Kingdom of Heaven
May. 5th, 2005 03:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fabrisseThis isn't exactly a review, but I saw the movie last night with my sister on a pass that she gets through the editors union. There aren't any real spoilers in my comments.
One minor digression, the theater we went to is the private theater housed in the Directors Guild building. It's a beautiful movie house with red velvet curtains in front of a huge curved screen. EVERY movie should be seen in such a setting.
I would be interested in learning more about the history that Kingdom of Heaven is based on. The little that I know, and the more that I looked up after seeing the movie, leads me to believe that the researchers didn't do a bad job overall.
Costumers and fighters can tell me more about the overall look of the movie than I can. I'd love for someone who knows more about knightly ritual from the period to let me have their impressions of the two knighting scenes.
The Bad: included the leading lady who neither looked right in the clothes, nor could act. She dragged the portions of the movie in which she appeared way down.
I didn't like the portrayal of the Knights Templar much. It seems that ever since Ivanhoe if you want a villain or band of villains in a twelfth or thirteenth century setting, the Templars are the go-to guys.
The editing was choppy. In the words of my sister, "It reeked of deleted scenes."
The characters were occasionally far too modern in their philosophies and outlooks.
The up-close-and-personal fighting -- well, I'm not a fighter and I don't like violence, however, I'm pretty sure there was some sloppy shield work. Again, SCA melee fighters are more than welcome to tell me that I'm wrong.
It would have been better if it were at least 10 minutes shorter. 25 minutes shorter might have made it an excellent picture.
The Good: The rest of the supporting cast was good. Alexander Siddig, Edward Norton, and David Thewlis all stand out in my mind for different reasons, but all of them were first and foremost good actors.
The Muslims were treated well. Again, someone who knows more about Saladdin than I do is welcome to fill me in on whether the portrayal was accurate.
Orlando Bloom, who's pretty enough and not a bad actor in what I've seen him do in the past, here becomes a movie star. Even in scenes where he's on the periphery he's a commanding presence. I wasn't expecting that.
The best part was the strategy and engineering in the Siege of Jerusalem. I don't know when I turned into an engineering geek, but it's a little disturbing to me that seeing how the siege engines worked -- including trebuchets launching fiery oil -- made me squeal with inner delight.
I definitely recommend seeing it on the big screen. But if I'd had to pay for the ticket, I think I'd have waited until it got to the cheaper second run theaters.
One minor digression, the theater we went to is the private theater housed in the Directors Guild building. It's a beautiful movie house with red velvet curtains in front of a huge curved screen. EVERY movie should be seen in such a setting.
I would be interested in learning more about the history that Kingdom of Heaven is based on. The little that I know, and the more that I looked up after seeing the movie, leads me to believe that the researchers didn't do a bad job overall.
Costumers and fighters can tell me more about the overall look of the movie than I can. I'd love for someone who knows more about knightly ritual from the period to let me have their impressions of the two knighting scenes.
The Bad: included the leading lady who neither looked right in the clothes, nor could act. She dragged the portions of the movie in which she appeared way down.
I didn't like the portrayal of the Knights Templar much. It seems that ever since Ivanhoe if you want a villain or band of villains in a twelfth or thirteenth century setting, the Templars are the go-to guys.
The editing was choppy. In the words of my sister, "It reeked of deleted scenes."
The characters were occasionally far too modern in their philosophies and outlooks.
The up-close-and-personal fighting -- well, I'm not a fighter and I don't like violence, however, I'm pretty sure there was some sloppy shield work. Again, SCA melee fighters are more than welcome to tell me that I'm wrong.
It would have been better if it were at least 10 minutes shorter. 25 minutes shorter might have made it an excellent picture.
The Good: The rest of the supporting cast was good. Alexander Siddig, Edward Norton, and David Thewlis all stand out in my mind for different reasons, but all of them were first and foremost good actors.
The Muslims were treated well. Again, someone who knows more about Saladdin than I do is welcome to fill me in on whether the portrayal was accurate.
Orlando Bloom, who's pretty enough and not a bad actor in what I've seen him do in the past, here becomes a movie star. Even in scenes where he's on the periphery he's a commanding presence. I wasn't expecting that.
The best part was the strategy and engineering in the Siege of Jerusalem. I don't know when I turned into an engineering geek, but it's a little disturbing to me that seeing how the siege engines worked -- including trebuchets launching fiery oil -- made me squeal with inner delight.
I definitely recommend seeing it on the big screen. But if I'd had to pay for the ticket, I think I'd have waited until it got to the cheaper second run theaters.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-06 10:34 am (UTC)I don't know if you ever got to Kung Fu Hustle, but it was good. A shade violent in places, but the vast majority of the violence was comic-book in the extreme. (Not all - I wouldn't take Patrick, for example). It was completely silly and exuberant and think I grinned straight through it.
Also, a good half of my friends list appears to be addicted to Veronica Mars at this point, and at least 2 or 3 who caught on late are madly playing catchup in time for the season finale. Just thought you might want to pass that on to your sister.
Off to work now.