Kingdom of Heaven on AMC

quote:

---

I've heard from numerous people that the Director's Cut is the only way to go

---

well the fricking AMC version certainly ain't

I'd think you would like it. Norton gives a great performance. Pretty historically incorrect but who cares

ETA: Its also nice seeing Jeremy Irons not in a shitty role.

quote:

---

I've heard from numerous people that the Director's Cut is the only way to go. Is this true?

---

Yes, it's 100% true. The theatrical cut is a watered down version of Ridley Scott's original vision. While I'm not Scott's biggest fan, I have to admit Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut is one of the better "sword & sandal" movies I have ever seen - blatant historical inaccuracies aside.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I feel as though the DC version of KoH rivals Gladiator.

quote:

---

you're about to get a bunch of Ridley Scott haters up in here. For what it is, I liked it. There aren't too many other movies with battle scenes from the crusades. Definitely worth your time.

---

I love Ridley Scott, but this movies is flat bad. It really didn't stand a chance, though, because it was the premise that made me hate it. It was just so unrealistic, even in the world the movie created, that I could never take it seriously. It's got some fun scenes. Jeremy Irons is good in it. But the premise of a blacksmith with no military background leading an army is comical to me.

quote:

---

The Mission

---

I love that movie and really the first one I saw him in which is why I am always disappointed when I see him do something like Eragon.

quote:

---

But the premise of a blacksmith with no military background

---

that's not true, actually

quote:

---

In the theatrical version,

---

i think everyone discredits the theatrical version

he was experienced in siege warfare and had been part of prior wars, that's why he had an ability to defend the siege

a big part of the director's cut is basically adding a ton of time developing the characters. the biggest is eva green's son. he was completely omitted from the theatrical release.

quote:

---

But the premise of a blacksmith with no military background leading an army is comical to me.

---

you must not know very much about the crusades

quote:

---

you must not know very much about the crusades

---

The peons in the Crusades, including blacksmiths, knew frick all about warfare. They knew where to point their weapons.

If this is explained in the DC, fair enough. I saw it in theaters and was pissed

quote:

---

yeoman

---

Would have military experience, being, essentially, militia or an aide to a knight. In the movie, Balian did not own lands, if my memory serves me, and he was bastard born.

quote:

---

former man at arms

---

Would have fighting experience at least.

quote:

---

English bowmen are a good example of VERY common men who had great fighting skills, even with swords as that most battles involving bowmen, ended up with them joining the general melee with daggers and swords once the ranks joined.

---

This takes for granted that the bowmen are experienced warriors. There was no indication that Balian had military experience.

Nothing in the THEATRICAL RELEASE suggested he had any combat experience at all. Indeed, seemingly the first time he picks up a sword to fight another man is when he meets up with his dad after waxing his brother.

Now, if Citizen Kane wants to argue about Balian of history, the Balian the movie's character was likely based on, then yeah - he had military experience and was a a key figure in much of the Crusades. He was also a nobleman, not a bastard-born blacksmith.

Let me put it this way: In Game of Thrones, if Gendry was all the sudden some sort of badass who could take down one of the best knights of the realm while that knight was on horseback and then could lead an army to battle, would you believe it? It makes sense that Robb can, since he's been trained to do it his whole life. It makes no sense that Gendry could do it since he's been beating metal his whole life.