Couldn't wait for more reviews so I took a chance and bought it: At the very least the character development should make for a better story even if " real history " has been condensed, changed or twisted out of shape with modern politically correct
wishywashiness. :p

I can just enjoy it for what it is and not nitpick it to the point of ruining for myself.

Well Jean thank you very much, I will do my best but I am not much of a movie critic and I am terrible on actors names, oh boy am I lousy on that one! :lol:
The movie makes a whole lot more sense now and there is depth to the characters and the overall story line. Having watched the extended version four or five times since Thursday, the previous version seems so chopped up that they must have run the film thru a food processer! :evil: Theres more graphic violence now which adds to the enjoyment.

If you liked the original version, then buying the extended version is an absolute must! The movie could still stand some more battle gore though and more screams and moaning of the seriously injured would smack home some reality of horror that a medieval battlefield must have been like.

OK so I am a ghoul! :lol:

Sir Robert "The Mad" ;)

I am just struck by how much attention this movie has gotten on this site. Man! over 300 posts. I was let down by the film. Metal shields, eating in full armor- come now! Sorry to be a spoil sport. :)

Jeremy

The "Scholars Speak" section does a fairly good job on showing how history compares to the film and why certain things were changed around. I think as history lovers and arms lovers we tend to be rather harsh on a medium that is not trying to make documentaries. Historical distortion and elaboration makes things more interesting for a modern audience who expects such for the outrageous prices we all pay to see a film or buy one.

I don't mind so much if Hollywood makes a historical noble a Bastard blacksmith so much or if they alter historical thought perspectives to fit modern issues. That is all part of telling a story and holding an audience. In the least, such films will spark interest in people and prompt them to find out the truth of the matter.

My beef is when Holloywood just blatantly does not do it's research. Like the pants thing. The costume design lady said she poured over dozens and dozens of modern and primary texts and art regarding period dress, yet she misses something so rudimentary as pants were not worn in 12th C. Western Europe. I don't get it!

A fictional story is a fictional story. But if you are going to make a historical fictional story, at LEAST create an atmosphere that is an accurate setting for the story.

That said, I will again say that I love this film for the fact it is the closest anyone has come to a true Medieval representation on film.

I personally did not like the theatrical release. I loved this version of it. The character development was much better. Those studio doofuses really destroyed this films box office when they cut those scenes.SPOILER!!!!! I liked it that they told how Balian knew how to sword fight before he went on the crusade and didn't just learn it from his father in those couple of minutes. they mentioned he had been to war before but thats all I'm telling of scenes.I learned a long time ago never to go to hollywood for a history lesson. I loved the behind the scenes features. they told a lot and had great special effects breakdowns. I give this a 4 out of 5

will have to get the DC copy. was rather dissappointed in the first. altho i went in to watching it w/ expectation it wouldn't be that good but still couldn't help nitpicking it. this situation reminds of apocalipse now. good flick but always seemed disjointed then i watched to DC expanded one suddenly it all became clear. the people w/ the scissors just butcher flims

I have got my hands on a copy of the extended DVD, but not screened it yet. However, in thinking about this subject it occurs to me that we are holding Ridley Scott and company to an extremely high historical standard. When WW II movies come out, as a rule no one worries about the historical background. The Axis cause is evil, even if some of its soldiers may not be pure evil, and the Allied cause is righteous, even if a few of its soldiers are not. The roles of war-mongers, collaborators, and fence-sitters are generally dealt with briefly, if at all. It is assumed everyone in the audience knows the basic situation. KOH is much more ambitious, in that it tries to outline the overall situation in Outremer at the time, as well as cope with all the costuming and military detail. It is certainly not history, but even in its scarred theatrical form it did capture something of the overall flavor of the time and place; I am expecting fine things of the full version.

I am sorry Jonathan, my world does not include much Hollywood and comparative 'media'. Although I must say that p.e. George Cloony has surprised me. That is not for this forum however.

Jonathan Harton wrote:

Also, what films are you referring to?

Three examples that are probably widely known are:
The recent tv-series 'Rome' : just about spot on.
Completely different but capturing the time; 'In the name of the Rose'.
Another is 'Juana la Loca' : as accurate as it gets.

For buffs: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html

Peter

Yes that Rose ;-)

The reputedly both most accurate and best historical film is : http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0019254/

Of the more popular genre I personally líke, as in best film, The Mission a lot. On accuracy it was ok too but fell through a bit on my hobby-horse but then who is perfect ;-)

Peter
http://users.telenet.be/huertecilla

back on topic somewhat, my wife and I watched the director's cut this weekend. It is a very good movie. I really can't imagine how one could sit through the theatrical release version. We both agreed the film wouldn't have made any sense to us.

Don't nitpick the director's cut it and you'll enjoy it.