Have you seen this movie, Kingdom of Heaven? I’ll admit, it’s no Troy, but it’s still a hoot.
Kingdom of Heaven asks a question that has plagued historians for decades: what would happen if a late 20th-century, secular, agnostic, multiculturalist, progressive, sensitive Hollywood type were to be transported back in time to participate in one of history’s grandest spectacles? Could one of the most embarrassingly culturally insensitive chapters of our history be rewritten or perhaps even avoided altogether, through the efforts of one determined, sensitive man who is as open-minded about stuff as we are?
It’s a neat idea, and it is arguably needed now more than ever. So Ridley Scott, himself a knight like Walter Scott before him, sets the Wayback for the late 12th Century, and sends a former elf named Legolas back to medieval Jerusalem, just to see if he can single-handedly make the Crusades more palatable to modern sensibilities by forging a caring, mutually-fulfilling Christian-Saracen support network in the Crusader Kingdom.
With Roger Ebert:
The first thing to be said for Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” is that Scott knows how to direct a historical epic. I might have been kinder to his “Gladiator” had I known that “Troy” and “Alexander” were in my future, but “Kingdom of Heaven” is better than “Gladiator” — deeper, more thoughtful, more about human motivation and less about action.
The second thing is that Scott is a brave man to release a movie at this time about the wars between Christians and Muslims for control of Jerusalem. Few people will be capable of looking at “Kingdom of Heaven” objectively. I have been invited by both Muslims and Christians to view the movie with them so they can point out its shortcomings. When you’ve made both sides angry, you may have done something right. The Muslim scholar Hamid Dabashi, however, after being asked to consult on the movie, writes in the new issue of Sight & Sound: “It was neither pro- nor anti-Islamic, neither pro- nor anti-Christian. It was, in fact, not even about the ‘Crusades.'” And yet I consider the film to be a profound act of faith.” It is an act of faith, he thinks, because for its hero Balian (Orlando Bloom), who is a non-believer, “All religious affiliations fade in the light of his melancholic quest to find a noble purpose in life.”
Which reviewer do you think gives you a pretty accurate description of what you will get for ten dollars- Doktor Franks, or the several hundred word exercise in fawning praise and sycophantic genuflection offered by Ebert?
I know what my choice is…
rilkefan
If Ebert wrote a blog, you (and I) still wouldn’t read him…
Kimmitt
The thing about Ebert is, he’ll like a movie for the dumbest little reason. That’s why he was such a great foil for Siskel, who’d dislike a movie for the dumbest little reason.
Anderson
I hear that the film’s last 3 minutes, where Orlando Bloom’s soul is cast into the fires of hell for all eternity as the punishment for his unbelief, was left on the cutting-room floor. Something about “test audiences didn’t like it.”
Kent Gibson
Dear John,
Your blog has been entered into the BigBlogZoo under the
the category: Top/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Weblogs/Personal/B.
You should not visit the zoo as you are being talked about. Maybe I misunderstood, but there was crack, an orange and stockings and suspenders involved.
Take Care,
Kent Gibson
TheZooKeeper
bigblogzoo.com/
myblog
John Cole
Kent- Hunh?
Kimmitt- I actually agree with many of Ebert’s reviews.
KC
Interesting question, John. I’ll think about it later.
Kent Gibson
I must admit, when troy was held up as the superlative, I sort of tuned out. flog me if you must.
John Cole
That was sarcasm, Kent.
Kent Gibson
in what context does one normally learn the word genuflection?
Kent Gibson
aghh, yes well I suppose I missed the subtle signs in the voice and facial expression. I was too concentrated on the cheap tshirts.
Gatchaman
Ebert is only entertaining when bashing a movie. Go to his SunTimes site and do a search for movies with 0 stars, he can be quite snarky.
Kingdom of Heaven may or may not suck. But I, for one, will never bash the director of Bladerunner. Best. Movie. Ever.
Gary Farber
False dichotomy. Dr. Frank is a spiffy writer, but so is Roger Ebert (I often don’t share his opinions, but that’s a different topic, and besides, often enough I do.)
Ebert deserves every single bit of the regard he’s held in (and his Pulitzers), not just because of his vast knowledge of film, but because of his skill as an insightful, and often hilarious, writer.
And Dr. Frank is also typically highly insightful and often hilarious. (Although, empirically, I read Ebert’s site religiously every week, and am somewhat more erratic in checking Dr. Frank.)