f13.net

f13.net General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Strazos on April 16, 2005, 12:22:30 AM



Title: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 16, 2005, 12:22:30 AM
Any thoughts on this movie, coming out May 6th?

Unfortunately, I have to bank on a horrible flop. King Arthur, anyone?

I mean, it's the fucking Crusades....what is there to fuck up, honestly?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Murgos on April 16, 2005, 06:43:05 AM
Well, if they are honest, years and years of standing around in the desert starving probably isn't a very exciting movie.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Fabricated on April 17, 2005, 10:03:02 AM
Hey, what about the Children's Crusade? I'm pretty sure you could make a movie out of a bunch of kids wandering aimlessly and eventually all being killed or sold into slavery.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: jpark on April 17, 2005, 01:21:50 PM
I believe the Director is Ridly Scott - which can do no wrong in my mind as I believe he directed Blade Runner, Alien and Gladiator.

However, the casting of Orlando Bloom makes shudder.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 17, 2005, 01:28:12 PM
I believe the Director is Ridly Scott - which can do no wrong in my mind as I believe he directed Blade Runner, Alien and Gladiator.


Gladiator was "no wrong"?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 17, 2005, 03:32:10 PM
Oh come on, how can you not like Gladiator, even if you don't like Crowe (I don't mind him either way)?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Margalis on April 17, 2005, 08:46:17 PM
Crowe himself didn't like Gladiator.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Shockeye on April 17, 2005, 08:56:32 PM
I didn't like the way the fight scenes were filmed in Gladiator. I'm not a stedicam fan.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 17, 2005, 09:49:48 PM
I didn't like the way the fight scenes were filmed in Gladiator. I'm not a stedicam fan.

Don't tell me that you hate Scorsese too...?  :|


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 17, 2005, 09:51:35 PM
I didn't like the way the fight scenes were filmed in Gladiator. I'm not a stedicam fan.

Don't tell me that you hate Scorsese too...?  :|

Lars Von Trier. I hate me some Lars Von Trier. And I hate all the people that convinced me that Dancer in the Dark was a good movie.

I just felt the need to add that.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 17, 2005, 11:26:42 PM
I didn't like the way the fight scenes were filmed in Gladiator. I'm not a stedicam fan.

Don't tell me that you hate Scorsese too...?  :|

Lars Von Trier. I hate me some Lars Von Trier. And I hate all the people that convinced me that Dancer in the Dark was a good movie.

I just felt the need to add that.

Give the "Idiots" a try if you already haven't (Danish - "Idioterne").

Not the best representative of Dogma 95 (Man Bites Dog anyone?), but definitely the funniest one.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Rodent on April 18, 2005, 04:28:50 AM
Lars Von Trier. I hate me some Lars Von Trier. And I hate all the people that convinced me that Dancer in the Dark was a good movie.

I just felt the need to add that.

Riget rules, but I'm not sure that show ever aired outside of Denmark and Sweden. Still if you can find it, it's worth a look, may even make you forgive him for Dancer in the Dark.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Riggswolfe on April 18, 2005, 06:11:11 AM
I didn't like the way the fight scenes were filmed in Gladiator. I'm not a stedicam fan.

Are you one of the freaks responsible for this jerking the camera around like a spastic retard craze we have in movies lately? If so, step away from the MTV and watch some good movies and good entertainment for awhile.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: AOFanboi on April 18, 2005, 06:55:25 AM
Riget rules, but I'm not sure that show ever aired outside of Denmark and Sweden. Still if you can find it, it's worth a look, may even make you forgive him for Dancer in the Dark.
Plus Norway and Britain, but then those countries share a certain television culture.

If you want to examine more von Trier, try Dogville, his "stageplay on film" starring Nicole Kidman. I think von Trier lives by the adage "It was hard to make, it should be hard to watch". And I can like that in a director.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 18, 2005, 09:32:40 AM
I believe the Director is Ridly Scott - which can do no wrong in my mind as I believe he directed Blade Runner, Alien and Gladiator.

Thelma and Louise.

Yes, it makes me cry.

I don't have high hopes for this movie being in anyway historically accurate, but being that it's a movie, that's more than I can hope for anyway. I just hope it is better than fucking King Arthur, torturous piece of shit that it was.

What's with the hatin' on Orlando? I like him well enough; it's not like he's a talentless scientologist like Tom Cruise or anything.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 18, 2005, 11:12:54 AM
I know nothing about the movie, I don't go watch movies.

But it seems an incredibly BAD time to be putting out a movie about the crusades, with an overtly christian president presiding over a war on an islamic nation who did not provoke it...


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 18, 2005, 12:45:21 PM
Oh come on, how can you not like Gladiator, even if you don't like Crowe (I don't mind him either way)?

Hmmm.... let's see

Well, for starters we have the loyal black sidekick who knows exotic yet strange methods of healing.  Most stereotypical role ever.

We have Maximus showing no personality at all that distinguishes him from any other action character.  Sense of honor, family killed, THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL.  Hell, his family being killed didn't even mean anything to me because we'd seen them for a whole 10 seconds previous to that.

All together, minus the decent decapitation factor, it was just plain boring.  The character towards whom I should've been most sympathetic, Maximus, I didn't give a crap about because he might as well have been Bruce Willis or Arnold.  There was nothing special about this movie in any capacity.

I was rather happy to find, after I'd seen the movie and been utterly unimpressed, that I'm not alone in my beliefs.  I find I usually agree with Roger Ebert's appraisal of films, and I felt he was on the mark with this one (overall he gave it two stars, which is a pretty mediocre rating):

Quote
Maximus: I'm required to kill--so I kill. That's enough.

Proximo: That's enough for the provinces, but not for Rome.

A foolish choice in art direction casts a pall over Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" that no swordplay can cut through. The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game), and the characters bring no cheer: They're bitter, vengeful, depressed. By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies. (There are blue skies in the hero's dreams of long-ago happiness, but that proves the point.) The story line is "Rocky" on downers. The hero, a general from Spain named Maximus (Russell Crowe), is a favorite of the dying emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). After Maximus defeats the barbarians, Marcus names him protector of Rome. But he is left for dead by Marcus' son, a bitter rival named Commodus (the name comes from the Latin for "convenient" and not what you're thinking).

After escaping and finding that his wife and son have been murdered, Maximus finds his way to the deserts of North Africa, where he is sold as a slave to Proximo (the late Oliver Reed), a manager of gladiators. When Commodus lifts his late father's ban on gladiators in Rome, in an attempt to distract the people from hunger and plagues, Maximus slashes his way to the top, and the movie ends, of course, with the Big Fight.

This same story could have been rousing entertainment; I have just revisited the wonderful "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which is just as dimwitted but 12 times more fun. But "Gladiator" lacks joy. It employs depression as a substitute for personality, and believes that if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won't notice how dull they are.

Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) is one of those spoiled, self-indulgent, petulant Roman emperors made famous in the age of great Roman epics, which ended with "Spartacus" (1960). Watching him in his snits, I recalled Peter Ustinov's great Nero in "Quo Vadis" (1951), collecting his tears for posterity in tiny crystal vials. Commodus has unusual vices even for a Caesar; he wants to become the lover of his older sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), whose son he is bringing up as his heir.

The moral backbone of the story is easily mastered. Commodus wants to be a dictator, but is opposed by the senate, led by Gracchus (Derek Jacobi). The senators want him to provide sewers for the city's Greek district, where the plague is raging, but Commodus decides instead on a season of games. Proximo arrives with his seasoned gladiators from Africa, who prove nearly invincible and threaten the emperor's popularity. The moral lesson: It is good when gladiators slaughter everyone in sight, and then turn over power to the politicians.

The Colosseum productions play like professional wrestling. Events are staged to re-create famous battles, and after the visitors wipe out the home team, a puzzled Commodus tells his aide, "My history's a little hazy--but shouldn't the barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?" Later, an announcer literally addresses the crowd in these words: "Caesar is pleased to bring you the only undefeated champion in Roman history--the legendary Titus!" The battle sequences are a pale shadow of the lucidly choreographed swordplay in "Rob Roy" (1995); instead of moves we can follow and strategy we can appreciate, Scott goes for muddled closeups of fearsome but indistinct events. The crowd cheers, although those in the cheaper seats are impossible to see because of the murky special effects.

When Maximus wins his first big fight, it's up to Commodus to decide whether he will live or die. "Live! Live!" the fans chant, and Commodus, bowing to their will, signals with a "thumbs up." This demonstrates that Commodus was not paying attention in Caesar School, since the practice at the Colosseum at that time was to close the thumb in the fist to signal life; an extended thumb meant death. Luckily, no one else in the Colosseum knows this, either.

Crowe is efficient as Maximus: bearded, taciturn, brooding. His closest friend among the gladiators is played by Djimon Hounsou, who played the passionate slave in "Amistad." Since protocol requires him to speak less than Maximus, he mostly looks ferocious, effectively.

Nielsen shows the film's most depth, as the sister. Phoenix is passable as Commodus, but a quirkier actor could have had more fun in the role. Old pros Harris, Jacobi and Reed are reliable; Scott does some fancy editing and a little digital work to fill the gaps left when Reed died during the production.

"Gladiator" is being hailed by those with short memories as the equal of "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur." This is more like "Spartacus Lite." Or dark. It's only necessary to think back a few months, to Julie Taymor's "Titus," for a film set in ancient Rome that's immeasurably better to look at. The visual accomplishment of "Titus" shames "Gladiator," and its story is a whole heck of a lot better than the "Gladiator" screenplay, even if Shakespeare didn't make his Titus the only undefeated champion in Roman history.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 18, 2005, 12:48:51 PM
I said something about Gladitor right when it was released.

"Gladiator is Braveheart for retards."

While, I've backed away from that sentence in the last 5 years or whatever, it still comes across that way in a couple scenes. I'm no whore for Mel Gibson, but it's tough to compare to Braveheart on the epic love scale.

That said, Gladiator is one of the most beautiful pieces of work ever put down on celluloid. It's easily up there with Fifth Element, Equilibrium, Gattaca and a short list of other movies that are too artistic for words.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Pococurante on April 18, 2005, 12:52:14 PM
The artist has a vision using grim colors and images to show a grim life amid a grim reality.  And Ebert wants to see blue skies.

Check.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 18, 2005, 01:00:30 PM
More like the plot and characters aren't interesting enough to carry a "grim setting."  It's like he mentioned- Raiders of the Lost Ark is just as dimwitted, but 12 times more fun.  Gladiator is that film with the sense of humor sucked out of it.  The rest of the film isn't good enough to carry it.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Rasix on April 18, 2005, 01:03:14 PM
While, I've backed away from that sentence in the last 5 years or whatever, it still comes across that way in a couple scenes. I'm no whore for Mel Gibson, but it's tough to compare to Braveheart on the epic love scale.

It's wierd, but I just can't watch Braveheart anymore.  This is one of the few times an actor or other artists personal life has prevented me from enjoying their work.  But yah, before I thought Mel was batshit insane, I would have said Braveheart beats the hell out of Gladiator.

Quote
That said, Gladiator is one of the most beautiful pieces of work ever put down on celluloid. It's easily up there with Fifth Element, Equilibrium, Gattaca and a short list of other movies that are too artistic for words.

NNOOOOO.  Agreeing with schild on film.  I must shower.  I love films that despite their other flaws, are just beautiful.  This reminds me, I need to get a copy of Fifth Element and Equilibrium on dvd.  Movies like that due to their nature are just infinitely rewatchable.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 18, 2005, 01:07:52 PM
I still say Braveheart beats the shit out of Gladiator.

I cared when William died.  I cared when his wife died.  I cheered for him when he committed cold blooded murder.

Maximus is the same damn character, with all the interest and fun sucked out.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 18, 2005, 01:10:42 PM
I hated Gladiator, and that was before I hated Russell Crowe. I was just bored most of the time, and spent the rest of it squirming in my seat from seeing Joaquin Phoenix's harelip 20 feet high in the theatre. Talk about disturbing...


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Furiously on April 18, 2005, 01:28:26 PM
I was watching inside the Actors Studio a few weeks ago and Russel Crowe was indicating they had 20 pages of script when they started filming.

He was pretty proud that "On my... release hell." was written by him.

I have friends that LOVE the movie, I was less then impressed. Braveheart was a much better movie.

It should be interesting to see how Legolas does.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Bunk on April 18, 2005, 01:46:16 PM
Not a fan of Braveheart. Liked some of it, but thought it had the same problem as that other Gibson dreck - The Patriot. Namely, overly melodramatic cheese stuffed in to advance the plot. Why do the villains have to be the spawn of Satan? Slitting women's throats, burning churches full of children, etc, etc. I liked the battle scenes in Braveheart. That was about it.

I still laugh out loud at Gibson's final scene. FREEEEEDOOO...*GIBBED* .. Splork..

If I want guys in kilts, I'll watch a decent movie like Rob Roy.

As for Gladiator, I understand the criticism, but its a guilty pleasure for me. Amazing to look at, I thought the supporting cast was great, and I just plain enjoyed it.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Bunk on April 18, 2005, 01:49:23 PM
Oh, and for my opinion of Orlando Bloom: I thought he was perfectly cast as Paris. Take that as you will.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 18, 2005, 02:20:02 PM
I still say Braveheart beats the shit out of Gladiator.

Well, yeah. DUH.  :-D

Braveheart is one of my favorite all-time movies. However, it set a disturbing precedent that every fucking movie with "epic" in its scope has tried to follow. Shit, Episode 1's battle scene was ripped straight from Braveheart, only with all the icky violence and emotion removed, and slapstick stupidity added. Both Gladiator and Blackhawk Down (another Ridley Scott movie) tried to evoke the same kinds of emotions and war-story atmosphere. Hell, Lord of the Rings wouldn't have been made without Braveheart being a success. Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, all have tried to out-Braveheart Braveheart.

I like Gladiator, though didn't think it was Oscar-worthy. Crowe had a much better performance in A Beautiful Mind (otherwise known as A Biopic We Completely Made Up) and L.A. Confidential, the latter of which should have won him a goddamn Oscar. Hell, Master and Commander was a better performance.

The Patriot was pure, utter shit. It was an attempt to Braveheart up the American Revolution, and it failed miserably. It wasn't even good for the battle scenes, which make the historian in me cringe.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Furiously on April 18, 2005, 03:11:17 PM
Leslie Nelson will alway be the patriot to me...

Spoken: "My name is Francis Marion. I fought the British Redcoats in '76 - hiding in the Carolina swamps by day, surprising them with swift strikes at night. They called me a tricky swamp fox, so a Swamp Fox I became."

CHORUS
Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!  Tail on his hat,
Nobody knows where The Swamp Fox's at.
Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!

Hiding in the glen, he runs away to fight again.
I fire a gun the birds take wing.  There startled cries a signal clear.
My men march forth to fight the king.  And leave behind there loved ones dear.
CHORUS

We had no lead, we had no powder.  Always fought with an empty gun.
Only made us shout the louder.  We are men of Marion.
We had no cornpone, had no honey.  All we had was Continental money.
Wouldn't buy nothing worth beans in the pot.  Roasted ears and possum was all we go.
CHORUS

We had no blankets, had no bed.  Had no roof above our head.
We get no shelter when it rains.  All we got is Yankee brains.
The Redcoats fight in a foreign land.  Their hearts are far across the sea.
They never try to understand.  We fight for home and liberty.
(CHORUS 2X)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Polysorbate80 on April 18, 2005, 05:49:21 PM
... exotic yet strange methods of healing...

For the era, perfectly normal--lots of aboriginal tribes knew about using maggots to clean necrotic flesh out of wounds. But both movies are guilty of playing fast and loose with history.

Braveheart is the more 'romantic' of the two, which I think is why my wife prefers it and I prefer Gladiator.  The only thing that makes Braveheart remotely watchable for me is the crazy Irishman (if that's not a redundancy.)  Although I do find Sophie Marceau attractive for some inexplicable reason.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 18, 2005, 06:00:08 PM
I don't really care if it was historically accurate.  It's been done.  It's laughably stereotypical.  There are a billion more creative ways to introduce characters like that, but they decided they ought to just take a page from every other script with a loyal-yet-savage-black-supporting-character.

Though I will say that it wasn't the most ridiculous use ever of this device.  The Punisher did that quite nicely.  Good thing he washed up on that island with the black hermit, or he might've died from all those bullet wounds!  God bless those black people and their supernatural healing powers.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Teleku on April 18, 2005, 06:04:53 PM
The fuck?  I think this is the first time I have actually ever heard anybody say a bad thing about Gladiator, let alone a group of people.

I mean, I guess I can see your points, but I really liked it.  Then again, I don't think I'm nearly as big of a bitch about movies as alot of other people.  Rarely do I go to see a movie and come out hating it, and that ranges all over many genres.  Hell, going in with the correct attitude of what I was to expect, I actually somewhat enjoyed Resident Evil 2 in the theater.  Granted, it is probably one of the worst movies ever made, but I got exactly what I was hoping for when I went in, which was zombies being blown up in a badly over the top manner.  All my friends left the theater mad and upset about how bad it was.  I walked out suprised at how much better it was than I had anticipated.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Samwise on April 18, 2005, 07:54:55 PM
Leslie Nelson will alway be the patriot to me...

Spoken: "My name is Francis Marion. I fought the British Redcoats in '76 - hiding in the Carolina swamps by day, surprising them with swift strikes at night. They called me a tricky swamp fox, so a Swamp Fox I became."

Oo, what's that from?  I'm supposedly related to Francis Marion in some distant way (according to a relative who went on a big genealogy kick a while back), but he seems like one of those historical figures that nobody's ever heard of.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Johny Cee on April 18, 2005, 08:13:23 PM
The Patriot was pure, utter shit. It was an attempt to Braveheart up the American Revolution, and it failed miserably. It wasn't even good for the battle scenes, which make the historian in me cringe.

Yah, the Patriot's history was godawful.  The Southern campaigns were mostly a sideshow, with most of the meaningful action taking place in the North.  You know, where the wealth and population centers were....  Everything south of Virginia didn't really account for much.  The Lake Champlain/Hudson corridor being the most important.

That,  and the British Army was portrayed as a bunch of ludicrous sadists.  From what I can remember,  most atrocities by both sides were committed by un-uniformed partisans....  Both the British and Continental armies were pretty clean.  Sure, like all frontier warfare a blind eye was turned to other forces using brutul force (Indians in the French and Indian/Queen Anne's wars,  loyalists/patriots in the American Revolution.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Margalis on April 18, 2005, 09:56:48 PM
The big problem with the Patriot was this:

"Ok guys, we've still got an hour and a half to go and we're out of plot!"
"umm...threaten their families again or something!"

I mean seriously, the FIRST fucking time your family is threatened go hide them away somewhere. It was just ludicrous how often those people were in danger. Just a total lack of any real storytelling falling back on the same crutch over and over again.

How anyone can watch the 5th Element is beyond me, no matter how good it looks. Chris Tucker even more annoying than usual!
---

A lot of the complaints with Gladiator was that the script and dialog were bad. Russel Crowe apparently said something like "even I have trouble making this shit sound good" or something to that effect. Russel Crowe is my hero. If I were a movie star I'd probably have the same personality and I look kind of like him too. (Especially when I let my hair grow out a bit and don't shave for a while)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 18, 2005, 10:08:59 PM
I've always liked Crowe as well. He's one of the few higher profile actors who genuinely looks upon his profession as an art, and for that I admire him.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 19, 2005, 06:36:47 AM
Quote
The fuck?  I think this is the first time I have actually ever heard anybody say a bad thing about Gladiator, let alone a group of people.
Welcome to f13.

Ask schild about Tarantino.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 19, 2005, 09:07:03 AM
No. Just... no.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 19, 2005, 10:02:37 AM
Fucking Tarantino fucking sucks more fucking donkey dick than fucking fetishistic specialty porn stars.

Fucking Tarantino.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: MrHat on April 19, 2005, 10:08:04 AM
(http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2003/2003-10/05-tarantino-inside.jpg)

Because I want to see what happens.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 19, 2005, 10:09:00 AM
(http://www.stdmfg.com/fuck%20you.jpg)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 19, 2005, 10:09:36 AM
You should have posted the big one.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 19, 2005, 10:10:43 AM
You should have posted the big one.

F13.net is all about it's narrowband users.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: jpark on April 19, 2005, 11:57:07 AM
F13 has great game commentary.

It's views on film bewilder me  :evil:


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 19, 2005, 12:07:37 PM
f13 has multiple views on film. I think Tarantino is perhaps overrated, but has managed some good stuff in the past (pre-Kill Bill multi-film shit whoring). schild wants Tarantino strung up by the neck with the film strip from Eyes Wide Shut as his noose.

Shockeye has no opinion. We don't let him have one except on Yom Kippur.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Shockeye on April 19, 2005, 12:08:31 PM
Shockeye has no opinion. We don't let him have one except on Yom Kippur.

Two words: Cabin Boy


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Furiously on April 19, 2005, 12:08:54 PM
Swamp Fox, The  (1959-60)
The adventures of Francis Marion, an American Revolutionary War guerrilla leader who fought the British in the forests and swamps of the Carolinas.  Disney mini-series, with Leslie Nielson.

and: Would you like to buy a monkey?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 19, 2005, 12:10:13 PM
Shockeye has no opinion. We don't let him have one except on Yom Kippur.

Two words: Cabin Boy

You're 6 months too early.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Shockeye on April 19, 2005, 12:11:47 PM
Shockeye has no opinion. We don't let him have one except on Yom Kippur.

Two words: Cabin Boy

You're 6 months too early.

Damnit. Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, Arbor Day, I get them all confused.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 19, 2005, 12:12:29 PM
Holidays be damned- Cabin Boy was still a solid flick. I <3 Chris Elliott.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Fargull on April 19, 2005, 12:21:02 PM
I am of the opinion that Schild was strapped to a chair with eyes clasped open watching Pulp Fiction stuck on auto replay over the first two minutes of the Bring Out the Gimp scene from Pulp Fiction with a Three Stooges laugh track playing in the back ground.

Am I wrong?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 19, 2005, 12:35:27 PM
I'm of the opinion that he once actually liked Pulp Fiction (probably a lot), but feels the need to hate Tarantino completely simply because he didn't like Kill Bill.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Rasix on April 19, 2005, 12:59:18 PM
Lets not take this to the bad place.  Mmm k?  No more T word.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 19, 2005, 01:03:41 PM
No more T word.

*scratches head*

Is that something like the H word and the B word?

edit: love your avatar btw  :-)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 19, 2005, 01:42:24 PM
Holidays be damned- Cabin Boy was still a solid flick. I <3 Chris Elliott.
You teabag Chris Elliott? :)

Oh...woops I pressed the T button as a joke, kids. Sorry.

(but seriously, he's a great filmaker if you're not some asian cultural elitist, heh)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 19, 2005, 01:42:44 PM
(not that there's anything wrong with that)


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 19, 2005, 01:48:11 PM
I'm of the opinion that he once actually liked Pulp Fiction (probably a lot), but feels the need to hate Tarantino completely simply because he didn't like Kill Bill.

Pulp Fiction was a solid movie. Resevoir Dogs is a solid dialogue piece.

On principle, I simply hate the fucker.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: ahoythematey on April 19, 2005, 01:58:48 PM
L.A. Confidential was awesome and I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind regardless of it's questionable representation of real events, but for my money Crowe's best performance is still from The Insider.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 19, 2005, 01:59:31 PM
Crowe's best performance is still from The Insider.

Yes. Most underrated Crowe movie.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: MrHat on April 19, 2005, 02:02:48 PM
(http://www.loupickney.com/comm/september2004/tugger.jpg)

He likes a good fighting.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Shockeye on April 19, 2005, 02:04:23 PM
Crowe's best performance is still from The Insider.

Yes. Most underrated Crowe movie.

Don't go discounting Virtuosity.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Fargull on April 19, 2005, 02:20:23 PM
L.A. Confidential was awesome and I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind regardless of it's questionable representation of real events, but for my money Crowe's best performance is still from The Insider.

I agree, and he was pretty good in The Quick and the Dead, but who can not love Sam Rami.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Merusk on April 19, 2005, 02:29:47 PM
Holidays be damned- Cabin Boy was still a solid flick. I <3 Chris Elliott.

Shit, I thought I was the only sad son of a bitch who liked that movie. I feel like popping the DVD in now, since I can't do some WoW hurtin.

"Say, you're one of them there fancy lads, aint' ya!"


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 19, 2005, 03:14:44 PM
Anbody wanna buy a monkey?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Hanzii on April 20, 2005, 02:44:53 AM

Give the "Idiots" a try if you already haven't (Danish - "Idioterne").

Not the best representative of Dogma 95 (Man Bites Dog anyone?), but definitely the funniest one.

Man Bites Dog had nothing to do with Dogma 95 - it was just a low budget movie. It's easy to confuse the two.
I'm glad somebody mentioned QT because up until then I agreed fully with Schild and that's bad.
Idioterne is one of the most unwatchable movies ever made. Pure pretentious dreck.
I'm Danish and I'm supposed to love Trier bexause he puts my country on the map - at leats the map inside the head of artfags - but I've been unable to watch his stuff lately.
Riget actually played in a few small cinemas in the states came out on video and got nice reviews (I remember it reviewed in Fangoria even) - that's why King went and made Kingdom Hospital based on it.

Dogma 95 was a pretentious piece of paper with some rules put down to get some of the limitations put on movies due to low budgets promoted to conscious artistic choices. Trier was the spearheader and he broke the damn rules. The only good Dogma 95 movie to come out - Festen by Thomas Vinterberg - would have been good no matter how it was made. They should bury this thing...

Braveheart is a great epic in the oldfashioned style with lots of gore added to give it gritty realism (and hide the loose play with historical fact). Rob Roy is the better movie regarding scottish history, but Braveheart is just big, brash, moving and... yes epic. Just the battlescenes is reason enough to watch it again.
Gladiator was ok... but forgettable.



Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 20, 2005, 03:31:44 AM
Man Bites Dog had nothing to do with Dogma 95 - it was just a low budget movie. It's easy to confuse the two.

Hmm, that's strange. Since the director (and it's specifically stated in the beginning of the movie, no less) says it was done according to the Dogma 95 rules. Hell, a simple viewing will tell you that it follows everything to a T.

It has nothing to do with me confusing a low budget movie with Dogme 95. I know the difference.

Or are you try to say that anything that isn't from von Trier, Jacobsen, or Vinterberg isn't Dogme 95?

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that Man Bites Dog was a "tribute" at the very least. It wasn't just some low budget film.

Quote
Idioterne is one of the most unwatchable movies ever made. Pure pretentious dreck.

But funny!  :lol:


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Hanzii on April 20, 2005, 03:42:56 AM
Hmm, that's strange. Since the director (and it's specifically stated in the beginning of the movie, no less) says it was done according to the Dogma 95 rules. Hell, a simple viewing will tell you that it follows everything to a T.

It has nothing to do with me confusing a low budget movie with Dogme 95. I know the difference.

Unless there's another Man Bites Dog than the Belgian serial killer movie, then I have no clue what you're talking about. Link to interview please?
It was made in 1992, which kinda gives a good reason why it wasn't made following the Dogma 95 rules. But the director (and you) compairing it to Dogma just argues my point about Dogma just being a gimmic.

Quote
Or are you saying anything that isn't from von Trier or Vinterberg isn't Dogme 95?
No, I'm saying that Dogma 95 was just a way of pretending the limitations put on low budget movies where artistic choices and not limitations.

Quote
Quote
Idioterne is one of the most unwatchable movies ever made. Pure pretentious dreck.

But funny!  :lol:

No. Painful.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 20, 2005, 04:00:23 AM
Unless there's another Man Bites Dog than the Belgian serial killer movie, then I have no clue what you're talking about. Link to interview please?
It was made in 1992, which kinda gives a good reason why it wasn't made following the Dogma 95 rules. But the director (and you) compairing it to Dogma just argues my point about Dogma just being a gimmic.

You know what? I totally screwed up. Apologies. I'm mixing things up. I'll try to find what I read.

EDIT:

Quote
No. Painful.

OK. Why do you think so?  Why do you see it as some "art fag" piece? Von Trier has said he had no intentions but to make a silly film. Like one of the old Beatles films. He doesn't seem to take it as seriously as other people make it out to be. It's a film about a bunch of people who choose to rebel against society by acting like retards. That's not pretentious. That's funny.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 20, 2005, 04:05:38 AM

Gladiator was ok... but forgettable.



That's pretty much it.  If it had been forgotten, I'm sure I wouldn't be so harsh towards it.  It's because such a plain and mediocre movie received such praise, that it fucking won Best Picture, that I can't help but rail against it.  I didn't HATE the movie the way I hated Bless The Child or Summer of Sam.  But it was boring and, ultimately, a waste of time and money for me.  That everyone stares at me in disbelief when I say that and treat me as if I just said Jesus was sort of a prick is was really pisses me off about the whole thing.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: AOFanboi on April 20, 2005, 08:39:08 AM
Or are you try to say that anything that isn't from von Trier, Jacobsen, or Vinterberg isn't Dogme 95?
The official list (http://www.dogme95.dk/dogme-films/filmlist.asp) has quite a few movies and directors. But movies prior to "Dogme 95 # 1" - Festen - do not count there. People did after all make amateurish handheld camera movies prior to "the rules".  :evil:


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 20, 2005, 11:35:40 AM
Crowe's best performance is still from The Insider.

Yes. Most underrated Crowe movie.

Don't go discounting Virtuosity.

Rock on. Loved that movie, in all its cheesy glory.

EDIT: Back to the movie that this topic was started about, the only hopes I have for this movie are the hopes that they don't try to portray the Crusaders as the good guys. I hope they don't try to portray all the Knights wanting FREEE-DOOOOOOMMM for the Holy Land and all kinds of seriously stupid, anachronistic concepts that worked for Braveheart but not much else in the epic mold since, including Gladiator. Try to at least be halfway factual about the motivations behind the cruasdes.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Bunk on April 20, 2005, 01:51:10 PM
Hollywood wouldn't do that would they?  :-o

Maybe they could have an American come over and teach the Crusaders how to fight, and then be the only guy to survive the climactic battle!

Or they could just condense all of the Crusades in to a two week war. Oh, and eliminate any mention of God, since that might confuse people.

Why are you worried? Hollywood always has great ideas when it comes to historical war dramas!!!



Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 20, 2005, 02:37:22 PM
Wait wait wait... the crusaders weren't the goodguys?

But... they're Christian!
And white!
And the future founders of the Bastion of All That Is Right- America!

Unless the ones doing the crusades were the ancestors of those damn British who tried to keep America down!  I bet that's it.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 20, 2005, 02:41:42 PM
I don't think there were any "good guys" in those wars. The Catholics and Muslims were equal in that respect.

I respect Ridley Scott enough to think that he may already know that.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 20, 2005, 02:52:03 PM
He's not the one I'm worried about.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 20, 2005, 03:32:53 PM
Well, the European Crusaders were probably "less good" than the Arabic peoples.

Foreign Invasions, and all that.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 20, 2005, 03:34:55 PM
Well, the European Crusaders were probably "less good" than the Arabic peoples.

Foreign Invasions, and all that.

Ehh....Ever heard of the "Jihad"?


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Rasix on April 20, 2005, 03:37:47 PM
Well, the European Crusaders were probably "less good" than the Arabic peoples.

Foreign Invasions, and all that.

I take it you've never hear of "Spain".


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 20, 2005, 03:39:10 PM
Well, the European Crusaders were probably "less good" than the Arabic peoples.

Foreign Invasions, and all that.

I take it you've never hear of "Spain".

Those damnable Moops.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Johny Cee on April 20, 2005, 07:48:10 PM
Cross plug to Books thread!  The First Crusade is in bookstores now!  And a good read....

Basically,  there weren't any good guys in the First Crusade.  The crusaders started with a slight moral advantage,  with coming off of the Muslim invasion/take over of Spain and the Iberian Pen. as well as the Crusade as a response to the Byzantium call for help to the Pope (Muslim factions had been chewing off portions of the Eastern Empire for centuries,  and were starting to threaten Constantinople).

This was quickly ceded by xenophobic actions enroute to foreign and Jewish communities in Europe,  and general barbarism of the Crusaders once they got to the Middle East.

The later Crusades were more about land hunger and gain than anything else.  Sacking Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was exactly a charitable act either....


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Teleku on April 20, 2005, 08:04:17 PM
Oh come on, if you had the opportunity, you’d sack Constantinople too.  I know I would.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Samwise on April 20, 2005, 08:34:29 PM
I'd hit it.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: pants on April 21, 2005, 01:15:52 AM
Why bother sacking Constantinople?  Its a dump.

Now Istanbul, now there's a city!


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Murgos on April 21, 2005, 05:47:35 AM
Sacking Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was exactly a charitable act either....
It has given us one of the greatest quotes in history though, "Kill them all, god will know his own."  I mean seriously, thats some stone cold shit right there.  Tarantino just wishes he could write dialogue like that.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 21, 2005, 08:29:40 AM
Quote
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Nobody was a "good guy" in the Crusades. The Byzantines asked for help because they could no longer defend their conquered lands from the Muslims. The Crusaders themselves just wanted church-approved land holdings in the Middle East that they could get income from. The Muslims wanted to conquer it alll in the name of Allah, and slaughter those who didn't comply. The Crusades were just one of the ugliest messes ever in the history of the world, on all sides.

But they should make for fantastic battle scenes, and really shitty, overly-dramatic speeches that have nothing to do with the history.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 21, 2005, 08:42:20 AM
Sacking Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was exactly a charitable act either....
It has given us one of the greatest quotes in history though, "Kill them all, god will know his own."  I mean seriously, thats some stone cold shit right there.  Tarantino just wishes he could write dialogue like that.

I'm thinking R. Lee Ermey would have been a good casting choice in this flick.

Oh well. Missed opportunity.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Johny Cee on April 21, 2005, 09:25:06 AM

Nobody was a "good guy" in the Crusades. The Byzantines asked for help because they could no longer defend their conquered lands from the Muslims. The Crusaders themselves just wanted church-approved land holdings in the Middle East that they could get income from. The Muslims wanted to conquer it alll in the name of Allah, and slaughter those who didn't comply. The Crusades were just one of the ugliest messes ever in the history of the world, on all sides.

But they should make for fantastic battle scenes, and really shitty, overly-dramatic speeches that have nothing to do with the history.

A lot of research supports the First Crusade as being a more religious/cultural event,  as well as the West's answer to the espoused ideal of Islamic Jihad.  A fair sized portion of the First Crusade's leadership was made of nobles that spent far more to prosecute the war than they could ever hope to earn back with the new land holdings in a reasonable period of time.  I think there was a fairly commonly held belief that it was essentially a suicide mission...

By this point in history,  Byzantium was pretty much down to the ethnic Greeks.  They really didn't start to panic until the traditionally ethnic Greek areas of Asia Minor started falling. 

Islam had been expanding my conquests for a few centuries by that point,  and clearly demarcated Moslem from non-Moslem as far as violence was concerned.  The Crusades marked the first time Moslems sided with Christians against other Moslems, I think.

I wouldn't describe the Crusades as particularly ugly,  historically speaking.  Most modern wars make it look tame.  Gengis Khan, Attila, and other barbarian/steppe leaders were famous for putting entire cities to the sword.  Gengis did this in far more populated India and China,  and had death tolls of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Hell,  by ancient standards it's not that bad.  Ancient Greeks/Persians thought nothing of sacking, burning, killing or enslaving entire regions.  Than salting the earth for good measure.  To say nothing of Rome.

Or English treatment of Ireland between the time it was first conquered till the 19th century.

History is a bloody fucking mess.  Pointing out one person/group as particularly bad MOSTLY has more present political motives than it does historical reality.



Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 21, 2005, 09:31:47 AM
Maybe it's just my aversion to the "Convert or die" mentality that permeates the Crusades on both sides that makes me think it's particularly ugly.

There are few wars one could even come close to calling "civilized," or anything other butt-ugly messes. The Seven Years War and most of the early-to-mid 18th century wars was probably as close as one could come, being called "The Sport of Kings" because of an almost unspoken agreement against the kind of scorched earth total war policy that had innundated the religiuos wars of the previous century. After the ancient period, I really think that the most egregious and systemic abuses of conquered peoples come from wars in which one side or the other believes it has the divine right to wage war, as opposed to the more politically-motivated wars.

Genghis Khan was just a ruthless sumbitch. I don't think his cruelty was out of meanness so much as absolute efficiency.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 21, 2005, 09:47:08 AM
Speaking of "convert or die", check out this month's Rolling Stone, there's an article about the Dominionists in there worth reading. Of particular relevance to Haemcow's quote, their new "pledge of allegiance", which wraps up with some bit about life and liberty /for all who believe/, and the preceding lines assure that the belief is in Hayzeus and nobody else. Tragic, imo. It'd be worse if they weren't in bed with the folks who control the administrative and legislative branches and are eyeing control of the judiciary, as well.

Bah, forget I said anything, makes me too nuts. All in the name of god. Apparently...god needs to sell a lot of product and isn't very good at delivering messages himself.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 21, 2005, 09:50:17 AM
Johny Cee just reminded me of something....

We need mroe ancient history-based movies. Not trash like Troy, but stuff based upon the Persian Wars (esp. Marathon), or the Peloponneian Wars.

Hell, someone please give me The Illiad done correctly please, with the drama between the gods, kthx. At least, from what I remember, someone did The Odyssey correctly a few years ago as a mini-series. It had Vanessa Williams if I remember correctly as Calypso.

Well, here's to hoping Kingdom of Heaven doesn't completely butcher the source material.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 21, 2005, 10:01:53 AM
Quote
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks




And now I know what I will be singing in my head all day. I guess it could be worse- TMBG kicks all kinds of ass.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 21, 2005, 10:05:59 AM
I was tempted to post something like that. Thanks for doing my bidding, chief.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: HaemishM on April 21, 2005, 10:07:29 AM
I could have quoted Particle Man, but it wouldn't have fit the thread.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 21, 2005, 10:10:53 AM
Johny Cee just reminded me of something....

We need mroe ancient history-based movies. Not trash like Troy, but stuff based upon the Persian Wars (esp. Marathon), or the Peloponneian Wars.

Hell, someone please give me The Illiad done correctly please, with the drama between the gods, kthx. At least, from what I remember, someone did The Odyssey correctly a few years ago as a mini-series. It had Vanessa Williams if I remember correctly as Calypso.

Well, here's to hoping Kingdom of Heaven doesn't completely butcher the source material.

I'd like to see a movie of Socrates myself. A comedy!

There's got to be a way to make it fairly accurate and entertaining, without being too dialogue heavy for movie audiences.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 21, 2005, 10:13:35 AM
There's got to be a way to make it fairly accurate and entertaining, without being too dialogue heavy for movie audiences.

Therein lies the problem.  :cry:


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Llava on April 21, 2005, 11:25:37 AM
Johny Cee just reminded me of something....

We need mroe ancient history-based movies. Not trash like Troy, but stuff based upon the Persian Wars (esp. Marathon), or the Peloponneian Wars.

Hell, someone please give me The Illiad done correctly please, with the drama between the gods, kthx. At least, from what I remember, someone did The Odyssey correctly a few years ago as a mini-series. It had Vanessa Williams if I remember correctly as Calypso.

Well, here's to hoping Kingdom of Heaven doesn't completely butcher the source material.

I'd like to see a movie of Socrates myself. A comedy!

There's got to be a way to make it fairly accurate and entertaining, without being too dialogue heavy for movie audiences.

I can just imagine it:

Socrates is drinking the poison from the chalice when he stops for a moment, throws his head back victoriously and shouts, "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!"  Then he goes back to drinking.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Sky on April 21, 2005, 11:36:20 AM
Fire up some Roman Red, Mel Brookes already made the best history movie :P


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: ClydeJr on April 22, 2005, 12:57:39 PM
At least, from what I remember, someone did The Odyssey correctly a few years ago as a mini-series. It had Vanessa Williams if I remember correctly as Calypso.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118414/
Amand Assante was Odysseus, Isabella Rossellini was Athena, and Christopher Lee was Tiresias. Its available on Netflix.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 22, 2005, 01:08:24 PM
I love Armand Assante's Oddyssey. It's another one of my guilty pleasures.

I got it on VCD from Korea before the DVD came out. Then I bought that. Weeee. Can't wait for high-def.

I hope they box it with Knight's Tale and Stephen King's IT.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: Strazos on April 22, 2005, 01:15:33 PM
Shizam!!

Speaking of Arman Assante, take a look at the top of his credits...

Gilgamesh

Yum yum, gimme some.

Someone needs to do a good Beowulf also.  :mrgreen:


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: stray on April 22, 2005, 01:27:51 PM
Someone needs to do a good Beowulf also.  :mrgreen:

For now, you get the Highlander (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120604/) version. Enjoy.


Title: Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: schild on April 22, 2005, 01:45:50 PM
The closest thing we'll probably ever get to a good Beowulf is 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas.