This was dogshit

>mfw Orlando bloom is a bigger Mary Sue in Kingdom of Heaven than Rey is in TFA.

I liked it
But no matter the criticism the soundtrack was still very good

>I remember the Directors Cut being a lot better than the original release.

the dc is literally a different movie. its insane how much plot was cut out.

King Baldwin is the best character in the film. Saladin is based too.

The DC couldn't fix the primary reasons that the movie is fucking retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=mTjUu1Bt29o

>looking for historical accuracy in a hollywood movie

a u t i s m

Bending the rules and facts around a bit is fine, KoH goes full retard.

+1

It has some good battle visuals and combat choreography but yes it is shit.

Liam Neeson was cool to be fair. Shame it wasn't his film.

This entire channel is the most retarded and hypocritical thing on youtube. He shits on movie he doesn't like pushing "muh inaccuracy" and completely ignores or disregards it in those he likes "well, they had to change it for the plot or character so it's alright". And by god, his into is atrocious.

He goes after movies that are inaccurate portralas of their times or do their historical basis disservices.
Master and Commander is completely fictional but it acuratly portrays the time and setting to tell its story.
KoH is based on real events but it takes a big steamy shit on the setting in which they took place. It basically makes up a story, with a colossal Mary Sue as the hero and slaps a thin historical coat of paint on the top of it. Ridley Scott didn't just making a bad movie, he made a bad movie and also took a giant shit on some awesome events and people that deserve a proper telling.

>He goes after movies that are inaccurate portralas of their times or do their historical basis disservices
He goes after every movie that portrays people or historical. But no matter how much they twist or how much they change or straight up disregard, it doesn't matter because he likes, it's a deciding factor. Who gives a shit what kind of story Braveheart tries to tell, the dates are off, fuck it. But wait, who gives a shit if Amadeus goes out it's way to twist the facts and make the shit up as it goes along for the sake of the story, the message guys, that's what's important.

Not him but it's nice to know what really happened, or do you think people should not be educated in history?

I'm a history graduate (laugh at me please) and i dont give a fuck about historical accuracy. as long as the story is good and the mood of the time is captured its all good.

I knew which one you were going to post before even clicking on it. He seems to have misunderstood very basic narrative threads such as Balian's relationship with Baldwin, or the whole point of Ibelin and Jerusalem.

He can criticize the film's accuracy all he likes, but he's got to pass elementary-level comprehension first.

If story or a historical person who was portrait grips me I will read about it, about how it really happened. It was brought up numerous times in this threads but it is a rare form of autism to expect a historical accuracy from Hollywood. It's either will butchered for the sake of story, characters, conflict etc or it will be something like Saving Private Ryan (aside from D-Day part, of course) or Masters and Commander where it's just the setting and the story is made up or "inspired" by historical events or people, which in my opinion is worse, you essentially throwing baby out with the bathwater.

...

Jesus all these so called "historians" itt. Like any of you know what happened back then.
It was a great movie