Its Orlando Bloom trying to be Aragorn instead of Legolas.
Of course it won't work. Notice how hard they tried to get him to look like Viggo Mortensen in this flick?
Saw a clip from David letterman that looked as horrible as a 10 second clip could look. Even Orlando made this face after the clip that was like "Wow, that really sucked! I had no idea."
It's too bad. I'll wait and rent it on video. It's an interesting historical topic - The Crusades. It seems particularly relevant in light of recent events too (bin Laden hasn't figured out that they've ended).
There've been so many movies that had characters that have returned from the Crusades, but none that I know of that actually try to portray them.
This movie was great, but the soundtrack licked a big one. I even heard an excerpt from the crow for 2 split seconds. They should be using more appropriate material like DVKE for their influential mood.
Dante, I saw this in the video store, and was tempted to rent it, but took out The Aviator instead. I enjoyed The Aviator. I have to say that the subject matter is quite interesting for me. Why should I avoid it? What made it such an awful movie? The previous poster said it was OK.
I love Ridley Scott. This is great subject matter and could be done really well with the kind of budgets Scott can muster. But without characters you care about, you have a sea of extras getting slaughtered with zero emotional involvement. You won't care about anyone. Bloom is not leading man material. And certainly can't carry a movie like this one. You know exactly where they went wrong after the first 30 minutes, but I can't tell you exactly why without spoiling it.
I gather it sucks because Orlando Bloom doesn't fit the role. Have you seen Alexander? That was in the video store right next to Kingdom of Heaven.
I love epic movies. I mean . . . the characters suck, but how about the visual aspect? Good cinematography? Great armour or Saracen helmets or something? So, you think I should basically pass on it even for a video rental. Is it even work like 3 bucks to rent on a half price Wed or something?
I still think it's a shameless attempt to cash in on the tension with the middle east. Of course I don't know if they demonize anybody in the movie, due to the fact that I haven't seen it, but I'm guessing it's the same ol' same ol' with the good guys and the bad guys.
And if it goes along with history like it should depending on what crusade it was the good guys should either take the city then after a pretty long stay get their asses kicked and sent packing or get their asses kicked and sent packing on the way there one of the two, I'm assuming this isn't the children's crusade which was just a travesty. Most likely it's the first crusade who were successful in taking the city, but weren't glorious heros "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." is a quote from wikepedia from one of the knights involved. I'm not sure if they'll show big ol' O bloom hackin and slashin. But whatever Sorry for the little rant but if this kind of movie is the kind of movie I think it is, it just doesn't serve any purpose other then souring people's opinions of the middle east and cashing in on people's prejudices.... However I may be suprised and it may turn out to be objective..... in that case kudos.
I'm a sucker for epics too. I love the ones that most seem to hate (read: Troy). I just found it dreadfully dull. From a technical standpoint, I guess it's pretty impressive. But I need way more than that.
Alexander is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
I'd heard that Alexander was very very bad, so eventhough I saw it up there at the vid shop I couldn't bring myself to even consider it. It is a shame because Alexander is one of those great figures in history. His conquests brought the Hellenic world view to regions of the world where it would never have had any influence otherwise.
I liked Troy too from the point of view of the look of the film. I didn't think the lines of the actors or the general story itself had much to offer though.
I saw Gladiator in a movie theatre and darned near fell asleep. Had they cut a half hour out of it, and had a different ending it could've been a half-decent movie. Visually it was a treat, but I could hadn't much patience left by the end. I just wanted it over with. Same goes for The English Patient. I was totally bored by it, and could not figure out why everyone thought it was so great. Neither The English Patient nor Gladiator were in my opinion worthy of Oscar nominations.
I think 1960's Spartacus was a far superior movie to The Gladiator. Even Ben Hur was better visually. These days there's an over-reliance on cheesy CG effects like the tigers and lions in the forum in The Gladiator. They don't move like real animals. Ben Hur's racing scenes involve real animals & are completely convincing.
This message has been edited by _Azusa on Oct 17, 2005 9:18 PM
Well i actually really enjoyed this movie. Maybe its because i don't have A.D.D. like a few of the above posters. Anyways i dug the story and wanted to know what happened next. The fight scenes were great to watch. Eye Candy. All i can say is its a hell of a lot better than watching half the trash on TBS or the movie channels.
Tihs movie was really boring but like napoleon dynamite me an my friends still laugh about parts ( just to be clear after 1 wekk nothing from ND was funny) like the kingdom of heaven style sword fight
******************spoiler************
Where they held em up real high, i was just waiting for bloom to take a hammer or arrow or something in the chest, really disappointing that he didn't
