Posted on 05/06/2005 8:41:56 PM PDT by GulliverSwift
I almost walked out of the film when i saw in in original release, but it has been on my top 10 list for a long time now.
It's pure cinema.
I suddenly have a hankerin' for french baked goods.
If Christians had lost the Battles of Tours and Vienna we would be living in a far different world. Wonder if anyone will have the courage to bring it to the big screen(Mel Gibson)?
bflr
I wanted to see this movie. I even picked up a book on the Battle of Hattin and fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims.
However, having read all the anti-Chrisitan rhetoric and pro-Islamic praise this slimy production created, I will wait until the tape comes out. The tip off should have been Liam Neeson, an outstanding anti-western hater in this flick.
Were some of the Crusaders brutal? Yes, it was a brutal world.
Were atrocitities committed against non-Christians? Yes, but anti-Semitic actions in Europe were not the rule, were condmend by many churchmen and Crusaders and should have no bearing on the overall legitimacy of the Crusading movement which wsa entirely justified.
In Spain, in Sicily and Southern Italy, in souther France, in the Mediterranean as a whole, in North Afirca, in the Holy Land, in Anatolia and later, as pointed out already, in Central Europe and the Balkans, Christians were targets of Islamic oppression and attack.
Muslims thoroughly deserved being attacked. Jerusalem is a Holy Site to both Christians and Jews and its importance to Islam is as a tertiary site.
Deus volt!!!
I call it, "Kingdom Of Hooey." It's enough to turn the stomach of any Christian. Plus it's boring. Plus Orlando Bloom is every bit the iron-spined heroic figure he played in "Troy". Historically, it's a mess, and dramatically a disappointment. It's not nearly as bad as "Alexander the Fabulous," but that ain't saying much.
LOL
too bad he didn't directed Aliens vs. Predator. Maybe then it wouldn't suck.
Not all of Spain was overtaken. The northwestern part was defended. A king of Asturias stopped the Muslims. It is from there that the reconquista started, culminating in the withdrawal in 1492 from Grenada. Rodrigo de Bivar, AKA the Cid, was probably the most colorfully remembered figure of the fight, as we know.
Then again, the moors did stay in Spain for over 700 years...and the first mosque to be open in Grenada was started within the last year.
Because Christians are an easier target. Scott won't get a fatwa issued against him and he'll sell tickets in the middle east.
Already done, revisionist history that whitewashes Saladin and Islam while portraying Christians as bad guys is off my list.
While I enjoy and have financially supported Scott's other films, I will not spend a dime to see those “bad Christians” being mean to those nice conquering, butchering Muslims. All in the name of PC (not wanting to offend C.A.I.R.) and Scott not wanting Muslims to demand his death for making a historically accurate film.
GulliverSwift asked: “Why don't they do a movie about the Muslim armies who forced Islam on all the previously Christian countries in the Middle East, or a movie about the Muslim takeover of Spain, or the battle to take over Vienna?”
Answer: Because Muslims would KILL them for telling the truth that is why.
I'd LOVE to see Mel Gibson bring these decisive moments in history to the big screen. All the elements of a truly heroic film. Plus, it REALLY happened.
Scott probably has as deep a knowledge of the Crusades as the average college freshman, and he has inbibed the simplistic notion that the Crusader was driven by religious fanaticism. No more than the American GI is driven by a fanatical belief in democracy. What each has in common is the belief that their way of life is worth preserving and that it is threatened. Above was mentioned the Battle of Tours. But Scott belongs to the Enlightenment school which denies that a Muslim conquest of western Europe would have been a bad thing. He may point to Spain and its superior culture without pondering that Islam had sown itself to be a remarkably parasitic faith, flowing in the soil made fertile by Roman, Persians and the Byzantine civilization in the west and the Hindu civilization in the East. Even today it depends totally on the intellectual capital of other nations.
Mohamed and his followers coveted these lands and their prosperity. Their religion was merely a tool to enable the Arab conquest of the trade routes. Greed and avarice is the underlying tenet of Mohamed's religion.
No movies, novels or plays including Shakespeare are completely historically accurate and never have been. It's not their goal.
It doesn't make Christians look bad only the extremists on both sides. It's pretty innocuous stuff.
read later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.