Kingdom of Heaven

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa   I just hope Mel Gibson does not get his hands on either of these historical events. I can just imagine the movie he would make.   Emperor Barbarossa, I have 2 news for you - a good one and a bad one. A good news - There is a Polish buissnesmen, who wants to invest over 40mln $ and make a movie about the battle of Vienna 1683. AFAIK it should be done soon - until the end of 2009. A bad news - this buissnessmen wants to engage Mel Gibson (as a Jan III Sobieski) . I only don't know if Gibson has already agreed.

Damnit! Why would they pick Mel to be Jan III Sobieski? Did Sobieski really hate the Jews that much? I mean, I think Sean Connery would do a much better Sobieski than Mel, but that is just my opinion.

If Mel Gibson's able to direct the plot, I'm sure the Turks would somehow be substituted by English along the line

Stop it.

This topic is terrible mislead and I ask you to begin another one to talk of future medieval movies...

The main thing is that the Turks aren't replaced with samurai... then everything is okay.

question: the songs played in this movie and other historical movies...that seem church like , i think they are Latin and tend to be lead by a choir in movies like Elizabeth I and kingdom of heaven , what type of genre of music is that? i think its fascinating and would love to hear more of it.
as well in the movie...i thought that the 12th century was very vividly brought to life despite the historical inaccuracies , does any 1 know if that was the attire that the leper king wore , as in the mask and all?
as well the 'fictional' character of Tiberias isn't actually fictional , Tiberias was a territory incorporated at some time into the county of tripoli ( presumably by marriage or conquest ) and the character depicted in the movie was modeled after Raymond III count of tripoli :)


Edited by duchess - 25-Feb-2007 at 03:11

I have yet to watch KoH - despite owning the DVD.

It held so much promise when I first saw the promo - but now, considering the bastardization of the characters, I think I may boycott it still for a while yet.

I was especially disappointed in the "Balian" character - the original Balian would have been much better!

Edited by Melisende - 26-Feb-2007 at 05:15

Originally posted by Melisende I have yet to watch KoH - despite owning the DVD.

Originally posted by rider A pretty good movie by screenplay and effects I think it was, but I would rather like to hear what do you think of the historical side?I totally disliked the use of Templars as some idiotic all-for-war soldiers that can only say: "God wills it!"... it was terrible, plus making Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillion Templars... aaarghhh. I very much however liked the figure of Tiberias although history knows no such person (with that name) although there was a certain Lord of Tiberias, Raymond III...The battles were good, only again I wonder why they had the Hospitaller wonder around in every possible place. I am pretty sure that he wasn't of high status so he should have orders... and was he a Hospitaller knight (which would give more freedom) or becoming a knight soon... wierd indeed. And as there were always only a few knights, why would they have one roam around Europe?

Sorry, I got here a little late.

I have read a couple of books on the Crusades and I saw Kingdom of Heaven, I liked it very much.

So first, I have read of many instanced where the Templars (and other knights) did act irrationally, consider the Battle of Hattin, for example.

Next, I like the movie very much, excellent acting, I do not care much for details in historical accuracy (it is often impossible in movies), but this movie correctly portrayed the environment at that time, including the relationship between Muslims and Christians, and how some wanted to undermine the peace, and others wanted to maintain peace.

- Zheng-ru

True. They did try though.

I am not sure... why not call the director?   


I have reason to believe that you have more than 0 posts.

Edited by Zheng-ru - 30-Mar-2007 at 02:04

Okay well personally i loved the movie , i thought it painted a very romantic picture of that time period which was just the aim of the movie , i mean if we look at the movie..as if it was a historical fiction book which got made into a movie , I'm sure then it would have received better review , and again lets not forget..it was more accurate historically than a lot of other history movies , id say 80% historically correct?
just wondering..in regards to Baldwin dieing young...being poisoned..or being leprous like his uncle..is there any evidence for this? , even if it was just rumours circulating at the time then that would suffice , personally..i think its fine for directors to speculate stuff like that..it doesn't make it any less historically accurate..or does it?
oh in the commentary of the film Ridley Scott does say that he wanted to paint a romantic picture rather than the real hardcore truth , infact one of the main inspirations they used..were the paintings of the crusade at the louvre..about the crusades :)