:thumbsup: Kingdom of Heaven!

Saw the movie yesterday and really enjoyed it! From what I remember from a biography of Saladin that I read last year, Scott seems to have got most of the history right. There is fiction to start but history soon takes over. There is an eye-witness account of the ice water scene. And the fall of Jerusalem was very well done!

I know this is generally for SciFi movies. But Alexander Saddig played "Dr. Bashir" on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine for seven years. He is a part of SciFi.

Go see the movie! It is better than Gladiator!

-Leelan

I take it Siddig was in the movie, then?

You read my mind.

I kinda had to, since you didn't say anything about him being in the film besides the thread title :D.
He doesn't play Saladin, does he?

Sorry about that, John P!

I should have said more about his part. I have posted this to other Forums and I forget what I said where. :freak:

Alexander Saddig plays Nasir, a protege of Saladin. He is one of the first Muslims that Orlando meets. He guides him into Jerusalem and wishes him well when he leaves. He is what you might call a "friendly enemy" to Orlando's Balian.

The movie is more about "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" than about religion.
It isn't an anti-Muslim, anti-Christian or anti-Jew movie. It is about being a good person in even in bad circumstances. The "Bad Guys" in the picture don't see anyone else as being human. They see anyone who does not agree with them as being unfit to live. This goes for both the Christians and the Muslims portayed on screen. The "Good Guys" try to make the world a better place for all whether you are on their side or not. My description maybe a bit too simplistic, but that is what I got from it.

So. Better than Troy, King Arthur and Gladiator. (Can't say it was better than Alexander because I didn't see it. Too many people I know said not to.)

-Leelan

Did you see Colm Meany? This could just be another of O'Brien's and Bashir's holodeck adventures.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

I was amused to hear that Christian groups were protesting this film, saying it portrayed Christians in a bad light. Of course, my immediate reactions was, "Christians shown doing bad things? During the third crusade? Really? Go pick up a history book and shut up." :lol:

But from what I hear of reviews, the film is very even handed about the whole thing.

^ :lol:

It's sad that people select which history they choose to remember. AND THEN you bring them an objective source that contradicts what they believe and they still say they're ridht. It's like the Doobies said, "What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away".

José

Just got back from seeing it. While I can't agree that "Kingdom of Heaven" is "better" than "Gladiator" (defeat and surrender do not make for a rousing dramatic payoff and Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe) - nobody does this kind of movie better than Ridley Scott. If all you want is great swordplay, bloody revenge, and epic battles, this movie's got it in spades, and the taking of Jerusalem alone is worth the price of admission. If you're looking for something more - the screenplay by William Monahan is this movie's strongest feature - especially for those of us who are sick to death and not a little bit horrified by the various "Armies of God" that surround us these days. Oh, and I got a big kick out of Edward Norton channeling Marlon Brando through the mask of leper King Baldwin.

Here is a response from another Forum:

I read Steven Runciman's "A History of the Crusades" and the author describe the event (book II), as gathered from both European and Islamic accounts. He even tells that Saladin said specifically to Guy de Lusignan that he offered a drink to him, not to Reynald - if you offer a drink to a captive you're signaling that you're sparing his life according to islamic customs.

The general consensus seems to be that except for the bit about a young blacksmith becoming a knight and knowing how to hold a city, the movie gets the history bang on.

King Baldwin was a leper. His sister's husband became the next king of Jerusalem. The new king fought a battle with Saladin and was easily defeated. Jerusalem was beseiged and soon surrendered.

Sorry if this counts as spoilers. :cry: But the history books are out there.

There is a rumor that the DVD will have a lot more footage!

-Leelan

Another fact that is omitted is that Saladin demanded and was paid a ransom to allow his vanquished foes to leave Jerusalem. That's an historical omission but dramatically, this "fact" would have weakened the intent of the screenplay - which is to address the current state of affairs - more so than what they were in the 12th Century.

Another fact that is omitted is that Saladin demanded and was paid a ransom to allow his vanquished foes to leave Jerusalem.

A tad more amiable than what the Europeans did when they captured a city - massacre every Muslim man, woman and animal inside the walls.

Ah, 'twas an adventurous time! :freak: