Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

The Crawling Eye has seen Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and says it's flawed, but still great!!

I hated the most recent trailer by moviemaniac-7	Apr 10th, 2005 06:49:01 AM
Too long. I fear this will be another Troy. Lots of great actors, lots of potential, but without the balls to make real statements about the Crusades.
I hated the most recent trailer too.. by Monkey Butler	Apr 10th, 2005 07:06:02 AM
because it was too generic. And the studio mentality that reckons that we want to see just another epic movie is the same that reckons we want a single plot, straight line, sub 3-hour epic. I have doubts about Orlando Bloom, but I have faith in Scott, and the fact that this film reportedly doesn't have an agenda means that I'll see it in cinemas, even if I end up buying the extended cut on DVD.
I'm a moron: by Monkey Butler	Apr 10th, 2005 07:08:43 AM
It should read "the studio mentality that reckons that we want to see the movie that the trailers are advertising, is the same that reckons we want a single plot, straight line, sub 3-hour epic". I meant that they're marketing this wrong. They should make it look like a successor to Gladiator, not a copy.
Bettany by borisdoris	Apr 10th, 2005 08:04:38 AM
Scot was reported in a UK mag as saying he originally wanted Paul Bettany for Blooms part but that he was overruled by the suits who wanted Bloom to wet the panties of some 15 year old, bubbegum chewin, pink jean wearing, timberlake loving honey pots. Until I see it I'll reserve judgement but Bettany certainly has the inensity and power to pull such a role off and it sounds like another example of suits fucking things up for the sake of these teeny brush singing tarts. Funny too in teh same article Irons cast doubt on Blooms ability to carry the role. I like irons, just as with Paquin and oscars the man shares his thoughts without bushit and in such a refreshingly un-hollywood love in way. Bloom is one dimaensional in all his films so far, lets hope this reviewer is wrong.
I can buy..... by bigjeffrey	Apr 10th, 2005 10:07:31 AM
I can buy Orlando Bloom as a Knight (not all Knights were brick shithouses you know? In fact most will have had the same physique as Orlando) I just can't buy Orlando as an actor. He may just be the luckiest guy working in the business today. Can't act for shit!
Agenda by Neutron	Apr 10th, 2005 11:24:47 AM
I'm not a right-wing kook, but I wonder how they're going to handle the whole 'crusade' part of this crusades movie. As a matter of history, the original crusade was a reaction against a wave of muslim invasions, not a mean-spirited attack prompted by intolerance. Subsequent crusades were less honourable, but the first one saved Europe from joining islam.
I thought Reynald de Chatillon kidnapped Saladin's sister? by jimmy_009	Apr 10th, 2005 11:27:13 AM
Did they change this for the movie? Reynald deserves a movie all his own. He invaded Mecca to steal the tomb of Muhammad so Muslims would have to pay to see it in his castle, among other bizarre things.
first plant! by Laimbrane	Apr 10th, 2005 12:02:22 PM
Woot... am I the first to call plant? Okay, obviously that first guy was not a plant, just as obviously as that second guy fit the plant formula to a T. Seriously, AICN guys, what's the point of printing a review that doesn't contain spoilers of any kind? You need to be able to provide evidence that you were there to make it worth our reading. That second piece has none. What's the point?
I've noticed that AICN now posts reviews in pairs, one positive by FrankDrebin	Apr 10th, 2005 01:38:23 PM
The positive one keeps AICN on the studios' "free goodies" list, the negative one makes AICN still seem independent. But here's the thing: they cancel each other out! That gives us nothing to go on but the studios' marketing (which is just the way they want it, of course).
borisdoris is indeed right. The more the studios cater to the t by Barry Egan	Apr 10th, 2005 01:44:09 PM
Seriously, is there a stupider organism on the face of the earth than a 15 year old girl?
Ridley Scott is overrated. by Harry Coin	Apr 10th, 2005 01:48:29 PM
Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, he's directed two good films; Alien, which is a classic and Black Hawk Down, which is not a classic but still good. Blade Runner is a museum piece now, something everybody admires more for it's influential special effects then for the over all quality of the film (the movie is boring as hell, except for Rutger Hauer). Thelma and Louise was boring. Matchstick Men was boring. Let's face it, I'd rather watch a crusades film by the Great Europerv Director Paul Verhoeven than bland as shit Scott (at least we would get co-ed shower scenes and flesh wounds that look like gooey vaginas. And is Orlando Bloom Really that big a step up from anyone in the starship troopers cast? At least Verhoeven would have made Bloom a fascist pyschic blacksmith)
Hey Barry Egan by Oompa_Radar	Apr 10th, 2005 01:54:40 PM
While agree, catering to the teenage girl ruins film. Just like catering to the twentysomething-thirtysomethin g sex in the city female, and just like the rampant problem of putting women in buddy movies (Oceans 11 or payback are good examples of unnecessary romance, but it's legion in Hollywood). Also, honestly, when a movie has so much silicone to titillate the guys into showing up, I sit there as a woman going "ok, so why did I pay my money to come see this piece of shit?" (Harry's refusal to just buy some porn and instead verbally beat off to actresses in his reviews is a perfect illustration of this rampant phenomenon) The suits in Hollywood are ruining otherwise good films in MANY ways. The jailbait bait is simply one of them. All of them render a film equally pointless and lame. The target demographic of these cheap tricks that mindlessly march into the theaters like cattle don't help the situation.
Good point, Oompa_Radar by Barry Egan	Apr 10th, 2005 02:05:02 PM

"the Great Europerv Director Paul Verhoeven" by Barry Egan	Apr 10th, 2005 02:11:44 PM
What is the fanboy obsession with this hack? How many terrible films can you make and still be in the "Great Director" crowd? "Showgirls" has to rate as one of the worst films of all time. "Hollow Man" is (good FX work aside) a total piece of shit. "Starship Troopers" was laughable.
What's the deal with this movie? by Vern	Apr 10th, 2005 02:24:59 PM
Neither of these reviews address the most obvious question about this movie, which is, WHAT THE FUCK? Did Ridley Scott SERIOUSLY just make a movie treating the crusades like they're fuckin Bilbo and Luke Skywalker on a quest to save the christian galaxy from the threat of the dark skinned muslims? My guess is that, in the grand tradition of Tony Shalhoub in Arab terrorist movies, they have a token noble moment or two that portray the muslims as not-evil. But that the overall point of view of the movie is that yes, it was a good and heroic idea to go in with armies and slaughter people in order to spread christianity. If that is the case, I would like to ask Ridley Scott, JESUS, YOU STUPID BAD-ACTION-DIRECTING FUCK, COULD YOU MAYBE HAVE PICKED A BETTER TIME IN WORLD HISTORY TO MAKE THIS SHIT?
and on Paul Verhoeven by Vern	Apr 10th, 2005 02:30:41 PM
It's not like he called him the new Fellini or something, he called him "the great Europerv director" which is completely accurate. People like Verhoeven because 1) the great satiric/ultraviolent sci-fi trilogy of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers, 2) his earlier European work like Spetters, Turkish Delight and whatever the other ones I haven't seen are and c) his bad movies like Showgirls and Hollow Man which are always crazy, perverted and interesting. Oscars aside, I definitely agree that he is more interesting and respectable now than fuckin Ridley Scott. Don't get me wrong, ALIEN is a masterpiece and BLADE RUNNER is pretty good, but I don't got much nice to say about him after that. The point is, he would've made a movie that was weird, memorable and maybe even shocking. We don't expect that out of Ridley Scott, from him we just expect boredom and confusing closeups during battle scenes. (that's what I expect anyway.)
Edward Norton in KOH?! by CurryIce	Apr 10th, 2005 03:19:56 PM

The crusades are not what you think by Lukecash	Apr 10th, 2005 03:22:35 PM
If you get a chance, watch The Crusades by Terry Jones (Yes a monty python guy who is in fact, a historian). It puts the Crusades in a proper light, rather well balanced in fact.While Muslims did take over the holy land, they were actually VERY tolerant of other relgions. The event that caused the Pope to order the crusades was actually very weak. A church got burned down by some muslims...However, the Leader of Muslims at Jerusilem ordered that the church be re-built at his expense. The Pope decided to use this incedent to form an army (This particular pope had dreams of a Christian World under his rule. More Political than Priestly) The first crusdades was a black eye on humanity. In fact, they ate the flesh of their Muslim victims because they ran out of food. They destroyed towns that surrendered peacefully... IN fact, it is believed that Muslim Fanatasim was birth because of the Crusaders vile ways.
2 hours, 15 mintues? by AlwaysThere	Apr 10th, 2005 04:01:13 PM
Get the fuck out of here. If so, not only does Orlando Blooms presence hinder the films greatness, but the short runtime fucks it over sideways. Iditioc test screeners are good for nothing. oh and Gravitats is the best word ever. Howard Stern is the man for playing those clips of Kiefer Sutherland.
Evil Muslims by BillEmic	Apr 10th, 2005 05:04:12 PM
Hey, it's better that Joe Public gets a post-9/11 cathartic rush from watching Orlando Bloom decapitate Muslims than actually trying it themselves in the streets, right?
Lucky California a-holes by Mel Garga	Apr 10th, 2005 09:41:43 PM
You bastards always get to see these "test screenings" while here on the east coast we get events like the Palm Beach film festival with special guest Judge Reinhold and movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation.
" i'd eat my dead enemies if i had to. surely better than having by Flea Circus	Apr 10th, 2005 11:00:43 PM
they didn't just eat their enemies, they ate the women and children too. but at least you're okay with canibalism. but this movie looks awful, the good thing about ridley scott these days is now when you read that he's directing something you know to stay away. black hawk down was quite possibly the worst war movie i've ever seen, how many rockets did ewan mcgreggor dodge in this movie? it seemed like every other cut he was jumping out of the way of one.
Bullshit, that never happens. by John Anderton	Apr 11th, 2005 01:02:09 AM
Well, then again, it was a kiss-ass press screening.
Vern by SkynetIsHere	Apr 11th, 2005 01:04:45 AM
So, that Scott is distorting history to make it seem as if Christians(PC disclaimer - EEEEEVIL Christians) are the bad guys and responsible for the conflict, doesn't satisfy you? I find it shocking that you don't appreciate his unwillingness to offend the likes of CAIR by 'offending' muslims...offending them by telling the truth about them._________________________ ___This movie is already a disappointment. It's just another example of the West cringing and being too meek and submissive, out of fear of what raving PC droids say about them. Pathetic.
weirdos by Kida_Greenleaf	Apr 11th, 2005 01:55:51 AM
Honestly, there was so much senseless bloodshed, rape and other offenses to humanity committed by both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades that neither side gets a free pass. Objective is the only was to make a Crusades movie. ESPECIALLY now.
Listen up fuckers by Vern	Apr 11th, 2005 02:14:27 AM
Skynet - as you know from reading my message, I am not under the impression that the movie portrays the christians as bad guys. I can't figure out how you both disagree with what I wrote AND don't know what I wrote. But whatever. The point is, they are advertising this movie like it's fuckin Lord of the Rings. That very well may not be the case which is why I was ASKING if it was the case. If you're saying NO then just say no. Then I asked a question, and you answered it. That is how it's supposed to work. Good job everybody, we had a conversation. Anyway my point was, I don't know what this movie is but if it's a movie pretending the crusades were heroic (on either side) then yes, I say fuck that hack for making it. If a movie is going to live up to bin Laden's wettest dreams by representing western culture as a bunch of fuckin christian zealot maniacs, then at the very least it should be a good movie. Not a Ridley Scott movie. p.s. How is it that "politically correct" still means "liberal" in a country where right wing wackos control every branch of the government?
In the defense of starship troopers. . . by Harry Coin	Apr 11th, 2005 04:44:57 AM
It's pretty funny how much people hate Starship Troopers, considering it is a satire of WWII "let's go to War!" films. So when you strip patriotism (sic) away from most American war films about WWII, they come off as fascist and cruel. What a shock. And the movie is about fascism, it is not a fascist film. What confuses people even more is Verhoeven threw in some big fuckin bugs, some gratuitous, unnecessary nudity (thank god, most american directors seem afraid of nudity, Robert Rodriguez excepted)and various flesh wounds and alien apendages that look like vaginas and dicks. If you want to be a pretentious dick, like I am, you could say Verhoeven was trying to do the same thing Kubrick did in the first half of Full Metal Jacket, reenforcing the connection between war and sex.
to continue dry humping a dead subject. . . save so money and go by Harry Coin	Apr 11th, 2005 04:53:43 AM
Ultraviolent and perverted, and thusly a probably more accurate depiction of Medival Europe than whatever PC crap Ridley will foist off on us.
Edward Norton plays the leper King by DannyOcean01	Apr 11th, 2005 09:41:27 AM
Forget his name, but if you watch the recent trailer you can hear his voice- the guy with the metal mask. I can see why some people don't like the new trailer and to be honest it does highlight the point the first reviewer made about Bloom and speeches. But it still looks beautiful and I love the snatches of dialogue and performance we get from the other actors. Oh, and Knights look boss.
Regardless of everything else, this film has one giant flaw that by SalvatoreGravano	Apr 11th, 2005 09:53:01 AM
Orwoodo Bland.
THnka Heavens it's Orlando Bloom instead of Mr. Woody, Hayden Ch by Tubba-guts	Apr 11th, 2005 12:59:44 PM
Bloom sure knows how to sword fight and I'll withold judgement until I've actually, y'know, SEEN THE MOVIE. I realize that's a novel concept for some of you.
Vern, you are not aware that the villains of this movie are Chri by SkynetIsHere	Apr 11th, 2005 02:19:23 PM
Quoting from the article:- "Peace is held until a group of KNIGHTS TEMPLAR(you know, Christians) led by Guy de Lusigna slaughter SARACEN(muslim) knights and the Muslim leader Saladin's sister which provokes a Muslim siege on Jerusalem." That's where I get the idea that the movie is protraying the Muslims as wronged innocents in comparison to the dastardly Christians. As far as political correctness goes, Hollywood wouldn't dare make a movie where Muslims took it upon themselves to kill innocents and wage war. Ironically, 9/11 is the reason for this. Muslims attacked America FOR REAL and suddenly Muslim terrorists are a no-go area, why? Because they do not want to MAKE MUSLIMS ANGRY WITH THEM. Like the pussies they are. Piss be upon them!!!!!
My mistake, Skynet by Vern	Apr 11th, 2005 03:07:12 PM
I thought you were a reasonable person, etc. Did not know that you thought the crusades were the greatest thing that ever happened and will hopefully start up again. I'll just let you go on then. Have fun. Hint: OF COURSE the christians slaughter muslims and vice versa in the movie. THAT'S WHAT THE CRUSADES WERE. Fer cryin out loud. My problem is, the movie seems to portray the crusades as MOSTLY GOOD. Your problem I guess is that it doesn't portray them as THE GREATEST THING ANYBODY EVER DID.
This is the Crusades I want to see on the big screen: by Octaveaeon	Apr 11th, 2005 08:10:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A lbigensian_Crusade............ ...................... Nothing like the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent gnostic Christians at the hands of the Catholics. Yey orthodoxy!
Yes, you and your mistakes Vern by SkynetIsHere	Apr 12th, 2005 12:30:29 AM
When I read your post heading I naively thought you would be admitting that since you did not read the article properly, then you were mistaken and were having the guts to say so. Imagine how disappointed I am by seeing that you don't have that much basic sense. But that disappointment was made up for by watching you raging against this fanatical Christian fundamentalist straw man depiction of me that you have constructed in your head. __________________________ That might have jarred your attention span a bit, so I'll just say this - I'm not a Christian, not a Bush supporter, and don't care about the Christian army being glorified. I'm just pissed at the cringing need the filmmakers have to depict Muslims as 'noble savages' who are wronged by 'bad Christians', instead of having the guts to show the Muslim side provoking war which is far closer to the truth. But never mind, we both have our views of how this movie treats the Christian/muslim conflict. It's just that my views are based on what actually happens in the film and yours are not. Hah.
The suits need to lay off... by bubcus	Apr 12th, 2005 02:13:16 AM
It's sad when a big-named director runs into barriers with a studio over casting (especially when it comes to catering to 15 year old girls... what the hell is with that??). I liked Bloom's performance in LOTR and Pirates of the Carribean but didn't really care much in Troy. I feel like we're seeing too much of him in these roles and from the talkbalk here, we're getting pretty sick of it. In regards to RIDLEY SCOTT, I admire his work as a director. We were studying Alien and Blade Runner in class and his vision is amazing. I equally enjoyed Gladiator and many aspects of Legend. To be honest, aside from this article, I knew nothing about this film... I haven't seen posters or trailers and it would have come and gone without my knowledge. (I guess this comes with my having gone through a recent breakup with my girlfriend... neither of us have been to the theater since). Anyhow... now that I know Scott is involved, I am more enthusiastic in seeing this. I appreciate the reviews posted and I look forward to the Director's Cut of this to see what the vision was meant to be. We need more of that... director's being allowed to follow their vision (except for the proposed blender scene in Lilo & Stitch... I agree with the execs that that was a bad idea). James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Steven Speilberg, etc... have earned the right to be trusted to follow their vision.
God I hated this flick! AND I LOVE RIDLEY SCOTT! by MentallyMariah	Apr 12th, 2005 04:49:55 AM
Kingdown of zzzzzzz's Trust me, this is one of the most boring flicks Ridley has done in ages, it's on par with White Squall as far as Mediocre Work. The crowd I saw it with was very dissapointed. This will not be the GLADIATOR/LORD OF THE RINGS type of epic everyone is pysched for it to be. It makes Troy look like a Masterpiece...Hit the Snooze Button on this one!

Talkbacks

The Crawling Eye has seen Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and says it's flawed, but still great!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks