[Thrilla]

I watched it last night and I liked it.  There are its historical inaccuracies that seem to bug of movie critics.  Like the flaming stones and the frigg'n crossbows, but that is why it is called a MOVIE!  I thought it was good, and I plan on watching it again.  And I see that Doctor Bashir from DS9 has had some work lately too.  I always thought he was a pretty good actor and for once Bloom isn't playing the sissy.  Irons, and Niesen I thought did a good job, and so did Edward Norton.  Though it took me till the credits to see who Edward Norton played.  Kinda hard to tell when he's wearing a mask of silver.

[vyper]

Actually the description of a crusade is inaccuracy that bugs me - it's too romanticised.

[Solatar]

I saw the preview, and I definantly want to see the movie. I don't have high hopes for an accurate depiction of the crusades though, just another huge battle.

[DeepSpace9er]

It was too political and PC imo. Im not going to say anymore.

[AnnihilaterD]

That, and far too boring. I just wanted everyone to hurry up and die, so I could leave the cinema. Shows how much it made me care about any of the characters.

On a side note, I love how rocks covered in oil always explode in these types of films.

[Ford Prefect]

It looked dumb to me. I'm getting tired of these lame historical epics all trying to cash in on the Lord of the Rings appeal.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It looked dumb to me. I'm getting tired of these lame historical epics all trying to cash in on the Lord of the Rings appeal.

I agree, though it's Gladiator, not LOTR. But in this case, it's Ridley Scott again, so even if it is a piece if crap, you can't exactly accuse him of ripping off his own movie.

It's all getting very tiresome. Originality please.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Thrilla
I watched it last night and I liked it.  There are its historical inaccuracies that seem to bug of movie critics.  Like the flaming stones and the frigg'n crossbows, but that is why it is called a MOVIE!

It may be "just a movie" but by researching your topic thoroughly, you pay respect to the subject which you are about to recreate. However, maybe they did do their homework and just thought this made a better effect. I think they were just lazy though. This sounds like another movie that 10 minutes of will be shown to our kids in history class.

[Grug]

I didn't find it very epic at all. But it seemed like a nice small story based in a Ealy AD era.

The battles are slightly romantisised but are entertaining none-the-less.

All in all I enjoyed the film, but seeing it once is enough I think.

[Krackers87]

Meh, i'll put up with a little hollywood-ization to see medival dudes beat the **** out of each other.

[Knight Templar]

Convert to Islam, repent later!

God wills it!

[Sandwich]

Just saw it. In Jerusalem, mind you. Historical accuracies aside, I enjoyed it. The major flaw that I - and, unavoidably, every other person in the theater - saw was that Jerusalem is not anywhere near a plain!

[Knight Templar]

[EtherShock]

Maybe it was back then?

[Knight Templar]

Yeah... uhh.. have a few earthquakes since?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by vyper
Actually the description of a crusade is inaccuracy that bugs me - it's too romanticised.

rule of thumb:

never go see a movie and expect it to be completely accurate to historical dates/events/figures.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Yeah... uhh.. have a few earthquakes since?

Ever hear the phrase, "Jerusalem - City on Seven Hills"?

[Liberator]

Was it even near a desert back then?

I enjoyed it for what it was, and PCness aside, it was quite entertaining.  But it was ENTIRELY too preachy.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Ever hear the phrase, "Jerusalem - City on Seven Hills"?

No, but I heard Rome and San Francisco were built on seven hills.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by EtherShock

No, but I heard Rome and San Francisco were built on seven hills.

That and a bunch of other cities, yeah.