Posted on 04/29/2005 1:00:01 PM PDT by missyme
We recently attended a preview of director Ridley Scott's crusader epic, "Kingdom of Heaven," which opens nationally May 6. The $130 million film -- which stars Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons -- tells the story of a 12th century blacksmith who rises to defend Jerusalem from Muslim invaders.
We're unable to officially review the film until its release, but we had these observations:
Although Scott put "Kingdom" in development before the 9/11 attacks, it's obvious that the War on Terror forms the backdrop for the film. "Kingdom of Heaven" is clearly intended to be a parable for our time, and it's therefore disappointing that a director of Scott's skill and experience (directing classics like "Alien," "Blade Runner" and "Gladiator") would opt for such a conventional, secular-liberal interpretation of the present conflict.
Even with its gorgeous settings, splendid action sequences, and some fine performances by Neeson and Irons, "Kingdom of Heaven" wears its politics too much on its sleeve.
The Western crusaders are too often dismissed as bloodthirsty and rapacious, and religion itself (both Christianity and Islam) is reduced to little more than a source of fanaticism. Scott doesn't glamorize the Islamic cause -- yet he can't understand it, either. Neither side's worldview is explored in any depth, because Scott assumes that war is the natural outflow of religion -- any religion.
Liberal Hollywood is struggling to find its voice in the post-9/11 world. Ridley Scott's effort may be the most ambitious yet in this regard, but the limitations of the liberal wordview in understanding our current struggle are become more obvious by the day. Aesthetically, "Kingdom of Heaven" may be a huge leap forward from "Fahrenheit 9/11," but its values are only baby steps removed.
I think Sarge's point (and if it's not, it's mine) was that Hollywood in general is viscerally anti-American and viscerally anti-Christian and to expect that this movie is not skewed in its attempt to help the liberal cause is a bit naive.
Actually, a lot of people say Islam is glamorized in the film and the Muslims are made to appear sweet and innocent.
Certainly it was a violent time. But, if it only shows the Christians in a bad light, it is not accurate.
CAIR praised the movie, so I am suspicious.
Nonetheless, I am a sucker for any movie involving history, so I will probably have to see it.
But you were bitching about someone calling it a Hollywood film. It is. Squirming won't save you.
"These avenging angel crusaders.. would they be the same as those who sacked (Christian) Byzantium?"
Nope, they wouldn't be.... see #39. I'm not saying the crusaders were all angels by any means, but the amount of dishonest propaganda that has been spread about them is truly staggering. The crusaders certainly do not compare badly to many other military ventures of their era, and they certainly aren't ALL-BAD compared to the Islamic armies that slaughtered so many innocents, then and since.
When you get a film like the current Ridley Scott dishonest garbage it can only be properly understood in the present political context as a propaganda blow on behalf of Al Qaeda and other Islamo-fascists.... part of the deranged outlook of the civilization-hating elites.......
I was talking about the continiued mistaken belief that every English language film releaed in the US is from Hollywood. This film is an international co-production where two of the three companies are non-American. That's all I meant.
After the DaVinci Code, I guess secret societies are all the rage.
They are extremely scholarly and evenhanded (if a bias is detectable, it is against the French) and written in the wonderful style of an Oxbridge don: "The brief reign of Duke Godfrey saw the beginnings of a Christian kingdom. But Godfrey, for all his estimable qualities, was a weak, foolish man. Out of jealousy he quarrelled with his colleagues; out of genuine piety he yielded far too much power into the hands of the Church."
I cannot recommend his work more highly.
"On your side. Not on mine."
I doubt we'd take you anyways. Even Christians have their limits. God forgives, so you got that going for you.
It's really too bad for you though, What's your side contributed? I'm sorry thats a cheap shot, you've really come a long way with your car bombing technology and your suicide bombing tactics. Your ability to wage wars on most major continents at the same time is pretty impressive too.
Anyone that uses the word 'estimable' is fine by me. Thanks for the info.
Keep spinning those wheels. You invented a fictional comment the other poster made, telling him it's very tired, when all he did was say this was from Hollywood. It is. he was right, you were wrong. You keep spinning though, as you've done throughout this thread. Enjoy yourself. Oh, and the Nazis weren't good people. (sarcasm) See how it works? ;)
And how do you equate Hollywood with America? wake up and smell the socialism.
I think this Movie comes out next friday May 6th...
I am sure many will see this one..Lib and Conservative
Muslim Jew and Christian will all have something to say about this one...
There was barbarism on both sides, because political and ethnic rivalries latched onto the Crusades. Richard the Lionheart wasn't a saint, but then neither was Saladin.
I despise twisting of history to make a political point.
Yay!! :-)
With all due respect, while I don't have a clue what you're driving at, I'm also reasonably certain that I don't care to know.
Ah, perhaps you're under the mistaken impression that there are only (or can only be) two sides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.