Eldron on 19/5/2010 at 17:03
Quote Posted by demagogue
I personally like mud tones on the drab end of the palette.
I liked that part of Gladiator's aesthetic.
I remember thinking the prototypical Russell Crowe character is the principled thug or muscle, the model set already back in Romper Stomper ... Gladiator, LA Confidential, Robin Hood, even The Insider had that aspect about him, principled to a fault and letting the world coming down to make his point.
He does manage to go from that in a beautiful mind though.
Beleg Cúthalion on 19/5/2010 at 21:59
I think the main problem with many of Ridley Scott's almost-historical movies (that's what one of the German/Austrian historical fencers called him: his favourite director for almost-historical movies) is the lack of edges when turning historical characters into modern, open-minded and enlightened protagonists just so that the average stupid (are they?) audience can identify with them. That was the case with Kingdom of Heaven – the screenplay writer who apparently knew a bit about that still insisted on those simplifications – and it applies to most movies out there, although KoH was otherwise quite decent.
I wish that there was a Rome-like series about the Crusades which shows that you don't need the boring archetypes of THE FANATIC and THE TOLERANT HERO GUY to make believable characters, and that the people of that time with all their differences in belief or acting compared to our times, their faults if you like, are still people we can identify with. And especially with an era as complex and easily simplified as the Crusades I'd like that bit of sober approach... since Assassin's Creed didn't do it. There are enough sources and reports from that time to make it vivid enough I think.
Ostriig on 19/5/2010 at 22:14
Quote Posted by Muzman
Kingdom of Heaven DC is truly friggen spectacular, I must say. If they made a print of it for cinema now I'd probably go watch it. It is kinda frustrating how much Bloom lets it down.
Totally, Bloom really does excel at pummeling that movie into the dirt. Though what I also found irritatingly gaudy was the insistence with which it vilified one religion in contrast to the other, that overly zealous manner in which it tried to hammer down its "political message". Though I'm not very fond of all religions in general, so YMMV.
Anyway, I don't know about the theatrical cut, never saw it, but the DC is indeed excellent despite its flaws, and worth checking out.
Quote Posted by demagogue
[...] even The Insider had that aspect about him, principled to a fault and letting the world coming down to make his point.
Now that you mention it, you're right, there is
some connection. Though, to the movie's credit, it seems to handle it far better as, while his character is motivated by principle, it felt more like he was
guilted into reluctant action and, more importantly, without fully understanding the consequences of his involvement.
Banksie on 19/5/2010 at 22:27
Except that he gets one of the major plot points wrong in the review - Godfrey was not working for John. Indeed the last third of the film is about John trying to undo the damage Godfrey has done because he was working for the French king. (Like being a violent massacring tax collector to rile the northern lords against John.)
Quote:
More like
Kingdom of Heaven's Theatrical Cut; let's hope there's going to be a Director's Cut that fixes this thing - again.
There clearly is at least fifteen to twenty minutes excised from the film. John's behavior at the end of the film is so abrupt and not justified in terms of character motivation that something has been removed.
To be honest the first two thirds of this film are really good, they are a bit closer to historical reality and we have much more nuanced characters. John isn't purely an evil cypher - his outburst at his mother pointing out how a lot of the situation he finds the country in is Richards fault was good. Robin not being the fanatic loyal supporter of Richard was new. Richard being a bit of a dick. It is a quite different portrayal of the legend and a lot more grounded.
It is a more complicated story than Gladiator that shows the writers contrivance a bit more than it should. The whole sub plot of him finding the inscription on the sword and it flashing back to his childhood was just a little too on the nose but it did allow the idea of the developing public mood that could lead to the Magna Carta to be explored. So it skates by as it helps justify the unrest of the northern lords with the king.
To be honest the problem seems to be less with the film, which is a solid film, but more with peoples expectations. The reviewer linked to clearly expected another swashbuckler - a light hearted action adventure. This film is not that. More it is an exploration of the reasons why someone might choose to become a figure like Robin Hood.
All in all I thought it was a solid 7/10 movie. If the directors cut puts back the missing scenes from the third act I think it could be more an 8/10 movie. Frankly I am a little surprised at the level of hostility this film has received.
Angel Dust on 20/5/2010 at 00:58
Personally I think the Crowe/Scott pairing is one of those director/actor combos (another would be Depp/Burton) that needs some kind of embargo slapped on it. Ridley's tendency towards 'style over substance' doesn't really do Crowe any favours and it's because of dull, vacant stuff like Gladiator and American Gangster that I have a tendency to be dismissive of Crowe as an actor. But then someone will invariably point out films like The Insider, L.A Confidential, Master & Commander (massively underrated film that one) and I'll remember that he is a very good actor with great screen presence.
A director I would like to see him work with more is Ron Howard. A film like Cinderella Man is about as subtle and formulaic as Gladiator but unlike that film it has real heart and Crowe gives a wonderful performance. While Howard does get sentimental at times, I think his somewhat old fashioned approach, and the kinds of characters and stories he goes for, are a good match for Crowe.
Scots Taffer on 20/5/2010 at 01:39
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
I have a tendency to be dismissive of Crowe as an actor. But then someone will invariably point out films like
The Insider,
L.A Confidential,
Master & Commander (massively underrated film that one) and I'll remember that he is a very good actor with great screen presence.
Yeah, Crowe and Scott definitely has become a Depp and Burton in that they may have had some strength as a creative pair at one stage (
Gladiator is eminently watchable in spite of its weaknesses, as are
Ed Wood,
Edward Scissorhands and even
Sleepy Hollow) but that it has weakened both pairs talents over time.
Master and Commander remains one of my quiet favourite movies. I own the blu-ray and tend to roll it once every two years or so, and I get reminded of how much of a missed opportunity that potential franchise was. The pairing of Crowe and Bettany, the mariner realism, the time of warriors/pirates with honour, and just the general unfamiliarity of the setting and time make it very appealing.
LA Confidential and
The Insider are also excellent examples of their genre.
Angel Dust on 20/5/2010 at 03:33
Ed Wood is one of my favourite films, the decision to use the story of 'the worst director ever' to explore the passion and drive of the creative person was genius, but ..ugh.. Sleepy Hollow represents, to me, the absolute nadir of the Depp/Burton partnership. Depp is being kooky for the sake of kooky and the whole thing is just deadly dull and completely superficial; sleepy hollow indeed. While it might look good in stills, in motion it's completely unconvincing and feels like it was made in a vacuum. I fucking hate that film and it was the turning point in my appreciation for Burton. Rant over. :p
Personally I don't think there has ever been anything unique/interesting/magical about the Crowe/Scott creative coupling. Sure Gladiator is a solid 'sword & sandals' film but it's not really anything another pairing of charismatic star and technically proficient director couldn't have pulled of. Although for the record I do think that Crowe was particularly well suited to the role.
I do agree Master & Commander is a missed franchise opportunity and instead of that we get 3 Priates sequels. :mad:
I am aware that the Pirate films are quite different but when it comes to swashbucklin' on the high-seas I much prefer Master & Commander
Muzman on 20/5/2010 at 06:13
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Totally, Bloom really does excel at pummeling that movie into the dirt. Though what I also found irritatingly gaudy was the insistence with which it vilified one religion in contrast to the other, that overly zealous manner in which it tried to hammer down its "political message". Though I'm not very fond of all religions in general, so YMMV.
Although it seems a little pat and convenient, there's a fair bit of truth in the essence of the story (albeit selectively told and simplified). The crusader rule of the holy lands has been blamed by some historians for starting modern Islamic militancy. While Saladin and co were unlkely to be nice (by our standards almost nobody was) there's little doubt the crusaders were in the wrong in just about every respect.
Shug on 20/5/2010 at 06:22
Quote Posted by nicked
I keep hearing good things about Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut. As someone (one of the few apparently) who quite enjoyed the theatrical version, I imagine I'm in for a bit of a treat.
If you actually liked the theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven, you're in for a real treat because the story begins to make sense in the director's cut!
Beleg Cúthalion on 20/5/2010 at 08:07
Quote Posted by Muzman
While Saladin and co were unlkely to be nice (by our standards almost nobody was) there's little doubt the crusaders were in the wrong in just about every respect.
That's exactly what I meant with complexity. At that time you had a lot of Turks in Syria et alii who were not on good terms neither with the Muslim nor with the far older Byzatine/Christian population.
