Thanks but it was pulled from youtube.

I’m not going to download software to watch a trailer video, so I guess I’m out of luck.

“There was an asshole Crusader, a king who was trying to keep the peace, and the Muslims were brutal as hell.”

But, the Crusaders were depicted as aggressors, invaders, and the Muslims were depicted as defending themselves against murderous Christians, which is quite the opposite of the actual history behind the events.

“I also had to agree with the overall lesson that “it’s just a city of landmarks, it’s not worth that much bloodshed.””

In the film, the Muslims didn’t “get” that lesson and walk away from Jerusalem, the Crusader did. It’s very obviously a message that he only wants the modern day “Crusaders” to worry about. No need for the Muslims to stop fighting to keep all the lands they conquered, they just get a pass.

it was pulled from youtube

Wow, that was quick.

Didn’t see “1492” but your description of “Kingdom of Heaven” is what I constantly read on FR. Then I saw it, and I really didn’t see the denigration. There was an asshole Crusader, a king who was trying to keep the peace, and the Muslims were brutal as hell. They also got their asses handed to them, which was gratifying. I also had to agree with the overall lesson that “it’s just a city of landmarks, it’s not worth that much bloodshed.” Especially since I know how the story ends anyway.

Well, how about we start here with trying to provide some balance to the movie and your post:

Kingdom of Heaven - Hollywood's Crusade Against History

snip

Kingdom of Heaven also distorts history beyond all recognition. The "hundred-year truce" between the Christian and Muslim armies is a figment of their imagination. The warfare throughout the 12th Century was incessant.

The depiction of the Knight's Templar as a band of religious fanatics trying to shatter the truce and provoke war with the Muslims by attacking caravans is a total fabrication. No Knight's Templar ever attacked any caravans. Attacking caravans is what the founder of Islam, Muhammad, engaged in regularly as did his handpicked apostles, the Caliphs. The Knights Templar were formed primarily to protect travelers from the attacks of the Muslim army. In fact it was the slaughter of Christian pilgrims, by Muslim armies, in violation of earlier agreements of safe passage that precipitated the crusades in the first place.

The central figure of this film, Sir Balian, is a historical figure, did in fact play a critical role in the defense of Jerusalem in 1187, but the film script distorts his character and role beyond all recognition. First of all, Balian was not a blacksmith, nor did his wife commit suicide, nor was he illegitimate, nor raised as a commoner. His father, Balian the Old (not Godfrey as in the movie), had three sons, all legitimate: Hugh, Baldwin and Balian. Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land, because he grew up as part of the nobility there. Balian was married to royalty long before the events portrayed in the film, and he was not at all romantically involved with the Princess Sybilla. (His brother, Baldwin, had some love interest in Sybilla.)

In Kingdom of Heaven, Balian is portrayed as questioning whether God exists, although according to the historical records it is clear that Balian was a dedicated Christian who took his faith very seriously. Nor did Balian desert the defense of the Holy Land following the fall of Jerusalem. Far from returning to France, Balian proceeded to Beirut in Lebanon which he helped fortify against Muslim invasion. He was present with Richard the Lionhearted at the signing of the peace with Saladin, which secured safe passage for Christian pilgrims and recognized crusader control over the 90 mile stretch of coastline from Tyre to Jaffa.

There is much more to this article, and most scholars of this time period in the western world really panned this movie as just propaganda for the Muzzies.

Kindly name a movie and the specific left wing ideology he espoused.

Please see post #24.

FINALLY!
Looks like a movie I’d go see in the theatre.

I hope it’s not a hatchet-job like Noah. I would love to see a well-made film faithful to the biblical narrative.

From the "Trailer" it appears NOT to be consistent with the Bible's account. This "Moses" looks like a warrior. The Bible shows Moses to be a meek prophet of God, not a sword wielding gladiator.

The Charleston Heston epic (1956) also diverges greatly from the Bible account. The Bible makes it very clear that the entire thrust is to stage the Passover and the blood atonement via the symbolic slain lambs. And yet, Cecil B. DeMille comes out on stage before the start of the movie ("The 10 Commandments") and tells us it is a "struggle of a people to gain their freedom." This completely misses the mark. All God's signs and wonders were to point to the real passover, Jesus Christ.

For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. 1 Corinthians 5:7b

Just as the '56 film does not close the loop with the NT, I am sure that this 2014 offering will diverge even further.

Moses wasn’t the sharpest tool in the drawer. The dialogue between God and Moses is actually funny, and Aaron gets impressed into service because God loses His cool with Moses.

God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

I honestly didn’t watch it for the history lesson. I figure any “historical” Hollywood movie I watch will be pretty inaccurate whether due to agenda or just simple creative license in order to condense years of events into a 2-hr movie.

Such movies have only as much historical power as we’re willing to allow them. Much ado about nothing.

He may be a great director but he excels in historical revisionism. I’m sure he will somehow turn Moses into the villain and the Egyptians into poor misunderstood victims.

Kingdom of Heaven is rife with anti-Western pro-Islamic historical revisionism.

The Bible shows Moses to be a meek prophet of God

You're kidding, right?

First Look - Trailer for Ridley Scott's 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'

[...]

Those of you arguing that Scott can't deliver because he's an atheist should rethink that. The best example I can give you is Nicholas Ray, who directed the splendid remake of "King of Kings" in 1961.

There's nothing to indicate that Ray was an out-and-out atheist but by 1961 the 50 year-old director of "Rebel Without a Cause," "Johnny Guitar," and "The Flying Leathernecks" was a twice-divorced, sexually confused bisexual with a crippling drug and alcohol problem. The following decade he would appear in a sex film where young girls received communion by performing oral sex on him.

Atheist, I can't say. Hedonist, oh my yes, and then some.

"King of Kings" would be Ray's last completed feature film, but it is a beautiful Christian film that affirms the faith. If Ray can pull it off, so can Scott. The question is… Does he want to?

[...]

Watched it during easter week. I fell asleep and was unmotivated to finish it.

I would recomend watching the “Ten Commandments”, “The Robe” or practically any other biblical epic instead.

Try this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9fEnGH7nM

You're kidding, right?

In a way, he was.

He whined about not being a good speaker and begged God to make his brother Aaron the leader... God had to light a fire under him at times.

Such movies have only as much historical power as we’re willing to allow them. Much ado about nothing.

For you and I, seasoned conservative thinkers, yes.

For those in the formative stages of political thought, it is this type of propaganda used by the left to mold the thought processes and political thinking of just these people.

Reagan knew this and fought it tooth and nail, so to speak, when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild.

Thanks for the youtube link.