, just like Mao and Ho Chi Mihn. No army can stand against him. (4) He hates religion, especially Christianity, a/k/a "religious extremism." However, every muslim he runs across is a noble enemy - he's multicultural. (5) Despite hating religion, he worries about his soul more than anyone in the movie. For some stupid reason, he won't kill an enemy whom he knows (a) wants to kill him; (b) is about to become king so he can kill him; (c) makes his current love interest's life miserable in a forced marriage; and (d) is about to lead his country on a hopeless war against a superior foe that will get a lot of people killed. But he just can't bring himself to strike first because, as we all know, pre-emptive war is always wrong. It's like Ralph Nader, Al Gore, and John French Kerry all rolled up in one. No blood for oil, er, holy places. (6) His plan for fighting Saladin is to kill a bunch of people, but then surrender. Since Saladin is a non-Christian, he can obviously be trusted to honor his side of the agreement - The Democrats finally reveal their plan for the War on Terror. Surrender, but on favorable terms. (7) At the end of the day, he decides that war is bad and The only redeaming feature of this film was the quote from the Princess of Jerusalem when little Orlando decides he cannot get his hands dirty to prevent his mortal enemy from assuming the throne - "Someday, you may regret not doing a little evil in order to accomplish much good." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:36:36 PM EDT
[#39]
happycynic, that is perhaps the best review I've ever read in my life.
The movie was a huge Hollywood apology for our presence in the middle east the last four years. Nevermind the fact that the arabs ALL OVER THE WORLD are still fighting the crusades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:44:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Actually I believe that more modern scholarship has found that the 2nd son idea was largely a myth when it came to the crusades. First born sons and current landholders were as prevalent as anyone else in the army. For instance, Richard the Lionhearted of England, the king of France, the Holy Roman Emperor, and other very significant landholders all participated in the crusades, in many instances bankrupting their lands in order to outfit the army. The primary motives of the Crusaders were religious. Moreover, the secular reasons listed for the crusades (land and money) generally worked against someone going on a crusade. Crusades often fell apart because the nobles were worried about someone taking advantage of their absence back home. For instance, Richard the Lionhearted abandoned his efforts to retake Jerusalem in large part because the King of France, who had initially joined in the Crusade (it was the Third Crusade) was taking advantage of Richard's absence and threatening his holdings in France. Fact was the Crusades were a terrible way to get rich, and were undertaken at great personal sacrifice by many of the participants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:52:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Yeah so much so that still to this day the Muslims hold the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at the insistance of the Christians, because the Christian factions went on killing themselves. Better yet, how about the Christians ended the occupation of the Jews AND Muslims who fought side by side against them in the First Crusade? Or how about how Saladin and the Muslims AND the Jews took back Jeruselum after selling the non paying Christians into slavery? Lets go one step further and discuss the third Crusade which was a failure as Jerselum still remained in Muslim hands? How about that King Richard and Saladin negotiated that unarmed Christians would be able to make pilgramiges to Jerselum? How about how King Richard was captured by his ex-ally in Duke Leopold, only to be released for ransom? I could go into more detail about the first and second one as well, but the point is nothing was accomplished as we were our own worst enemies. As to how anyone could think we would be speaking Saracean this day if it wasn't for them, all I have to say is, you need a history lesson. The Muslims after the Moors, never ventured any further than south western Europe and it wasn't from the damn crusades. The Moors were already beaten back prior to 1099. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:58:22 PM EDT
[#42]
correct. charles martel stopped the muslim onslaught in the west, and the polish, germans and austrians stopped it in the east at the battle of vienna in the 1600's. the crusades weakened the europeans more than it did the arabs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 2:59:08 PM EDT
[#43]
While they didn't lead to a lasting Christian reconquest, they did found the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted for nearly a century. That should count for something. Of course, on the whole I don't think that makes up for the Sack of Constantinople, which eventually led to the Turkish conquest when reached all the way to the gates of Vienna, twice.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:02:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Yep, but the first borns usually made it back home while the second son's didn't. A general does not an Army make. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:03:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Yeah so much so that still to this day the Muslims hold the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at the insistance of the Christians, because the Christian factions went on killing themselves. Better yet, how about the Christians ended the occupation of the Jews AND Muslims who fought side by side against them in the First Crusade? Or how about how Saladin and the Muslims AND the Jews took back Jeruselum after selling the non paying Christians into slavery? Lets go one step further and discuss the third Crusade which was a failure as Jerselum still remained in Muslim hands? How about that King Richard and Saladin negotiated that unarmed Christians would be able to make pilgramiges to Jerselum? How about how King Richard was captured by his ex-ally in Duke Leopold, only to be released for ransom? I could go into more detail about the first and second one as well, but the point is nothing was accomplished as we were our own worst enemies. Or how about the 4th Crusade where all the Crusaders did was sack other Christian cities for money and relics? Not the point that was intedend I'm certain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:14:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Orlando Bloom was the only part of the movie I didnt like, his character was a pussy, yet could fight better than anyone. That seems to be what I disliked about it. Seeing muslims killed on the big screen makes me happy, rekindles the flame demanding us to remain vigilant against the enemies of God. We need a new crusade, one that pushes islam back to the Saudi peninsula where it belongs; better yet into the ocean.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:40:52 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 3:47:07 PM EDT
[#48]
You think?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 4:42:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Horrible movie. PHONY HOLLYWOOD GUILTY LIBERAL FEEL GOOD BULLSHIT. It sucks that people's entire understanding of european history comes from dogshit like this movie. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 5:23:02 PM EDT
[#50]
The christians holding those lands for a 100+ years slowed their expansionism. How about how those lands were all christian before their conquest at the hands of muslims forces? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_N%C3%A1ndorfeh%C3%A9rv%C3%A1r The crusades delayed battles like that till European technology put them on a footing to be able to win. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
