Comments on: Kingdom of Heaven

By: dopderbeck

dopderbeck — Sun, 08 May 2005 22:09:56 +0000

I haven’t seen it yet, and probably won’t until it’s only DVD, but just because we never get out to movies anymore. But really, what do you expect from a hollywood film with hottie actors, a ten-part BBC documentary? Anyway, it surprises me that so many Christians seem upset about less-than-accurate portrayals of the Crusades. After all, there’s pretty much nothing for us to admire about them; they stand Jesus’ ethic utterly on its head.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 May 2005 16:55:22 +0000

We need also temper our Crusader knowledge with the Crusades that took place in Europe proper. We all know of Lepanto but how many know of Jan Sobieski’s leadership before Vienna n 1683? Nine sovereign princes from all corners of Christendom came to expel the Infidel.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sat, 07 May 2005 04:35:56 +0000

Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that Bloom “in his character” rather than “Bloom and his character.” I doubt that you have the ability to evaluate Bloom’s personal spirituality, nor do I think you were really attempting to do so. I think Bloom was simply miscast. I think he is a fine actor but not every actor has the ability to play every role.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sat, 07 May 2005 03:27:55 +0000

It was difficult to watch a movie in which there are plenty of crosses, but no Christ, many mentions of God’s will, but little evidence of God’s justice, the seeking of forgiveness from God, but only the infrequent sharing of it with others.
Regardless of any inaccuracies in the movie, with respect to both major sides depicted in the movie, we see a great demonstration of the dangers of civil religion. For so many people throughout history, their “religion” has been their identity, and such identity may at times be related to bravery and valor, but often not to a living faith or to anything remotely resembling the teachings of Christ.

By: Jon Darby

Jon Darby — Fri, 06 May 2005 18:47:40 +0000

I want to see this but I just can’t. I love the historical accounts of the Crusades and just don’t want to see it elfed up.
However, I did recently purchase the DVD of Terry Jones’s documentary on the Crusades and heartily recommend them. Good as history with great Pythonesque humor (though no “We are the Knights who say ‘In Hoc Signus Vinces… and NIH!”)

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 06 May 2005 17:08:02 +0000

As an avid reader of historical accounts of the Crusades, I’m looking forward to seeing Kingdom of Heaven, but with a certain amount of dread. I realize Scott has as much right as anyone to interpret history as anyone else, but from what I’m seeing in reviews, I just hope he hasn’t mangled it too much. Just a few pre-viewing comments though:
1. No king or prince from the 12th Century, not even Saladin, could be seen as living up to modern standards of religious tolerance and human rights. Saladin was an effective ruler, and a decent, magnanimous man for his day. He was also dedicated to jihad, and to deny this would be to slight the man. He was merciful to conquored Christians and Jew because he believed that the Koran taught mercy for those who would submit as dihimmi, and pay the jizya tax. He also accepted the custom of ransom for captured warriors. For those who would neither be dihimmi, nor pay ransom (like captured Templers), he saw no moral problem with killing them. Yes, Saladin was a gentleman for his time, but lets not go overboard in praise.
2. I’m a little put off by the constant “Arabization” of the Crusades. So few of the great Moslem players were really Arabs. Saladin, and the rest of the ibn Ayyub clan, were Kurds, Kilidj Arslan and al-Zengi were Seljuk Turks, and even Baibars and his mamluks were Kipchak Turks. It was the Turkish conquest of Anatolia that was the tripwire to start the whole thing, and the last Crusades were in South-Eastern Europe fighting the Ottoman Turks. Most of the time, Arabs were bit players in this drama. Heck, the Turks did most of the work, and ended up kicking the Crusader’s collective butts. Why is it that Arabs seem to dominate the “Islamic” point of view?
3. Reynauld of Kerak was indeed a “thug”, or perhaps better put, a stereotypical Medieval robber baron. Though supposedly the vassal of the King of Jerusalem, he was beyond the King’s control and plundered whoever he wished. For sheer brazenness, how can you beat hauling boats across the desert to the Red Sea, then roving the Coast of Yemen to rob Moslems on pilgrimage to Mecca? He was a brigand and a pirate, and I have no problem with showing him as a “bad guy”. He was a bad guy, by any standard at any time.
4. If Scott portrays the Templers as rabid fanatics, I think he’s a little out of it. They were certainly dedicated warrior monks, but they were a disciplined bunch, and certainly a lot more obedient to the King of Jerusalem than most of the secular knights in the Kingdom. Yes, the Master of the Temple gave reckless advice to King Guy before the Battle of Hattin, but Guy was a fool anyway, and the Templers didn’t cause the war.

By: Hyscience

Hyscience — Fri, 06 May 2005 15:41:49 +0000

On “Kingdom of Heaven”

Joshua at InTheAgora posted today on Hollywood’s latest distortion of history, The Kingdom of Heaven. Apparently he attended a pre-screening of the film, was able to actually sit through it to the end, and offers the following review:

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 May 2005 12:55:37 +0000

Reynald was a thug? There were plenty of Templars at Hattin with as much blood on their hands or the desire to have as much.

By: John

John — Fri, 06 May 2005 12:50:39 +0000

Good review, Josh.