This is what happens if Liam Neeson trains you: In 60 seconds you become a Knight. In a couple of months you become Batman. And, in a couple of years you become a Jedi.

@nedinu9940

5 жыл бұрын

Just don't be related to him.

@Lightsoul1987

5 жыл бұрын

This is perfect xD

@IR240474

5 жыл бұрын

Then the person he trains, destroys things, causes big problems and end up going into hiding.

@b_rabbit4207

5 жыл бұрын

perfect0edge best comment ever

@25joshr

5 жыл бұрын

There 2 more mistakes, one the landscape, Jerusalem gets almost 800 mm of rainfall in a year , so I can’t be a desert, there is no big Plato , Jerusalem is on a mountain,, Second thing I love the fact he is teaching the native how to get water😂😂😂

It’s unfortunate that the protagonist was so terrible because King Baldwin and salahudin were absolutely phenomenal.

@sc3304

Ай бұрын

I feel like there was probably a more interesting movie to be made about Baldwin the Leper and Saladin. They could have dispensed with Balian altogether....

@ozzyphil74

Ай бұрын

If you watch the Director's cut, you'll see that there's an entirely different movie. Bailin is a more fleshed out character and his motivations and character development is much better. The Theatrical release did this movie no favours

@tisisajay

9 күн бұрын

Please watch the director's cut

This movie was written like an rpg, where the protagonist rarely says anything and the npcs do all the talking and keep sending him in quests…

@g1y3

2 ай бұрын

Watch directors cut that's didn't cut important context, although movie focuses on philosophy rather than historic accuracy

@culturalliberator9425

Ай бұрын

And the character is clearly written by an edgy 12 year old but the npcs don't care because they aren't programmed to interact with their backstory.

@thediaz07

25 күн бұрын

​@@g1y3great movie

I would love to see a film about Baldwin IV. In my opinion he and Saladin were the best parts of this movie.

@MrJosseff

6 ай бұрын

Baldwin the leper was a great king indeed, should he lived more, the course of history would've changed alot.

@phanat68

4 ай бұрын

I actually watched this movie because I thought Baldwin IV was in this movie more

@mickw0235

Ай бұрын

Same lol. He was the whole reason I watched thr movie​ @phanat68

Orlando Bloom has had plenty of battle experience: orcs, pirates, The East India Trading Co....

@oddeyes9413

5 жыл бұрын

And about 20 other multiverse.😂

@malcolmmacinnis247

4 жыл бұрын

Don't forget achaeans lol

@sainters7

4 жыл бұрын

And killing Achilles in the Trojan War

@yehudasam

4 жыл бұрын

he's one of the only charchters to appear in 5 (!) LOTR/ Hobbit movies. thats a lot of fighting. Maybe if Sean Bean would have lasted for a litlle more, he would've been able to kill jaime lannister

@sainters7

4 жыл бұрын

@Zero Maverick true, but to be fair he thought Achilles was about to kill his young female cousin.. and Paris is supposed to be a bit of a lame-o anyway.

"Medieval society would never accept a bastard as king." William 'The Bastard' of Normandy: "Hold my beer."

@Hugh_Morris

5 жыл бұрын

Very true. Although he was a usurper and took his throne by conquest. English society never truly accepted him but they weren’t in any position to fight him.

@arturs3696

5 жыл бұрын

Technically there were alot of revolts against him in the begining of his reign in England...

@nicolashrv

4 жыл бұрын

We could short the list and mention which Kings did NOT had to face revolts in the whole history of the world.

@FrauRosa

4 жыл бұрын

wasn't a bastard, Viking society was polygamous(ish) so he never was illegitimate

@arturs3696

4 жыл бұрын

@@FrauRosa Normans threw away their viking heritage and became french to have easier time dealing with the locals, what a big fucking downgrade...

Ah the nostalgia. The director's cut was amazing compared to the original. The characters I loved in the movie were Saladin and Baldwin IV. Their presentations were epic.

@CaptainFSU

7 ай бұрын

Yes, the director's cut is significantly better.

@hatefulsquab2226

6 ай бұрын

I've only seen the director’s cut and I still thought this movie was mid

@hameed

5 ай бұрын

Director’s cut still sucked because Orlando blooms character is a boring Gary stu

@Creditwisela1

5 ай бұрын

Agreed.. Baldwin and Saladin deserve the spotlight.

@EvaLorna

15 күн бұрын

I think everybody loves Baldwin and Salahudin. Personaly I realy like Baldwin, and I respect Saladin.

“When I look at history, I see it as a testament to humanity’s triumphs and worst crimes. We cannot celebrate one half and ignore the other, or worse, change details about that half for the sake of appearing politically correct, today. These things happened and there is nothing we can do about that. The only, responsible thing we can do is learn from our past mistakes. Otherwise, they will fade into obscurity and pose of us having to repeat them again.” Great quotation from you, Nick! 👍🏻

@jessrosefawkes2721

7 ай бұрын

I no right. What a fucking speech. Now that would be an epic battle speech lol x

The movie may not get an A for historical accuracy, but sure as death he gets an A for badass statements. And the actor who plays Saladin is great.

@Ballin4Vengeance

2 жыл бұрын

RISE A KNIGHT

@jennyrust8334

Жыл бұрын

The actor who played Saladin did a wonderful job, he added a lot of humanity to the character .

@ilovemuslimfood666

Жыл бұрын

@@jennyrust8334 In the Director’s Cut behind the scenes videos, Ridley Scott said that he would frequently ask Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud for his input on how he thought Saladin would act in this or that scenario. The dude was otherworldly!

@notamoonraker

Жыл бұрын

Saladin is not accurately portrayed though.. I blame the Ridley Scott for Political Correctness and total careless for historical accuracy (since 1492 and American Gangster)

@ramenbomberdeluxe4958

Жыл бұрын

@@notamoonraker Okay, then explain what is incorrect? Would you say Saladin was a cliche villain or monster, or would you say he was mediocre, or would you say his positives came with negatives unspoken?

A beautiful woman, who never saw you before, comes to you and says 'i loved your father, and i shall love you'. That is just beyond creepy.

@archangel6676

3 жыл бұрын

yeah but beautiful woman can literally get away with murder in just about any age/period/era you can think of

@psychokinrazalon

3 жыл бұрын

@@archangel6676 Not Elizabeth Bathory.

@gargos25

3 жыл бұрын

@@psychokinrazalon There is no good record of how Bathory looked, and judging by her endeavour to look younger (by bathing in the blood of you know who), she likely wasn't aging that well.

@chickenmadness1732

3 жыл бұрын

@@archangel6676 They were burned alive for witchcraft in that era lol.

@archangel6676

3 жыл бұрын

@@chickenmadness1732 yeah your point being? woman have gotten away with just as much (if not More) than Men.

Practically every description of Saladin Ive ever heard was a honourable intelligent man even the crusaders had enough respect not be bias when describing him.u gotta respect that.

@mathewemad9661

12 күн бұрын

He maybe was honorable in war. But he was well known to persecute and publicly execute people who didn't want a muslim rule. And christians and jews especially were very hardly persecuted during his era as ruler of these regions. But he was "comparatively" less cruel than other arab leaders at the time. But he was still very very cruel. Honor does not equal good.

I need this redone with the Directors Cut.

@d26k164

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. It's a completely different movie

@MrJabbafett

Жыл бұрын

100%

@460mas

Жыл бұрын

Still not that much better

@dalimoreomali2994

Жыл бұрын

Right? During the beginning where they explain that he was an unusually talented siege engineer in a handful of feudal conflicts before he became a blacksmith was KIND OF a big thing to explain why he was able to do the things he did.

@luxinvictus9018

24 күн бұрын

That's just the thing: unusually talented siege engineers don't just "become blacksmiths". They remain siege engineers. When I first saw this video 8 years ago, I thought he was being unusually harsh. Now, years later, I know a little bit of mediaeval history and the movie is just absurd. Still fun, but absurd. To give you a perspective: imagine the finance minister of your country dies. A couple days later, a young lad with no prior experience just turns up and says "I'm the new finance minister. The last one came to me before his death and told me his long lost son" Who would accept that? Would the citizens? Would other members of his party or the government? Would other ministers or the prime minister/president? And you ask if he has any experience, and he says "oh, I was a graduate from Harvard business school before I started working as a mechanic. Before I was a mechanic I was an unusually talented accountant at a large company" Are you starting to see how absurd this sounds? And then the country enters into a period of conflict and they say "you know that finance minister. He's a good guy. Apparently he's also a talented surgeon, because he learned that at Harvard as well. Let's bring him on board for military strategy" An alternative version: imagine the senior HR manager at a big company does and the next day a young graphic designer shows up, claims to be his long lost son, and simply takes over his position. Would the employees just accept this? Would the board of directors just say "well your dad was a good man. I see nothing wrong leaving such an important task to someone we don't even know". Would the owner of the company say "I think you should be ceo" or would he say "bro your father can't just decide who is his successor. I decide that" This should give you a roughly good idea of mediaeval politics, and how absurd this film is even if you take away historical accuracy. A siege engineer turned black smith becoming a baron over the course of a few days is like a military engineer turned mechanic turned minister of agriculture. It can happen, but it's so rarely and absurd you'll have to write a hell of a story for it. Every character that meets Balian should just go "damn, you're an exceptionally talented, charismatic individual with incredible luck and intelligence".

The main character wears a helmet throughout the entire final battle. Hollywood hates covering the stars face. It gets an A plus just for that.

@willlastnameguy8329

4 жыл бұрын

Good point.

@boricualink

4 жыл бұрын

@@psevdhome agreed, but when you pay a guy a couple million plus back end gross, you probably expect to see their face. Or you might have an actor who is vein and doesnt want to be behind a mask. I think thats why its very noticeable when movies get those little details right.

@henrikg1388

4 жыл бұрын

Right. He is actually more armoured than Jon Snow ever was. 😆

@jamesa9362

4 жыл бұрын

Ironman: I’m gonna stop you right there

@boricualink

4 жыл бұрын

@@jamesa9362 yeah they actually go inside his suit to show his face.

They say in the movie (possibly only the director's cut) that he was a military engineer in the French army. Which explains how he'd know how to build things like irrigation systems and conduct siege warfare. Not saying that this completely redeems the movie, it still has tons of problems, that's just one piece of quick dialogue that pays off later in the film.

@samrevlej9331

3 жыл бұрын

I still find it highly dubious he'd be able to teach Middle Easterners how to irrigate their crops in the land where irrigation was born. Also, I'm no expert, but first off, there was no such thing as the French army back then - nobles could sometimes call on peasants to serve in their armies, and the king could call on his lords to form the royal host, but knights and foreign mercenaries were an essential component, not peasants - and second, I'm pretty sure a lowly blacksmith wouldn't have had access to the education needed to become an engineer, or that an engineer would not have been returned to civilian life as a lowly blacksmith. This isn't goddamn America - there are certain social statuses that make it highly unlikely for that kind social elevation to happen.

@nyyfandan

3 жыл бұрын

@@samrevlej9331 the village they're in outside of Jerusalem is shown to be incredibly small and very poor, which I think would make it just as unlikely that someone in this tiny village had the necessary education to build an irrigation system before Orlando Bloom shows up. Secondly, someone somewhere had to be engineers at some point in the French army, to build catapults and the like. There's nothing presented in the movie that makes it impossible for him to have been an engineer. It's never shown in the movie for him to be an unreliable narrator, so we have no choice but to take the character at his word when it's said he was a military engineer. There's no prequel or something we can look at for reference. Those are silly points to argue because we only have the scope of the film to use as reference.

@samrevlej9331

3 жыл бұрын

@@nyyfandan I'm not saying he isn't an engineer in the movie, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying it's absurd from a historical point of view to have a blacksmith be a military engineer in the 12th century. That would be like making an industrial worker a agro business owner on his down times - they're socially separate groups. Also, what seems silly is to argue any village in the Near East at this period in time, no matter how tiny and poor, would need a European to tell them how to water their own goddamn fields. Man's only ever been in Europe, where the climate's not nearly the same and would realistically never had the chance to learn how to build canals, and he tells people who've lived on this land for generations "Oh, you see, you just need to dig these little furrows in order to actually get water to your crops?" It's be like a freaking computer programmer coming over and telling an electrician "See, the wire goes there to actually power the device". Not the same field of expertise, and the latter should probably know a whole lot more about this than the former. I'm not talking about this in terms of narrative reliability, I'm talking about this in terms of basic credibility. Suspension of disbelief from the audience requires not going over a threshold on the bullshit-meter line, and KoH uses that line like a jumping rope.

@strategicsage7694

2 жыл бұрын

@@samrevlej9331 Well said.

@silversnail1413

Жыл бұрын

@@samrevlej9331 Most people don't know anything about irrigation, 12th century or otherwise, and there's little need for suspension of disbelief when your audience is ignorant. Ridley Scott already demonstrated his exceptional contempt for his viewers when he made the incredibly overrated Gladiator and gave us a comic book version of what life in the Roman Empire was like, complete with an utterly ridiculous and ahistorical depiction of Marcus Aurelius's death. That movie went far over the threshold on the bullshit-meter line and still raked in tons of money and awards from gullible fools who still praise it to this very day, so I can't really blame him for trying to repeat the formula. -

"Medieval society would never accept bastard as their king" - Yes they would lol

@survivalizer

3 ай бұрын

*laughs in English*

@ubblebungus

Ай бұрын

no they *usually* wouldn't. if that were the case, literally anyone would be the monarch of anything.

@joshuapray

23 күн бұрын

Yeah, this was frankly a pretty ridiculous thing to say (especially so heatedly). For someone who is complaining very loudly about the film's misunderstanding of medieval history, well...

@maikatideibaskapanaumrqlatupa

17 күн бұрын

​@@joshuaprayit's not ridiculous at all. Bastards were seen as illegitimate successors and would never be seen as claimants. The only time they were "accepted" was when the bastard in question had the army to defend their claim. But that still doesn't legitimize him

You should do a revisit but to the director's cut. Your videos are easily digestible and very well put together.

@Thagomizer

6 ай бұрын

I just watched the director's cut, and it's still boring as shit. This video is right on the money.

I would highly recommend the Director's Cut if you haven't seen it. It adds about an hour to the movie, giving the characters much more depth and even adding an element to Balian's backstory that explains why he has the skills he does.

@boss180888

8 жыл бұрын

+KashelGladio he showed footages from that cut so he clearly saw it, although it's an entertaining movie, it manipulates history with a political agenda that cannot be denied.

@Xelpherpolis

8 жыл бұрын

boss180888 Did he? I didn't think I saw any, but you may be right. My only real hangup was his gripe with Balian's skill set, even though the director's cut clearly states he's been to war multiple times in the past. But yes, the film uses the Crusades as a vehicle to push a humanist philosophy, which is just a more forgiving way of saying the same thing, only cuz I happen to like this movie quite a bit v_v

@a1c41

8 жыл бұрын

+boss180888 I agree with you on the political agenda. The readers and watchers should bear in mind that this movie was released after the start of the 2nd Gulf War. In which Coalition Forces invaded Iraq and there a lot of anti-war sentiment. One glaring example of anti-war propaganda was the movie "Fahrenheit 911". Clearly, "Kingdom of Heaven" is another anti-war propaganda movie in which it pits the Western World against the Islamic World, while glossing over the small but CRITICAL details. Thus oversimplifying things and misleads the audience of highly complex events.

@DankaertLexicon

8 жыл бұрын

+KashelGladio The Directors Cut is a completely different movie. As said above, it explains his expertise as a siege and castle engineer. It also has a whole plot on the succession crises were the king and his sister get to know the protagonist better.

@Xelpherpolis

8 жыл бұрын

Dankaert Lexicon No yeah, the succession plot gives Isabela some much-needed characterization and gives her relationship with Balian a lot more dimension.

The single greatest disservice someone can do to themselves regarding this film is to watch anything but the director's cut.

@angrytom1923

5 жыл бұрын

Soooooo true. It's basically a completely different film with the hour of extra scenes.

@RoxieMarquez_marroxeli

5 жыл бұрын

just watched the director's cut last night and it is like a whole new movie

@TexasBulldog74

15 күн бұрын

Just watched the Directors cut and OMG it went from an "Enhh" film that had potential to something I really enjoyed. HUGE difference

This is the equivalent of Gordon Ramsay filming a new episode of kitchen nightmares at your favorite restaurant.

This movie came out in 2005. The point wasn't to be historically accurate, but to use the backdrop of the crusades to discuss the big questions raised by the Iraq war. So much of this movie explores the topics on everyone's minds during the occupation.

@chapman2001

7 ай бұрын

Thats dumb

@bdubbs

7 ай бұрын

@@chapman2001 yeah well art and historical texts are different things made for different purposes.

@christianmorales8996

7 ай бұрын

​@@chapman2001as dumb as it is in a historical context it's actually kind of natural when you consider film as a medium

@chapman2001

7 ай бұрын

@@bdubbs doesn’t make it ok to blatantly misrepresent history

@ideadlift20kg83

7 ай бұрын

Yikes

*I actually liked this movie despite everything this guy said against it* I watched the Director's Cut, btw.

@JonathanSirico

4 жыл бұрын

The director's cut is a completely different movie, and 1000 times better despite still being historical hot mess.

@JamieB-E92

4 жыл бұрын

Same here! I already liked the film, even though Orlando Bloom is pretty damn cheesy and I can't help but cringe at his end speech every time. But I had only ever watched the shorter theatrical cut as a kid, as that's the version we had on DVD. When I finally watched the Directors Cut I was blown away. It seriously is completely different. Sooo much was cut from the theatrical that you're basically missing half the story. The directors cut version really puts it up there with the rest of my all time favourites like Gladiator, Troy, The Patriot, The Last Samurai, Braveheart etc. And in the end, it's a movie. I'm watching to be entertained. Not so much for historical accuracy.

@glassfireactual9207

4 жыл бұрын

Yes

@deathcallscall3438

4 жыл бұрын

Well he ain't wrong about most of his points... But like you, I still like this movie a lot. That siege battle is one of the best put to film.

@daviddinh6341

4 жыл бұрын

i think his point is all about accurate historical and logic

Just one theological correction, the crusades were known as an indulgence. This doesn't mean all their sins are forgiven, it means temporal punishment can be lessened for guilt of sin that is already forgiven. Think of it as a form of penance. I say this, as the video tries to undo common misconceptions, well this is one of them and a major one. The crusaders were not saved once and forever, that is a modern prostestant idea. The crusaders were Orthodox/Catholics Christians, faith was lived day by day.

@ethancoster1324

3 жыл бұрын

Dam you to hell, I wrote the same thing. Anyways, very well put.

@boboboy8189

3 жыл бұрын

American and Hollywood try to put protestan into this movie

@berubeacting5858

3 жыл бұрын

That's actually not true. The reality was that to go on Crusade was considered a cleansing of the spirit of all sins. It's the whole reason behind the People's Crusade (which is kind of the crusade version of a prologue). Almost entirely made up of poor or landless knights, the reason they left was partially due to their desire to be considered without sin.

@edmund7290

3 жыл бұрын

@@berubeacting5858 the peoples crusade was lead by "Peter the Hermit" and the peasants that partook were motivated by a series reasons, a major one being poverty. It was not part of the official crusade. The reason why we know that it was for "temporal punishment for sins already forgiven" and not the "cleansing of all sins" is that this is not what an indulgence is. The pope granted an indulgence and not an absolution. If he granted an absolution then you would be correct.

@berubeacting5858

3 жыл бұрын

@@edmund7290 according to Robert the Monk ( who was present at the Council of Clairemont where Pope Urban II gave the speech considered to have started the crusades) Pope Urban II said : "God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven." Fulcher of Chartres wrote that the Pope also said: "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins..." which can also be seen in a letter he wrote to the Flemish as well. The idea of plenary indulgences certainly existed, but it wasn't anywhere near the intrepretation needed to make an assault on the Holy Land make sense. The Crusades involved a looooot of killing, even if it was killing "heathens", which would still have run counter to the scope of early Medieval indulgences. Generally indulgences consisted of prayers or "charitable" acts. In fact the shift towards making indulgences more and more about nobility giving money to the Church could easily have been a reaction to the Crusades.

It's about as historically accurate as Netflix's Cleopatra. 'I don't care what anyone tells you, the muslims were the good guys'.

About the bastardy bit with Balian, you are right that him simply getting knighted wouldn’t make him the heir to his father, but it’s not impossible for him to inherit his lands. They would’ve had to go through what is probably a fairly lengthy procedure of legitimization with him, but it’s not unheard of. William the Conqueror after all was a literal bastard and was even referred to as “William the Bastard” yet still inherited Normandy.

@alexandrumircea

5 ай бұрын

Well said. The claim that bastard children could never "get in" only shows a lack of familiarity with medieval history. My feeling is that the area in which this channel is truly "at home" is maybe 18th and 19th century military history (based on the excellent reviews of The Last Of The Mohicans, Master & Commander, The Bounty, The Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves etc)

@brendan9868

5 ай бұрын

@@alexandrumircea Yeah definitely, I get the same vibe as well that he’s far more familiar with later century history than Medieval. Nothing wrong with that of course, but still like you said it’s apparent if he didn’t know bastards could inherit under the right circumstances.

@michaelshanley9110

2 ай бұрын

I think his point was that Godfrey can’t just name him the Baron of Ibelin. Since Godfrey didn’t have a legitimate son or daughter, his lands would revert back to the King after his death. From there the King would decide if he wanted to reward one of his supporters with the land or annex them into his own land so that they belong directly to the Kings and Queens of Jerusalem. Balien could petition for the Barony but unless he had people backing him in court it seems unlikely that he would be successful.

To the defense of the film's portrayal of Bailen, he was a siege engineer as shown in the director's cut and not just a blacksmith. So making him the defender of Jerusalem as shown in the movie would theoretically make sense. He would have clearly fought in battle before, though not as skilled as a knight, and clearly have experience in sieges and therefore the defense of cities. I think a lot of the plot fallbacks of the theatrical film are answered by the directors cut and unfortunately were lost when many of the scenes were removed.

@madavarams268

2 жыл бұрын

LMFAO thats obviously just an excuse cooked up at the last minute to justify how balian would even have the slighest idea of sieges. Just a a made up sentence to defend the shitty plot

@SamFisher007

2 жыл бұрын

@@madavarams268 Thanks for replying to an 8 month old comment. Your uninformed opinion is invalid but thanks for trying.

@PandaMonium92827

9 ай бұрын

So part of what fucked them was editing decisions

@Burke1O1

7 ай бұрын

@@SamFisher007 way to tell him Sam, good job

@tadstar6194

6 ай бұрын

bailan's backstory was done earlier on, including being not accepted by his uncle and half brother priest. that's how we know he had siege experience before meeting the king. by telling the king what he would have done for jerusalem's defense upon their first meeting, impress the king. the movie made it seems like they had a long discussion of things in their first meeting. the movie didn't really emphasize that the princess husband was not liked by the king and that godfrey's journey home might be to look for a husband to replace her husband. if this was the plot by the king's side, it would make sense how the princess came to ibelan after balian's first arrive, before even balian's official presentation to the king. godfrey was trusted by the king and had credit in the kingdom's prosperity up to this point. and it would make sense then for the king to offer balian to head his army by marrying the princess and executing the princess current husband. balian's story arc had him be the perfect knight to redeem himself and his wife and unborn child. it was also why he didn't accept the king's offer, dooming what was to come after the king die. also godrey told balian in the kingdom of heaven, deed counted just as much family connection with the emphasis on crusading knights weren't by next in line to inherit from their fathers. the crusading knights were to make a name for themselves. godfrey did this because he was not the eldest to inherit his father position.

the scene where Saladin only wants the men who attacked the travelers and his sister's body, is actually pretty accurate. Saladin actually did something similar in history

@cowboybob5301

9 ай бұрын

i would also say the guy in the video somewhat misses the mark. there are moderates and radicals on both sides in the movie. I would say the main point of the movie is more so 'cant we all just get along' or so. also keep in mind when it came out, only a couple years after 9/11

@alfredospautzgranemannjuni5864

8 ай бұрын

@@cowboybob5301exactly, the whole plot for the battles in the movie are: “two wise kings are pushed to a war they do not want to fight by their moronic vassals”.

@deadend4425

8 ай бұрын

@@alfredospautzgranemannjuni5864 so could have shown that both had moronic vassals not one group only

@communism-is-tits

7 ай бұрын

This is just anti-christian propaganda, as we all know how peaceful Muslim nations have really been 😅

@hunterhealer8022

7 ай бұрын

@@communism-is-titsmodern muslims are different from Medieval Muslims.

Tell me YOU don't know much more than this movie about the Crusades than, without telling me you don't know about the Crusades without telling me...😂😂😂

Thou shall not kill is actually a mistranslation. The 6th commandment is specifically “Thou shall not murder.” Hebrew has always had 2 separate words for kill and murder like English. The commandment has always referred to murder which is obviously a huge difference

@BooserBoi

7 ай бұрын

I was hoping someone pointed this out in the comments. Shocked it doesn't have more likes because I feel it's very important to know.

@DRayCoRpro

6 ай бұрын

@@BooserBoi Which exact difference does that make? Genuine question

@BooserBoi

6 ай бұрын

@DRayCoRpro thou shalt not kill would mean it is never acceptable to take a life. Period. Thou shalt not murder means you can kill if it is justified, like self-defense or a soldier in the military. This mistranslation is a big reason people think Christians have to be pacifists.

@ravenvane2227

5 ай бұрын

@@DRayCoRproMurder is a premeditated unlawful killing. Killing in war, self-defense, and state executions are all lawful killings.

@commiehunter733

5 ай бұрын

There was justified killing, but murder was bad

"Medieval Society would never accept a Bastard as King..." *Laughs in William of Normandy* *Laughs in Bernard, Son of Pepin* *Laughs in Eadweard of England* *Laughs in Vladimir of Kievan Rus* *Laughs in sons of Sweyn - Harald, Canute, Oluf, and Eric* *Laughs in John of Aviz, King of Portugal* *Laughs in Manfred of Taranto* *Laughs in Brother and Son of Alfonso V* *Laughs in Bretislaus I of Bohemia* *Laughs in Enzo, King of Sardinia*

@irwanfaizal9558

3 жыл бұрын

Laughs in Jon Snow, King of the North! 😂🤣

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

The position those guys had was not handed to them like most Kings but they have to fight and force others to accept them HB intends to say that they can be accepted but not without them successfully convinsing everybody they are worthy to have the crown. The mistake in the film was that unlike most of these people who are locals and are well known in their regions or in the conquerors case already making an name for himself Movie Balian already has allies in the Jerusalem court which is unlikely because he is both an outsider and a bastard which means he needs double the effort but instead he becomes lord without protest. It would have been better if Movie Balian was just an outsider with military experience than a bastard.

@HierophanticRose

3 жыл бұрын

@@forickgrimaldus8301 I agree with you on that, I would have preferred if the movie did away with "Journey to the Holy Land" and established Balian as already established Crusader Count (as he was). It might have been more interesting in that case to show his tensions with the Knights Templar as they would have had history. (unlike modern Romantic Depictions, Knights Templar were not well liked by other Beholden Lords and Knights to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as Knights Templar did not pay taxes and were not in Jurisprudence of the King of Jerusalem)

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

@@HierophanticRose however not like this as the film turns them into violent thugs which is inaccurate also they are not the only ones exempt as the other Knightly orders were exempt the only difference here was that a lot of Kings had depts to pay to the Templars which equals to a ton of Royalty and Nobility having an axe to grind against the Templars.

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

@@HierophanticRose there is an interesting story about a Muslim diplomat that was visiting a Templar Chapel where he commented at them as being their "friends" as they treated him with respect even though they despised each other and the diplomat does not really think highly of other "Franks".

Maybe not historically accurate, but one of the most enjoyable crusade fan fictions I’ve ever watched. Music score was great too.

@Josiah_Trelawny1

4 жыл бұрын

how many do you know? I only know this one with topic on the crusade.

@sparkle4223

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks to your comment I'm now gonna watch dir cut of this movie❤️

@sarmadghafoor1484

4 жыл бұрын

@@NelsonFilmsStudio that is very true XD

@atanasatanasov7183

4 жыл бұрын

Ech V a Crusade you say *laughs in Emperor of Mankind*

@TheFreshEC

3 жыл бұрын

@@Josiah_Trelawny1 Arn the Knight Templar is the only one worth mentioning.

Fair points about thr historical accuracy, however, I found that the acting was extremely high level and all of them were able to delivery depth and humanity to their characters

Edward Norton plays king Baldwin IV who died when he was 23. Baldwin IV also, according to contemporary sources, never wore a mask.

@memesupport2102

Ай бұрын

Correct, I believe there are a handful of sources that saw him wearing a veil but that’s it

"Medieval society would never accept a bastard as king" example: William the Bastard/Conqueror, king of England (1066-1087)

@EVEMASTER99

8 жыл бұрын

There are always exceptions to rules like this in history, while certainly unlikely, anything Is possible with power, and we can safely say William earned his new nickname "the conquered."

@Riceball01

8 жыл бұрын

+alvaro vazquez The difference here is that William didn't inherit England, he conquered it, given that I'd say that it gives him a certain legitimacy, kind of the whole right by might kind of thing.

@renkol123

8 жыл бұрын

+alvaro vazquez His claim was seen as weak and nonexistent by pretty much all nobility. Only because he had Harold Godwinson delivered to him and made him promise to support his claim and even then it was only because Godwinson was an extremely influential Earl. Then Harold took his support back and the Anglo-Saxon nobles said it was made under duress and didn't count anyway. William won because he had a bigger army. No one actually thought he had any right to claim England.

@alvarovazquez6485

8 жыл бұрын

"Bigger army diplomacy",in practice, thats pretty much all there was to claims and titles.

@renkol123

8 жыл бұрын

Hahaha, that is an excellent point! I meant it more as a statement that he was accepted only because he had the might to back it up rather than because the populace actually thought he had a right to rule.

Director’s cut shows him spending an entire night with Baldwin talking about philosophy, strategy (since Balian has fought wars before as an engineer), and politics. Baldwin knows him Also the cut shows Saladin is dealing with extremists on his own side

@MisterNiceGuy830

5 жыл бұрын

yeah he definitely didnt see the directors cut, the version he saw i can see why hes so critical. The theatrical cut isnt very clear, the directors cut answers most of his gripes.

@Jaasau

5 жыл бұрын

They deliberately changed the theatrical cut because they were facing intense pressure from Muslims, even as they filmed in Morocco.

@Jaasau

4 жыл бұрын

macsikar Mackay I believe it was in the director’s cut behind the scenes.

@shanebond1975

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jaasau Oh my ... therefore they are always wrong in portrayal of Muslims because western movies are shot in Christian lands

@jamesroper4952

4 жыл бұрын

His focus is on the historical inaccuracies of the movie. If the director and writers bothered to follow the actual history of the events and people. Then it would make more sense, but just like Braveheart. History is tossed aside for the sake of creativity.

Slight correction, in the directors cut it does briefly explain Balian did design siege equipment for his lord in France. This is how he was able to know about planning a siege.

In the directors cut they talk about his previous experience in war as an engineer. Would love to see you review that version

It’s need to be said again, Directors Cut answers all of the questions and Motives. It’s stated Bailen has fought before and built Trebuchets.

@riklangham6739

3 жыл бұрын

SIR , You humble a Sergeant Brother SIR . NON NOBIS DOMINE .

@andretorres75

3 жыл бұрын

@@riklangham6739 SED NOMINI TUO DA GLORIAM

@riklangham6739

3 жыл бұрын

@@andretorres75 BROTHER , I am a Poor Fellow Soldier and there is on my horse a seat also for you .

@chainmbl4257

3 жыл бұрын

Still doesn't fix the propaganda problems

@ahadkhan3486

3 жыл бұрын

@@chainmbl4257 what propaganda? I agree the overall message of religious tolerance and all that doesn't really fit in a middle-ages setting but most main characters' attitudes were largely similar to real life imo

To be fair, in the director's cut we find out that Balian has served as a soldier and siege engineer in the past. That doesn't account for all of your criticisms, but it does salve the issues you bring up about his military competency. The director's cut version is one of my favorite movies of all time.

@doggedout

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. There is a vid floating around that talks about how almost an hour of extremely critical plot points were cut from this film. Balians character development was so astoundingly - non existent- in the final cut it was infuriating. Almost all of his motivation was left on the cutting room floor. As well as that of the Queen of Jerusalem.

@darthtwerk6899

5 жыл бұрын

Totally agree... love the director's cut

@patogli

5 жыл бұрын

Also, they spend a good amount of time discussing several topics and the king measuring Balian while listening to his answers.

@ReverendMeat51

5 жыл бұрын

Can confirm that the directors cut takes a mediocre movie and makes it great

@dbly50

5 жыл бұрын

the directors cut is probably the greatest directors cut Ive ever seen, I despised the original cut but the directors cut is among my favorite movies, I agree a lot of his complaints about Balian are corrected or at least less offensive in the directors cut

Wow, he really went for the throat eith this one. So brutal. Chopped up this fan fiction real good.

Rewatching this (can’t believe it first came up in my recommendeds 6 years ago while I was watching documentaries on the crusades for a project) for the first time in a while because I finally sat down and watched Kingdom of Heaven a few days ago. I actually enjoyed it as a movie overall, but everything Nick says here is 100% on the money. There was some heavy suspension of disbelief to get through it, but the battle sequences made up for that and Eva Green is just spectacular in any role, no matter how badly written.

17:19 I'm going to try really hard not to rant, but "Medieval society would never accept a bastard as King". Not true. Medieval society did this several times. Just as examples, Henry II of Castile, William I of England, Ferrante of Naples, John I of Portugal, and Sweyn III of Denmark. Apparently Denmark did that fairly often.

@drjulia6860

4 жыл бұрын

Good point.

@asamvav

4 жыл бұрын

Right of conquests

@kell4055

4 жыл бұрын

Also, the Christian kingdoms in Outremer were in a nearly constant state of border conflict or open warfare, and the heavy casualties that resulted meant a lot of bastards inherited lands and titles, and women were often heirs conveyant whom any skilled knight could hope to marry.

@taylorwiseman8078

4 жыл бұрын

@Mr Hulk Admittedly. Except for Ferrante of Naples, that was given to him by his father the King of Aragon.

@grantdelosangeles5357

4 жыл бұрын

So Denmark is just like "Can you lead?" "Uhh... Yeaaahh??" "Good enough here's the throne."

"Medieval society would never accept a bastard as a king" William the Conqueror: "hold my beer"

@r.a1301

4 жыл бұрын

Guy who originally made this comment: nobody will ever copy this comment Colin: hold my originality

@bigmike2884

4 жыл бұрын

Or John Snow : Hold my Beer loll

@darthpepe2994

4 жыл бұрын

technically England didn't accept William the Conqueror as king. First of all he didn't just arrive and sit on the throne, the Battle of Hastings was a thing, second once William won the battle he spent the first years of his reign suppressing uprisings the length and breadth of the country against lords and peasants alike who were opposed to his rule. England did not accept him until they were forced to

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

Also, William the Conqueror was earlier. Church laws (which were what prevented bastards from inheriting) were much more lax in William the Conqueror's time, than they were even 50-70 years later. You still even see priests with wives and children as late as 1139, until the Second Lateran Council put a stop to that shit.

@darthpepe2994

4 жыл бұрын

@wildebest hold my Mead 😂

So sick of directors and the “morally righteous” shoving bullshit down my throat. Stick to the facts, both sides were evil in different ways and committed horrible acts to the other at different intervals in history. This movie would have been 10 times better if they stuck to the original story and let the audience decide how they felt about each side. Making only the Crusaders comically evil is downright diabolical just to push your agenda. Ridley Scott blundered what could have otherwise been a great movie.

I love this haha! In your other videos I've watched you're always civilised but with all the inaccuracies in this movie you go into full on savage mode!

Not reviewing the Director's Cut is a sin at this stage.

@SkiMaskBros101

6 жыл бұрын

Leo Natan it truly is

@Toxodos

6 жыл бұрын

Yup. And I really wish this channel would keep to focusing on historical inaccuracies, I can barely stand their tone there, but it gets way worse if you're starting to review films from a cineastic perspective and have no idea wtf you're talking about As perfectly demonstrated by them appearently not even being aware of the director's cut.

@juanjoseph

6 жыл бұрын

It is still a bad movie

@carmenjohnson1834

6 жыл бұрын

You're a bad movie

@mer171

6 жыл бұрын

Leo Natan yes thank you!

You know what was the biggest problem in Kingdom of Heaven? Gladiator. Ridley Scott tried to remake Gladiator. Sure Gladiator has very little historical accuracy but it works as a movie. If you compare the two protagonists what you have is a noble hero that loses his wife, is loved by a mentor and a ruler (that both eventually die), is entrusted with great power but declines it and in the process jeopardizes the life of the son of the woman he loves. The major difference was that Maximus had a simple, clear motivation - revenge. What was Balian's motivation? To be a good knight? Okaaaay... Also, Gladiator had Russel Crowe as the lead while Kingdom had fucking Orlando Bloom. That was pretty much the final nail in the coffin

@tiggergolah

8 жыл бұрын

+poontang3zizo Nailed it.

@Igor-ug1uo

8 жыл бұрын

+poontang3zizo There is an idiom in Russian "Из грязи в князи" which translates literally as "From dirt to a king". It describes a situation when a nobody becomes a figure of great importance for virtually no reason. I think Ridley Scott likes that kind of stuff. In Gladiator the hero was at least an important person before he was made a gladiator. In Kingdom of Heaven, however, the main character becomes a knight and gets everything for no reason really.

@flyingteeshirts

8 жыл бұрын

+Igor “Ahoy” I like that idiom. I think what the writers of Kingdom of Heaven were going for was a Arthurian legend vibe. They failed of course.

@MaartenKok

8 жыл бұрын

+poontang3zizo I think Balians motivation is quite clearly a search for redemption. I agree though that the plot moves way too conveniently (at least in the inital cut, I really like the Director's Cut).

@Concetta20

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Gladiator at least works as an alternative history. The only thing Kingdom of Heaven has going for it is accurate swordplay.

Great video Nick. 👍 One thing you don't get in the theatrical version is that Balian had combat experience as shown in the Directors cut. Talking to the German dude in the home village forge he's asked what experience he has, and the reply is "on horse, and as an enginer ". Presume siege engines there. Spot on with the rest of it though. Keep it coming 😊👍

i think the movie just portrays the templers, ree, and Reynald de chattion as the bad guys. tiberias balian and The King all are portrayed as people who push for peace between the two sides.

this movie should only be watched in the directors cut, and then its a masterpiece

@presidentfresh448

3 жыл бұрын

the directors cut is complete in youtube

@pabloruedafernandez2093

3 жыл бұрын

what's the difference?

@padmaraman2796

3 жыл бұрын

True dat

@alexpenalo4684

3 жыл бұрын

I have seen the director's cut on KZread and I can say it's still not a masterpiece. The shots are great but it still misrepresent the time period and the poeple of the time. This movie reminds me of the film Avatar. Where the shots and effects are amazing but the story telling is filled with cliches and has bad story telling.

@MrFarnanonical

3 жыл бұрын

Masterpiece? Its post modern garbage. The directors cut doesn't solve any of the problems he mentioned. The movie looks nice and the costumes were very good, maybe the best overall depiction of the high middle ages on film, ever made. That doesn't change the fact that the story itself was made to smear western society and christianity.

To the movie's defense: A lot of explanations got lost in the theatrical versions. You should watch the Director's cut. Balian is a war engineer. But I know, it still doesn't respect history.

@CptChaos-ju8ix

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sea-zu4bj and that was exactly what he was. Going to battle with Baldwin at Carrack would have cost him dearly. He was not a fanatic, but an exceptional strategist - militarily and politically.

@EduardoFerreira-gi7wo

3 жыл бұрын

I watched the Director's cut and i still find it problematic with story telling

@chainmbl4257

3 жыл бұрын

The movie still has many problems with it

@jimalbi

3 жыл бұрын

@@Wolcott Well, that WAS part of the original movie. But someone the studio got rid of it.

@TheOldBlackShuckyDog

3 жыл бұрын

It's difficult to entertain a modern audience whilst being true to history. Not impossible, but in some respects like with the directors cut, its better just to get the historical flavour and focus on making a decent movie

Catholic here, some corrections: Firstly: he granted a plenary indulgence, which is not an ultimate guarantee of Heaven. It is a remission of all past sins, and an elimination of time due in Purgatory up to the point. If you sin mortally or otherwise after that, it begins to add up. Secondly: for the 5th commandment, the Hebrew verb רצח‎ (ratsakh) is the word in the original text actually translates as "murder". Not 'kill' as is contemporarily circulated in our Protestantised humanistic readings of the Bible. Very different consequences.

The directors cut is a way better version. Just watched it today. Fills in a lot of holes and makes it more digestible. Would love to see a revisit for a review.

@ratatoskr9366

5 ай бұрын

The directors cut is a better film for sure, but it doesn't fix the major historical inaccuracies the film portrays.

@hameed

5 ай бұрын

It’s insane how much people overrate the directors cut and act like it fixes every with the film. The backbone of the film is still awful

@tomfromtoonami3269

5 ай бұрын

@@hameed yeah sure, but at least it's not napoleon

Teacher: Get out your workbooks Me: Let us overthrow this tyrannical teacher Class: *GOD WILLS IT*

@Zionisthunter

4 жыл бұрын

Actually is should be "Deus Vult" it was the latin phrase for "Allah Akbar"

@stevefranks9873

4 жыл бұрын

This comment made me laugh a little too hard.

@gandalfthegrey2592

4 жыл бұрын

@@Zionisthunter no its not.

@gandalfthegrey2592

4 жыл бұрын

@@Zionisthunter Deus Vult is not Allah Akbar, Deus Vult is God wills it.

@Zionisthunter

4 жыл бұрын

@@gandalfthegrey2592 lol you know nothing! It was there battlecry similar to how Muslims use Allah Akbar!

I'm really surprised this channel hasn't done an updated version with the directors cut.

@royalblue5367

2 жыл бұрын

It is a far better film, and one of my favourites. But in terms of historical accuracy (which is very much this channel's prime purview) it's a scant improvement.

@oliverhemmings1978

2 жыл бұрын

@@royalblue5367 Yeah but, there's so many points he stresses over that are not issues in the Directors cut and they all create more accurate world building. Ridley Scott has full on disowned this cut, its dog shit.

@segagenysis6918

2 жыл бұрын

@@royalblue5367 The director's cut adds too much humanity to the film. The original was far more grounded, disconnected and stoic.

@israelcampos1856

Жыл бұрын

@@segagenysis6918 What's wrong with have some humanity?

@segagenysis6918

Жыл бұрын

@@israelcampos1856 Humanity is good. I meant in the sense that there's too much exposition.

It may only be in the directors cut, I’m not sure but…a lot of your points are made null as it is made clear he has served in cavalry, on foot and as an engineer in France before going to the holy land.

Very, very late to the party, but I can only assume that he didn't see the director's cut. Some of the issues he went on (and on and on) about, such as Balian's military services as a combat engineer.

I dont know about England, but most of Europe wasn't game of thrones. Bastards sons were acknoledge and recognized all the time, and inherited. Full noble houses were begun from bastard, for gods sake. So yeah, maybe medieval england was like Game of Thrones, but most of Europe wasn't. The rest, I can agree on.

@niccolorichter1488

4 жыл бұрын

No in 13 century

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

In earlier periods, sometimes, depending on where you're talking about. But by the period in which this movie takes place, the 1180s, that has started to come to an end.

@alextrust1186

4 жыл бұрын

I love this series but he's got so many things wrong in this video and honestly it hurt for me to sit through it.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@alextrust1186 I agree. I really like this channel, but this video is really awful.

@joshuapray

23 күн бұрын

@@alextrust1186 Agreed. That was painful (and so angry, which just made it that much worse).

about balian being abruptly appointed commander- hey, i do this shit all the time in crusader kings. invite a whole bunch of commoners to court, 6 with best combat stats get generalships, everyone else gets married off matrilineary into poland.

@druegnor

7 жыл бұрын

~ damned right!! who looks at experience and lineage when its the stats that matter in Crusaders Kings =P

@Django333

7 жыл бұрын

I guess it's good that video games have nothing to do with real life.

@undac9590

7 жыл бұрын

true - sometimes when I play games like TW or EU I'm worse than Stalin because I think of numbers, not actual individuals. I wonder if that was the case for terrible leaders as well.

@rasalasad

7 жыл бұрын

lol yup that's how its done in CK

@Talshere88

7 жыл бұрын

+Undac Sometimes a monster is required to keep the horrors from your door. Just look at Iraq. We removed a bad man. Even those against the war agree he was a bad man. But his cruelty was keeping in check something far worse. It is a sad truth that sometimes being good is simply not enough.

The Topography is wrong too. Jerusalem is a city on hills/mountains with an escarpment between it and Jericho. There isn't any large open flat plains to have the long-range bombardment depicted in the movie.

The Hospitaller is a angel which adds just a little bit of spiritual mystery and I really like.

I'm a history student who is focusing on and writing a paper on the Crusades and I will say that this movie might give 1492 a run for its money when it comes to historical inaccuracy. For starters, the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is an event that is simply too massive to be depicted in a movie. It really was a Game of Thrones style period of intrigue and backstabbing that would take three hours just to provide context, let alone show the fall. Lets get the major inaccuracies out first. Balian of Ibelin was not a bastard and lived his whole life (as far as we are aware) in the Holy Land. Baldwin would never have worn such a stupid outfit considering his body was covered with sores. Queen Sibilla did actually love Guy of Lusignan and it was because of this love that Guy became king. Guy was the last man anyone wanted to be king and actually forces Sibilla to divorce Guy before she could be crowned on the condition that she got to pick the next king. She chose Guy much to the horror of the kingdom. Raynald of Chatillion was a kill crazy bastard but he never killed Saladin's sister. The real reason the Saladin killed Raynald was because Raynald had actually financed a pirating expedition into the Red Sea with the objective of sacking Mecca. This failed and Saladin, who had proclaimed himself to be the protector of Islam, was forced to declare jihad against the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Keep in mind that this is the most basic stuff. I could go on for hours on what this film gets wrong between the crusader costumes being used interchangeably with those of the Templars or the part where Baldwin is seen walking but this comment is long enough. I am glad that you called attention to bullshit of this movie.

@TheSlayer.

7 жыл бұрын

Michael Reikes Is just a movie you know.

@tjanders

7 жыл бұрын

Nonsense, this is a muslim propaganda movie. Ridley Scott was threatened with bombing to rewrite the script by muslims.

@alyssa8767

7 жыл бұрын

Michael Reikes qq

@Knight37385

7 жыл бұрын

I recommend the book @The Crusades seen by the ARABS *roughly translated, it also explains that Raynald disrespected several pacts and he actually was the one that influenced King Guy with his politics rather the other way around.

@atomichobbit7358

7 жыл бұрын

Knight37385 I actually got that book Hanukkah last year. I really like it.

ive always liked the movie, but have always seen it more as a fantasy movie.

@GabiN64

7 жыл бұрын

same

@Asheriancommand

7 жыл бұрын

You are an idiot if you think that is what he means.

@metatv2273

7 жыл бұрын

+Ace Delizo that's not what he meant dude

@TSmith-yy3cc

7 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@feiticeirafatale561

7 жыл бұрын

Exactly, I`m no history expert, but it was clearly that being historical accurate aint one of the goals of this movie. I would even call it romantic before anything else. I have just watched it two weeks ago for the first time and now cant stop thinking about it ever since. While I agree that Crusaders have been pointed one-sided and cruel, I think its more about a fact that Crusaders eventually failed, heck, Austrians captured King Richard and demanded ransom, so Ridley took that into account. Movie is painting bigger picture here, its portrait of something more than just Kingdom of Jerusalem.

That was a great intro! Very well done

I really loved the cavalry charge lead by Napoleon himself, such an epic preamble of his Napoleon's movie !

I like how Nick points out the mass conversion of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa during the period of Muslim expansion. It really shines a light on a historical trend that is seldom discussed in popular discourse.

@forickgrimaldus8301

3 жыл бұрын

People tend to forget that the Muslim Empire was well an empire and got land anyway they can and that it split some time later forming many Califates and Sulatanates in the process.

@PriestOfFilm

3 жыл бұрын

It was a clash of civilisations that were both vying for regional and international dominance. The endless push-pull of the tides of history. The Persian Empire aggressed the Greeks, the Greeks aggressed the Persians, the Romans aggressed the Greeks, the Steppe Hordes aggressed the Romans, then the Islamic Invasions aggressed Christian and Jewish societies, and invaded Christian lands. A response is almost as certain as tides coming in after receding. Nothing is ever static, and nothing is truly forgotten.

@fabiandimaspratamathesecond

2 жыл бұрын

Political correctness, that's why.

@m33a

2 жыл бұрын

I disagree with both the movie and nick's analysis ,nick missed the point that indeed the muslim world under saladin regime was relatively more tolerant and pregressive compared to the christian states at the time ,the first conquest of jerussalem by arabs was completely bloodless ,the christian citizens and pilgrims got relatively nice treatment from the muslim rulers compared to how other minorities were treated in the other parts of earth .but only after the turk takeover of muslim world things became more chaotic ,the minorities got a lot of oppressions and discriminations(just like how in europe or everywhere else at that time) .this harsh treatment by the turks was the one ignited this crusade .but than after the the saladin rule ,things got better again hence this movie portayed the muslims as "not evil"

@m33a

2 жыл бұрын

The movie didnt even villainize the christians unlike what he implied ,it only portrayed the templars for how they were ,notice how wise king baldwin and his men are in this movie .and its the fact that medieval muslim world was far more progressive than medieval christendoms with its "nice" tolerance on religious and racial diversity (turks r the exception) ,so the movie portrayal of christian-muslim relation in medieval time is actually quite fair and accurate

The 6th commandment. The actual Hebrew is you shall not Murder. There is a difference between kill and murder in Hebrew.

@jeffbenton6183

5 жыл бұрын

I agree that that distinction is important. Though I still think his statement is on point, that all the in-fighting of the time is hard to justify from a Christian standpoint; which is why the Catholic Church may have wanted to put a stop to it.

@Liberator130

5 жыл бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 I suggest reading "God's Battalions" by Rodney Stark. The Crusades were not started by the Christians, and the push back was to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

@jeffbenton6183

5 жыл бұрын

@@Liberator130 Thanks. As a Catholic, I would like to read that perspective. Though another historian I like to follow seemed to imply that's the wrong way to view that history, so I'll keep an open mind.

@jeffbenton6183

5 жыл бұрын

While I'm at it, I should add this to what the OP said: we Catholics call it "the 5th commandment" rather than the 6th. Instead of separating the "no other gods before me" and the business with graven images, we seperate the coveting of neighbor's goods from neighbor's wife. A small distinction, having nothing at all to do with the I'd point, but I felt I should mention it, now that I noticed it.

@Liberator130

5 жыл бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 Stark does cites a lot of sources and argues well for his perspective on history.

I mean, to be fair, common sense dictates to not move thousands of soldiers away from a water source, especially during a battle. You don't need a military background to know that men don't fight well when they're dying of thirst

This movie was awesome and it was not BORING.

Do Star Wars! It takes place a long time ago.

@mrelephant2283

7 жыл бұрын

so fake, i meant true

@lainelliott1839

7 жыл бұрын

ronald Mcdonald Aren't these supposed to be based on something that actually happened? I dunno I might be wrong there.

@ronaldmcdonald7379

7 жыл бұрын

Lain Elliott You have been trolled! Good day sir! I say, good day!

@mrelephant2283

7 жыл бұрын

Lain Elliott ...

@lainelliott1839

7 жыл бұрын

If your getting star wars I want reel steel that shit takes place in 2014. That's history right?

Also, the real Balian was middle-aged at this time. They should've had Liam Neeson play Balian, and be the main character. Bloom could've stayed as a young French knight, coming to the Holy Land for the first time, to be the fish-out-of-water who asks a lot of questions. The best thing about this movie is the armour, which they got mostly right (including details like a cylindrical skullcap under a mail coif, which I've not seen in another movie). Though Bloom too often has his head uncovered to show off his pretty face and Breck girl hair.

@kevshabunas523

5 жыл бұрын

Technically the Balian in the movie encompass a few people from the period, they condensed about 50 years of history into one movie that takes place over at most 2-3 years.

@russbennett5470

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah that was great that they did that but I'd really like it if movie's would stop showing mail armor getting cut open like it's butter

@TylerDurden-bb8lw

4 жыл бұрын

Alas, Neesons only has a particular set of skills, and would not have known how to solve the multiple problems plaguing the holy land at the time (like farming and irrigation) thereby plunging the land into such catastrophes as famine and pestilence

@maggiesmith2600

4 жыл бұрын

Balian was also not a blacksmith but a relative by marriage of King Baldwin.

@rrt4511

4 жыл бұрын

Bloom should've played Neesons father

I've been binging old history buffs videos for past 4 hours, I think new video is around the corner. It is time.

This movie is filled with awesome actors that really fit the theme of the movie

What about Saladin? In history, he really was an extremely noble man. Treated women fairly, allowed Christians to keep their land and faith, and strook a weird friendship with Lionheart. He died with only 1 gold coin and 36 silver dinari. Dante put him in Limbo and named him Noble Saladin.

@mr.fantastic6568

3 жыл бұрын

The movie portrayed the muslim king accurately History buffs only wanted to talk the inaccurate stuffs and the bad writing

@vicenzostella1390

3 жыл бұрын

@@mr.fantastic6568 Gotcha. but he could have mentioned it a bit.

@pyry1948

Жыл бұрын

Im sure he treated the thousands of women he put to slavery after taking Jerusalem very fairly.

@vicenzostella1390

Жыл бұрын

@@pyry1948 Can't argue with that

@darkness2643

Жыл бұрын

@@pyry1948а десятки тысяч убитых мусульман. Когда крестоносцы захватили Иерусалим они некого не пощадили

Damn Wilhelm screams. I hear them in my sleep.

@rhomaios7548

8 жыл бұрын

Proteus same

@MochitoMaker

8 жыл бұрын

+Basileius Now i know how it's called! THANK YOU! I SPENT YEARS wondering WHAT THAT SOUND IS!

@rhomaios7548

8 жыл бұрын

One-Two No problem.

I just finished watching this film yesterday and it kept my interest throughout the 3 hour runtime which says a lot about a film's quality. I can understand the historical inaccuracies complains about this film.

this video just makes me want to rewatch kingdom of heaven, A+ movie really

In the beginning, his blacksmith forge, Balian did mention that he fought in multiple wars, "on horse and as an engineer also", "for one lord against another over a point which cannot be remembered". So his knowledge of strategy and siege weaponry.

Directors cut negates a lot of your issues with the movie.

@drjulia6860

4 жыл бұрын

So he doesn't get proposed to by Sybilla's brother and she actually sides with her husband, a man to whom she historically remained loyal? Does she also die soon after the city falls? As Nick says, this film is bollocks.Looks gorgeous though.

@jaimegutierrezjag78

4 жыл бұрын

@Jason Strom its been 17 years since he movie came out the directors cut is now acceptable

@burnwankenobi803

4 жыл бұрын

Jason Strom does anyone say that about the lotr extended editions? That they don’t matter? You make no sense

@troybonner91

4 жыл бұрын

@Jason Strom LOTR Extended Editions anyone???

@Sarnatuile

4 жыл бұрын

@Jason Strom Maybe because it's not meant to be historically accurate, but just an entertaining film? I know, bizarre.

The dark and grey tones of the beginning are more to reflect the state of Balian's depression, the first part of the movie, the one in France, is the part that was mostly cut from the theatrical release. On the director's cut, both Balian and Godfrey have flashbacks of their past (Balian with his wife and Godfrey with Balian's mother) in both flashbacks, the colors of the same town are alive, with trees in full bloom and all the vegetation green, making the contrast when both characters were living a more happy lifetime, and it also reflects the town in another season, not the wintery place we see on the movie. Also the director's cut takes more time to explain the grief and loss of Balian and the disputes Godfrey has with the current lord, his older brother. Also they take the time to add an actual medieval song of the crusader period in old french when they both have a flashback. I thought that artistic decision had more to do to explain the tone of grief rather than painting Europe as a backward place compared with the East. Also they explain that Balian was an artificer not only a blacksmith who had experience in warfare and horse riding.

@user-wl1uz5sb9f

Жыл бұрын

That could actually be, perfectly plausible. However, once you see the total butchering of the poor Guy of Lusignan, in which I can only think of one reason for making him such a jerk which is because of the very yawning western civilization = bad, eastern = good, and since he lost anyway in the battle of Hattin to good guy Saladin, he serves perfectly as the antagonist and for a feel good for the good guys to win. I would say mehhhhh, don't know. The movie seems to have a bias. My Occam's razor makes me side with Mr history buffs on this one.

@victorcano1289

8 ай бұрын

​@@user-wl1uz5sb9f so your Occam's razor makes you go to a very convoluted theory where a non middle eastern director somehow has an ideological agenda to put the east as the good guys, wow, you need to actually understand what occam's razor means. My explanation is actually the simplest one, a director is basically a mere artits that its main goal is to portray feelings of the characters in an artistic way, which is basically what I explained. Also, Hollywood movies need to have simple stories (that sell tickets), with a defined antagonist; clearly, Saladin wouldn't fit in that role, since every single text from the period describes him as a chivalrous, even his enemies spoke about him with respect. That is why he couldn't be an antagonist. The same thing happens in Gladiator. Just because Commodus is depicted as a bad guy with so many creative liberties in how he is depicted, a murderer, pedophile, patricidal and insecure, does that mean Gladiator has some convoluted political agenda? I guess not. Also what if one western character is a jerk, isn't Balian, Baldwin, the Hospitaller and Tiberias all are brave, chivalrous and honorable. So tell me how all westerners are portrayed only as bad.

@joshuapray

23 күн бұрын

Totally agree. But apparently we are only allowed to have the most literal takes possible. 'It's grey so that means Europe bad!' This review was absurd.

The movie was made and released during the heights of the US invasion of Iraq and if I remember correctly Ridley Scott made the movie with that in mind. Hence Western European Christians and Muslims are portrayed the way they were. He wanted to sort of draw parallels between the movie and what was going on at the time in the Middle East.

The director's cut and theater version is so different, like day and night. The director's cut is very good movie.

@godzilla964

7 жыл бұрын

I hate when that happens. Just release the film as the director intended.

@Rrgr5

7 жыл бұрын

how different it is? more accurate?

@CCTV9

7 жыл бұрын

Henrique Souza Its just a much better movie. Flows better and some key plot points are in. Think studios are under pressure from execs and movie theaters to make movies under 2 and a half hours so they can do more showings. Same thing happened to Batman v Superman.

@descoiatorul

7 жыл бұрын

To be at least mediocre, this movie would have to replace half the script with actual good writing. I doubt a few extra scenes can fix that, flow or no flow.

@N4pster14

7 жыл бұрын

the credits say that footage of the directors cut was used. however, the credits also say that another guy edited the video, so its possible that the guy you hear talking didnt see the directors cut. and i honestly think he didnt see it because he complains about stuff that is explained in the directors cut.

Anyone seen the Director's Cut? Heard it's way better.

@simonkevnorris

7 жыл бұрын

After you've watched the Director's Cut you won't want to ever watch the original again. It 'fleshes' out some of the characters. Without spoilers - the relationship between Balian and the Priest is revealed as is the relationship between Liam Neeson's character and the lord of the area. There are also extended bits with Isabella.

@Dezdicardo

7 жыл бұрын

If you watch the original the movie seems really fast, like half of it is missing. Then you watch the DC and learn that half the movie WAS missing. Some significant bits of the main story are different in the DC as well.

@polrjenaimarre9522

7 жыл бұрын

totally agree

@diggencash9039

7 жыл бұрын

WAY WAY better!

@tombombadilofficial

7 жыл бұрын

WAY WAY WAY BETTER!

Great review! you covered everything that bothered me when I first saw this film.

17:15 Yes they would. Ever heard of William the Conqueror? Oh, there were only a couple dozen revolts during his reign.

7:24 Excuse me, but are those men wearing a mail coif without padding? Wouldn't that be extremely uncomfortable and completely inaccurate as to how you actually use mail?

@renkol123

8 жыл бұрын

+Dean Goldenstar You make me smile. The missing arming caps makes me sad inside. You are completely correct.

@deangoldenstar7997

8 жыл бұрын

+ThatBeardedGuy Thanks for confirming it. Would have been embarrassing if I was wrong XD

@farmerboy916

8 жыл бұрын

Not to mention it would be fairly ineffective at actually protecting you; it would perhaps turn aside blows which would have cut you, but you'd just get massive concussions instead.

@lavrentivs9891

8 жыл бұрын

+Dean Goldenstar If he'd go into all those small errors in the films he discusses, then each video would take hours =)

@deangoldenstar7997

8 жыл бұрын

Lavrentivs I know, it's just a personal gripe I have with a lot of movies.

You are reviewing the butchered version. The studio forced Ridley Scott to cut out great plot points and character development. The director's cut version is a masterpiece.

@1996koke

5 жыл бұрын

but still has some historical mistakes

@L1b3rta

5 жыл бұрын

@@1996koke Some? The entire movie was a historical mistake, and Ridley Scott should be ashamed for it.

@Heyitzj0sh

5 жыл бұрын

@@1996koke its a fucking movie of course they're going to sacrifice some historical accuracy for entertainment

@neinno8172

5 жыл бұрын

@@L1b3rta It's not a fucking documentary. Like most of these movies, it is vaguely based on the historical context for the purpose of the movie. There isn't much to be ashamed of.

@leroyalomnivore7168

5 жыл бұрын

jorge .espinosa de los monteros what are the mistakes? I can’t seem to find a clear cut telling of what was bullshit

It's abysmally inaccurate yes, but I wouldn't say it's an abysmal film.

For some reason I keep seeing Kingdom of Heaven shorts with Baldwin recently and then this video was randomly recommended. I've been watching history Buffs for a while so it makes sense that I got one of these videos but it's more Kingdom of Heaven stuff. I don't know why. I don't get it.

My thoughts 2 mins into this video: "Damn, I actually liked the movie"

@emadSciFi

2 жыл бұрын

Same here, although I changed my mind after teaching some history at university level. Terry Jones's documentary about the crusades was the best!!

@TiboFPS

2 жыл бұрын

I still like this movie but I just accept that it’s not historically perfect. I think we’re at a point where these characters are entering mythology, especially due to movies like this

@toiletdeer2040

2 жыл бұрын

Same, but I still like the movie

Fuck me sideways, that's actually a 55-second intro

@fritzorino

7 жыл бұрын

yup

@axlefoxe

7 жыл бұрын

that opening is epic is epic as hell.

@atiqahdiyana5665

7 жыл бұрын

that's one epic 55 second intro

@frankylopez2375

7 жыл бұрын

What's the name of the intro song

@flankspeed

7 жыл бұрын

"Palladio"

I have to disagree with a couple things you said. I watched the movie last night, they don’t openly say that he took part in sieges before Jerusalem but it’s heavily implied while he is still in his hometown. Apparently he was an engineer for siege machines

What movie is the scene of the naval warfare between all those ships from?

wait, History should be told without a PC bias? next they'll be telling me that the moon is round, the Eiffel tower is in France, and the sky is blue.

@constantinediomedes6277

8 жыл бұрын

the moon is a sphere xD and its not a perfect sphere

@moregasmthepowerful2959

7 жыл бұрын

+Roтary Oblate Spheroid is the technical term.

@sokandueler9578

7 жыл бұрын

I was being sarcastic, lol. I know that the actual shape of the moon.

@constantinediomedes6277

7 жыл бұрын

so was i, well kinda,

@jameslegrand848

7 жыл бұрын

well the germans hate to talk about the jewish genocide and same goes for the turks and the Japanese. its not PC its for people who want history to forget there mistakes.

Please watch the directors cut. The director’s cut is a rich, fleshed-out product that is, in my opinion, a cinematic masterpiece. It also includes time lapses and answers most of your complaints.

@gorazdvahen492

4 жыл бұрын

I saw the director's cut, It explains Orlando's military experience, partaking in his lord's wars, but not much else. and he was still a Merry sue and the movie even more boring. Sorry.

@prof_kaos9341

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, this is an odd review. The film became incoherent after having an hour cut out(see directors cut). Apart from the love affair and Ballin actually being the legitimate younger son of Barisan of Ibelin, lord of most of modern Israel, the film is very historically accurate once out of Europe, Isn't the point of this channel historical accuracy?

@lastblueride5

4 жыл бұрын

​@@prof_kaos9341 This is not really a review. Just a rant about "Oh I hate how they demonize Christians but portray the Muslims as heroes."

@kelvinphillips7140

4 жыл бұрын

@@lastblueride5 Not really. I watched the part where he said both sides were at fault. It just that this film has an agenda that it executes poorly.

@imlonelypleasehelp5443

4 жыл бұрын

TectonicX not really, sounds like you don’t know much about Nic or history.

10:31 So, at this point, we're not just talking history; it's all about personal opinions. I don't see this movie as just painting one side as the bad guys and the other as the heroes. It's flipping the script, you know? In the West, we've always seen the Crusaders and the Templars as the good guys, like it's 'our side' against 'the evil ones.' But this movie? It's throwing a curveball. Sure, Muslims made moves like trying to take France and grabbing Spain and Portugal, but that doesn't change the game. Yeah, some Crusaders were just in it for the fame and fortune, but it doesn't make us suddenly root for the Muslims because, hey, they're still the enemy, right? This flick really messes with that whole narrative we're used to. It's like, 'Whoa, hold up, maybe it's not that simple. I say that cause it was my reacting watching it the first time.

@yoloswaggins7121

26 күн бұрын

I'm not sure when this movie came out but the crusaders are not really considered the "good guys" these days.

It took me a second to realize he didn't tackle the Director's Cut or the Roadshow version. Would love to see that video.

Big respect for being factual over PC. Great job : )

@ph0kused

5 жыл бұрын

agree

@nathanbruce1992

5 жыл бұрын

Rationality Rules: always at least one people who whines about PC every time they can

@shitsandgiggles9996

5 жыл бұрын

Nathan Bruce people would not be bitching about PC culture constantly if PC advocits stoped forcing their believes down people's throutes. it doesn't help that many government's are making PC doctrine into law. for example, in the UK if you say something that "can be interpretive as offensive" you can be fined or even be imprisoned the government!

@ashleywallace1165

5 жыл бұрын

Somebody needs to study Salah ad-Din.

@thornefedeli7307

5 жыл бұрын

100% PC free History

You know you are unbiased when both sides hate you. Congratulations.

@TheAlps36

6 жыл бұрын

In historical retelling you have to accept and acknowledge both the good and the bad on both sides otherwise you're just telling a legend

@justinianalexios7096

6 жыл бұрын

Presenting the historical inaccuracies of the movie is one thing. Expecting to be spoon-fed every single detail of a blacksmith's journey from France to the siege of Jerusalem in a 3 hour movie is just moronic. All in all, this was a bad review of a good movie.

@Comintern1919

6 жыл бұрын

@01001100 01001010 This isn't a review of the movie, though. More an analysis based on it's historical accuracy (or the lack thereof in the case of this movie). And in this regard, this movie couldn't fall harder. Of course, he's just human, so his personal bias will influence his view on the movie itself, and how he talks about it and the plot besides the historical aspect. That doesn't make his points about the historical aspect wrong, though.

@azn3000

6 жыл бұрын

He's not really unbiased though. He falls into the fallacy of depicting the various Islamic states that existed up to the Crusades as one conglomerate unified in its actions and goals toward Europe. The Battle of Tours is pretty much the last major military move by any Islamic state to attempt to conquer Central Europe. He mentions the "sack of Rome" in the 9th century (an incredibly intellectually dishonest statement) but the city itself was never sacked, the Aurielian Walls prevented that. Only the outskirts were. The "sack" itself was perpetuated by raiders from the Aghlabids emirate in modern day Tunisia. A polity that was independent from the Abbasid Caliphate who was more preoccupied with fighting the Byzantine Empire. We can't just look at the actions of a small polity and believe it to be the actions of a far larger culture across a wider geography. If he truly wanted to do the "both sides were bad" argument then maybe he should've talked about how the Seljuk Turks were attacking both Muslim and Christian alike when they invaded the Middle East despite being Muslim themselves.

@azn3000

6 жыл бұрын

+LordVader1094 When he says that small detail, he's referring to the period just before the Crusades. He does not make this distinction during his little "anti-PC" rant. You also fall into this generalization fallacy. You guys are so focused on the fact that because they were Muslim, it means ALL of Islam was being aggressive against Europe. In Iberia, the Muslim states there didn't have grand plans to conquer Europe, they were content with their rule in Iberia and also had to contend with their own internal issues. I don't know which states you'd be referring to when talking about Greece, considering that no Muslim state existed in Greece until the Ottomans in the 1400s, but you're most likely referring to their precursors the Seljuk Turks. The Turks being Muslim was a minor difference for them in the grand scheme of warfare. They were a steppe peoples that were migrating from Central Asia, they invaded the Eastern Roman Empire because their lifestyles up to that point encouraged raiding for additional resources. Honestly, I'm surprised that no one has decided to go to the other side of the coin with this argument and talked about Christian aggression against Islam. In the 11th century, Muslim Sicily fell to the Normans, never again to reenter that cultural sphere. In Spain, the Christians soon ransacked the Muslim states there overtime. Afterwards, they forced all Muslims to either leave or convert. Then in Anatolia, before the entry of the Turks, the Roman Empire was occasionally making ground against the Abbasids and various emirates in the area. Then there's the matter of the Crusades over the next few centuries. A stupid argument like this ignores the intricacies, nuance, and time span between these various events. It's incredibly problematic when people decide to justify history by looking off on a checklist, cherry picking the events they want to fit their argument and just using broad brushstrokes in order to fit their present day world view.

I think people need to watch the Director's Cut. The difference between it and the theatrical version are night and day. So many questions are answered that made no sense before.

Well in those days there was common sense and intuitiveness. Not just someone in a chair and keyboard complaining about a simple story while waiting for him mom to make him a sandwich as he can't figure out a twist lid on the peanut butter.