| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Sat 27 May, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
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. 
I can just enjoy it for what it is and not nitpick it to the point of ruining for myself.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
Bob Burns
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
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! 
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!  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!
Sir Robert "The Mad" 
|
|
 |
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Burns wrote: | 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!
|
See it wasn't that hard to do. That's actually a pretty good review as it tells me what I wanted to know.
I didn't HATE the theatrical release I was just left unsatisfied: I will try to completely forget about it when I watch the directors cut and try to view it as if it was a completely different film I'm seeing for the first time.
If it turns out as good as you say then I think the SUITS who butchered the editing of the theatrical version should be burned at the stake: Burn the studio executives ...... BURN THEM. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Burns wrote: | | 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! |
Totally agree.
I have to wonder if some of the well reported problems Hollywood has experienced at the box office the last few years, is that they are so fixated on formulasthat they have forgotten they are really story tellers.
After I watched the movie in the theatre, I told people not to waste time with it. Enough people doing that cuts the heart out of revenues. I find great irony in telling people now that I enjoyed the director's cut because its a better story than what went to the box office.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | If it turns out as good as you say then I think the SUITS who butchered the editing of the theatrical version should be burned at the stake: Burn the studio executives ...... BURN THEM. |
Not sure they need burned at the stake, but these are public companies and their directing boards should ask some hard questions.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Harton
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike H
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike H wrote: | | 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... |
I agree...and the fact that he had been used as en engineer made so much of what came later make more sense. Instead of a complete novice, we have a vetern. Perhaps not an expert, but a man with soldiering experiece. That idea he fine tunes his skills on the trip worked for me. The previous "Dummies Guide to Fighting Saracens" approach of the theater realease did not.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Doby
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
don't sweat the petty things, just pet the sweaty things
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonathan Harton wrote: | | 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. |
Please modify 'anyone' into 'mainstream Hollywood'. There are quite a few 'proper' films about with a romantisized story against an historically correct backdrop. Even by american film makers :-)
The 'problem' is that it makes for few pretty pictures and a whole lot of messy opportunism; not for the broad public.
If you want a true medieval story as a yard stick please read 'Gregory the Great'. This is a very good translation of a true medieval soap written by Gregorius van Tours.
Early in this thread the very good book 'The crusades through arabic eyes' was mentioned and this is complimented very nicely by 'The making of Europe' by Robert Bartlett. Although heavily biassed towards the Anglo-Saxon view it nevertheless is accurate in it's facts and it does give insight into what the crusades were and what not.
'Frank' by the way is a very old germanic word for bold, courageous that is still used all through the language-area and popped up in european heartland for bands of raiding warriors crossing the rhine to the west soon after western Rome collapsed.
The following history of the bands of 'franks' leads to the cultural entity of 'Europe'.
For anyone wanting some more understanding: just source a bit on the 'Franken', 'Merovingers' and 'Karolingers'. This is the core of the developments from the european heartland that lies the foundations of present day western culture end a good deal of present day world politics.
Just an example: the opportunistic 'aid' Charlemagne given to papal Rome by fighting the Lombards prevented Italian unity until 1870 and is why it still is basically two countries in one !!!!
The franks-story is also why all westerners are still called 'Franji' in the Middle East.
As for Hollywood films: that's entertainment industry aimed at making a profit, not a short cut for a history lesson. The influence it has on public opinion is a tragic complication that is happily abused by politicians 
Enjoy reading ;-)
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Harton
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Please modify 'anyone' into 'mainstream Hollywood'. There are quite a few 'proper' films about with a romantisized story against an historically correct backdrop. Even by american film makers :-)
The 'problem' is that it makes for few pretty pictures and a whole lot of messy opportunism; not for the broad public. |
I admit my word choice is a little fuzzy, but if you read my other posts it's clear that I am really only adressing Holloywood as anyone. Also, what films are you referring to?
I would also second the texts mentioned by Peter. I would also suggest a book I ma reading now titled "Soldiers of the Faith." It's mostly all examples of first and second hand accounts about real people, noble and common, on crusade. It does a very good job of painting a picture of the whole of Christen and Arab society embroiled in these conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Tue 30 May, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jun, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Bosman wrote: | | ...Completely different but capturing the time; 'In the name of the Rose'.... |
Do you mean The Name of the Rose, from the novel by Umberto Eco? It has been years since I saw that film, but I loved it. It was basically a medieval murder mystery. I loved the novel, as well - very similar storyline, but I recall it as a literary work of art - fabulous. Keep in mind, though, that I am an engineer by training, so you should take my literary opinions with a grain of salt .
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jun, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don Calcote
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jun, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Dickinson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Bosman wrote: |
The recent tv-series 'Rome' : just about spot on.
|
As I haven't watched it I can't speak definatively, but I hope you are referring to the political thought, etc, as judging from screenshots, they have butchered the costumes once again.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Maly
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Calcote wrote: | 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. |
I enjoyed the Director's Cut much more than the theatrical version. There were whole story lines left out of the theatrical version! I also enjoyed the documentaries--particularly the one discussing the differences between history and the film, and why.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." ~A. Maslow
|
|
 |
|
|
Fabrice Cognot
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it isn't.
It is incredibly shot, with very 'powerful' scenes (if I can say so), and the main actress appears really possessed by her role. But historically speaking, it is just as good (or rather, bad) as any 1920s film. Really.
Now, speaking of KoH...apparently, the eating knives used in the film were made by a mate of mine - and it was almost the only thing historically acurate of that flick (only saw the theaters version though)...
PhD in medieval archeology.
HEMAC member
De Taille et d'Estoc director
Maker of high quality historical-inspired pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic