[NCSteve]

Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors, but I hear that Kingdom of Heaven is historically revisionist BS. I have heard also that the revisionism is the fault of the screenplay author and that Scott approached the film as historically based fiction. Maybe. Maybe not.

If the film is, as some have said, unconstrained Muslim apologetics and Christian bashing, I guess I'll give it a pass.

[veronica]

Apparently Arabs like this movie... Heaven strikes an Arab chord

[CasearianDaoist]

Well, I, like you, have been a Scott fan for decades, but over the last 15 years or so he has tended leftwards, put out some absuoutley treacly PC nonsense and made some real duds (GI Jane is a paniful example of these three meeting in one horrible blend.)

He has been uneven the last few years.

[ConservativeDude]

I saw it and it's shit.

Not just the unconstrained Christian bashing, it also glorifies cowardice. The "hero" surrenders Jerusalem and when he goes back into the walls the people all pat him on the back and hug him, making him look like a saint. All because he was sooo sophisticated that he wouldn't fight to the death for a mere city. The people after all are all that matter...and the Muslims promise them safe passage to a Christian city, good citizens they are.

It is pretty shocking all in all. Even for Hollywood.

There are two or three decent battle scenes, but nothing you haven't seen before.