Walked out of Kingdom of Heaven

[pegkerr]

I couldn't take more than twenty minutes of it. I had mixed feelings going in. I have never worshipped at the pretty boy altar of Orlando Bloom, but I kinda wanted to see him in his new movie. I was interested in the other actors, and the idea of a collision of cultures, a struggle between two faiths. But not enough to sit through all that mayhem. Ick. I have picked up from the reviews that the "clash of faiths" may not be there anyway; someone at the heart of planning it (who? Was it the director? The producer? the screenwriter?) was an agnostic, and perhaps as a result all the major characters' actions do not spring from any well-spring of conviction that shapes their motivation.

Now that I think of it, i don't think I've ever seen any of the really big iconic R-rated war movies. I never saw Saving Private Ryan or Braveheart. Or Gladiator, for that matter, Ridley Scott's other big opus. I don't go to a war movie because I want to revel in the gore. (I NEVER go to horror movies, either). But I want to see that the characters are struggling for something they believe in.

Comments

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I think if you want to see a film where as you say, the characters are struggling for something they believe in, you should rent Gladiator. Boy howdy, are they motivated. Except for its strangely modern sense of distance (See our hero leave the battlefield in Germany on horseback and arrive in Spain that night! See the slavers take him on the nightflight from Madrid to Amman!) it's a wonderful ride, and really not that gory.

Saving Private Ryan is an amazing movie, but it's also exhausting. I think the reason it lost best picture (other than that everyone thinking that everyone else was going to vote for it) is that Shakespeare in Love was just more enjoyable. People just liked it more. Imagine, Spielberg losing because he wasn't likeable!

[aome.livejournal.com]

I agree with this assessment of Gladiator, although I do think it's gory (I've turned my head away in the icky scenes); however, there's a real story in there, and worth watching.

[sienamystic.livejournal.com]

Ditto. It's gory (although that doesn't disturb me all that much), but the center of the story is all about one man and the beliefs that drive him. It's one of my favorite movies because the themes really resonate for me.

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

We just watched Spartacus last night. (Yes, the old Kirk Douglas/Tony Curtis movie from 1960.) I think it fits what you're talking about. All the characters -- even the so-called bad guys -- are doing what they think is best for what they believe in most strongly. I think Peter Jackson had some elements of Spartacus in mind during the various LOTR movies.

It's long, more than three hours, but didn't feel padded at all.

[liamere.livejournal.com]

"Heavenly Creatures" is another where they act out of their (however misguided) convictions.

But did you see up to where he got to Jerusalem? Because Baldwin and Tiberias were /fantastic/ in their portrayal as real people.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

No, as I said, I walked out of the movie in the first twenty minutes. A bit regretfully--I'm sure there were worthwhile things to see later on. But I just couldn't take the mayhem.

[liamere.livejournal.com]

And the mayhem only gets worse later on - there's a bit of nifty siegemachine destruction, but if you don't go in to that sort of thing it'd probably be dull.

Heck, if you saw RotK then you've already seen it all.

[kiwiria.livejournal.com]

From the trailers, I don't think I want to watch "Kingdom of Heaven" either. Like you, I've never 'worshipped at the pretty boy alter', and as for the story itself, it didn't seem like something I would enjoy. I've seen other movies of that type (Troy, Braveheart, Gladiator) and was disappointed by all of them (despite the fact that Mel Gibson is one of my favourite actors), so I won't bother with another one in the same genre.

I did like Saving Private Ryan though, but I think that one is very different from the other three, and besides, WW2 has always fascinated me.

I never go to horror movies either. I enjoy the occasional psycological thriller (but will much rather watch it at home with all the lights on), but gore bothers me a LOT.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Gladiator is good, but profoundly depressing--and extremely gory. I felt battered when I finished my single watching.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

Braveheart and Gladiator are definitely about people fighting for what they believe and that's what gives the films heart. And while Braveheart doesn't exactly have a happy ending, it allows you to smile a little at the irony of historic events (the "epilogue" about Robert the Bruce).

Saving Private Ryan, on the other hand, is gut-wrenching and far more realistic than either Braveheart or Gladiator, and yet I think those two glorify battle a bit while SPR doesn't at all. It shows how utterly INglorious it is, how gritty and dirty and messy and disgusting. How you never know whether you're really doing the right thing, making a decision that will save lives or take them. How you're really operating in the dark even in the light of day. It's nerve-wracking is what it is.

And yet in the case of SPR I felt it important to see it. My dad was in the war. I had two uncles who both survived the Battle of the Bulge. None of them wanted to see the film, of course, I didn't find that surprising at all. My dad said he'd seen enough people die for one lifetime. It was so realistic that WWII vets, years after leading normal lives, had post-traumatic stress flashbacks from seeing it. It was like being THERE. And the characters were so well-drawn that you really felt like you knew these quite ordinary young men--and then had to watch them die. Yeah, it's really like being through a war to see it. I think it should be mandatory viewing for anyone who's ever been in favor of our going to war (but who carried no risk of actually going INTO the war).

As for "Kingdom of Heaven," I can't imagine what someone was thinking to make a film about the Crusades anyway, at a time like this. The horrible legacy of the Crusades still hasn't left us; it's one of the many reasons (the chief one being the Treaty of Versailles) that we have the current political climate in the Middle East. If the filmmakers included ideology in it they would have needed to either a) have a clearly-defined "good side" and "bad side," which means they're going to upset whoever identifies with the "bad side" and be called bigoted; b) balance it out so that EACH side has good and bad guys and get complainers on both sides saying that the filmmakers are being apologists for whichever group the complainers don't like. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And if they strip the ideology out of it (as it seems they did) it just becomes a lot of empty battles and an excuse for showing off Orlando Bloom's prettiness--pointless, in other words.

In Braveheart and Gladiator the lines were clearly drawn; you were invited to think the English were unscrupulous pigs (including the king) in Braveheart and that the Romans were crazy and dangerous. And even though a lot of English folks probably didn't care for Braveheart, despite the fact that that's not what English-Scottish relations are like anymore, there wasn't a risk of starting a new war because of the film, either. (Plenty of Scots were also depicted as pigs.) And the political and social entities of Gladiator are long gone. But the "sides" in the Crusades are still with us no matter what we do; the outcome of the first Crusade still hasn't been settled and may never be. It's damned tactless to make a film like this for "entertainment."

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

I saw KoH. I think the director et al. were really trying to make a movie that said something significant about the Crusades, about how the problems set in motion during that time continue today. Despite the "pretty-boy" trappings, I feel that their effort was to make a movie about people who strongly believe in something, and in fact where those beliefs (in God of Allah, in money, in power, etc.) can lead them astray or lead them to glory. The "Kingdom of Heaven" referred to in the title is a Jerusalem where all faiths can worship, although I must cynically note that that Jerusalem is run by the Christians...

However, I think Scott failed in the attempt. And not even nobly. The story was uneven and unrealistic and felt like a first draft before the author goes through rewrites. (Plus, really unnecessary gore before we even get to the battles in the Holy Land -- then the Battle of Hattin is not even really shown. Huh?) Although the effort is to say that there are both good people and bad people on both sides of the Christian/Muslim conflict (and that the good people, by and large, are depressed to realize that they're fighting a losing battle against the fanatics who are using religion for their own ends), that mostly gets lost in the histrionics.

I differ from your opinion in that I think it would be a fabulous thing for someone to do a movie about the Crusades that truly examines the conflict from differing points of view. This movie wanted to be that movie, and tried hard (Saladin is one of the best characters) but sadly, it isn't.

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

I think a big problem was with Bloom. It was hard to believe in or identify with him; he simply couldn't carry the film.
But I think it was brave of Ridley to attempt the film; one of the points of the film is that holy wars are pointless and futile.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I may even have a lower tolerance for gore than you. I routinely cover my eyes at movie theaters. I find that sometimes, some movies are watchable on the television that I can't manage in the theater. The big screen is overwhelming,and the darkness doesn't help. I liked "Braveheart" when I rented it (except the "cover your eyes" scene quite close to the beginning).

I still haven't seen "Saving Private Ryan" (though I've been to Omaha Beach, and think I'd like to). It'd be best to watch the opening beach scene on a 13 inch black and white television, I believe.

K. [with the sound turned off]

[jbru.livejournal.com]

When I saw Saving Private Ryan in the theater, I discovered myself sunk into my seat after that opening sequence. I'd unconsciously recoiled from the horror and had to literally pick myself back up to watch the rest of the film. Powerful film making.

(And I watch horror movies for fun.)

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. I actually think that the film you wanted to see would be more interesting. Kingdom is on my "rent it" list.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lindsay_/]

You should totally see Braveheart.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

Umm, I have (and enjoyed it despite its historical inaccuracies). Did you mean Peg should?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lindsay_/]

yeah I meant peg. :)

[demarazare.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads up - I guess I will skip that movie then.

My boyfriend went to see it and enjoyed it greatly, but he gets into the battle scenes and he said some of the characters were neat. He liked that they showed the Muslim side as much as the Christians.

[pameladean]

I don't go to gory movies and I don't even watch them on TV. And I don't care a snap about Orlando Bloom, though I do like movie-Legolas. In any case, even if I did do both those things, the trailers for the movie would have put me off. The portentous voices, the music, it all smacked of what in cynical moments I call "religion," but is really religiosity.

P.

[next-bold-move.livejournal.com]

I was disappointed with the ending that they wrote for the Princess Sybilla; real historical people shouldn't have their endings overhauled, I think....but Edward Norton was *wonderful* as Baldwin.

[hotarunokokoro.livejournal.com]

you want something to fight for? something to believe in? try 'Boondock Saints'. it is a modern day struggle with modern day gore! Watch it when the girls aren't around.

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

We went into KoH midway (right where Liam Neeson kicks the bucket). Hubby has there to see the battle scenes, me for the costumes. I'm still reading Sacred Pleasure by Riane Eisler, so as I watched I kept thinking, yes, just another a depiction of a clash of dominator cultures.
My other main thought is that Bloom so needs acting lessons.