I pray you retire unharmed to Damascus

I swear it. Withdraw, or we all die here.

Attached: 61811-1532336916.jpg (640x360, 43K)

Other urls found in this thread:

movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3097
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Orlando bloom was horribly miscast and ruins the entire film.

This. Epic tale with real actors who care about their performances. Then there’s Orlando, just there because he’s the pretty guy from lotor. Bloom has no range and is terrible in a leading role.

Reminder.

Attached: kingdom of heaven suck.webm (1920x818, 2.7M)

Why are jews through time and space and across the globe always a problem? Regardless of who or when they turn up? People could just be living and chilling and then jews turn up and suddenly many problems. Then naming them is one of the biggest problem and the people fight each other over this. Pathologically this would be seen as an infection of some sort and the body would immunize itself against such a thing. How can a people be so similar to disease or infection?

>I am who I am... someone has to be

Fak

He was fine wtf

Edward Norton is GOAT

Orlando was OK but eva green was so shit, as she is in everything except casino royale and that mommy film

based Raynald

Because Jews view themselves as separate from non-Jewish society and believe themselves to be better. Simple in-group-out group dynamics.

Remember that scene in the Matrix where Mr. Smith mentions the only living organism that matches the invasive, unbounded nature of viruses or cockroaches is the human race?
Yeah.

Attached: Misc 2.jpg (970x545, 50K)

George Lincoln Rockwell compares them to a tapeworm, and says that the greatest danger to a parasite's well-being is being detected.

A parasitical evolutionary strategy acted out and codified into genetic history over thousands of years. That's what that racist guy said, anyway.

Attached: rockwell handshake.jpg (736x528, 34K)

Why did rotten tomatoes nuke this film?

Best Director's Cut of any film ever.

I am SALUHDEEN.
SALAHUDEEEN.

how so? is the theatric cut that bad?

It's shit compared to the Director's Cut. The DC is easily the best shit Ridley has done since Gladiator. It's also up on HBOGo now if you haven't seen it. Find the original one and it's under Extras.

movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3097

NOTHING
IT'S WORTH EVERYTHING

Attached: dr pablo.jpg (1920x1080, 120K)

garbage movie
Alexander is better

Attached: 1553745119460.png (1201x796, 955K)

That is the only scene I watched of Alexander, by pure chance, and it was kino
>WHY ARE WE FORCED TO MATE WITH THESE BROWN APES!?

Orlando Bloom wasn't great. But he was alright.

Who's a contemporary actor that would have been better?

Reminder that washing is NOT adultery

Attached: not adultery only washing.jpg (1278x550, 50K)

Idris Elba

Jaden Smith, if this movie was remade today

dangerously based and faithpilled

kikes can't help being cunts no matter where they show up

Attached: 1494295139458.jpg (780x750, 118K)

>kikes can't help being cunts no matter where they show up
Every monotheistic religion actually

kek

>Nothing
>starts walking away
>wait fuck, i didn't mean that
>Uh, I mean everything.

Nothing financially, or even strategically, but everything culturally

this is a jewess

>when white people follow a jewish religion
c r i n g e

Yes, you are right user.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-04-25-04h29m07s144__01.png (890x800, 811K)

Why was Saladdin such a pussy? If I were him I'd have slaughtered every enemy soldiers and enslaved all the able bodied civilians. Then I'd have destroyed every church and build mosques instead
Seriously, people praise him for being good hearted but in truth he was a waster of opportunities

Watch Penny Dreadful

what an impious slut

Attached: inCollage_20190512_185247307.jpg (1920x1920, 2.5M)

Sam Worthington.

Ayyubids were based

small brain
big brain. not even the most important city in medieval Palestine.

Sufism hadn't been invented yet
Muslims were still normal people, much closer to their Christian cousin religion than the modern Muslims

Baldwin is best boy

Attached: 1531264193_Darkest_7a254e_6445601.gif (400x300, 214K)

They are biding their time until they fuck up so colossally that a Mega Hitler finally terminates them all

If you subscribe to the idea that he was a demon and/or just following God's plan, then I think this line becomes pretty good.

Heath Ledger. He was the best part of a knights tale and obviously was more than capable of acting in a serious role.

>muslims normal people
>radical islam stems from sufism
thats a backwards way of thinking about it, since islam was radical at it's inception and most the divides within it came with mohammeds death and the wars between caliphs. There were a number of attempted genocides in the muslim world from 700AD onwards.

Incidentally this also describes white people pretty well.

Attached: 300px-American_Progress_(John_Gast_painting).jpg (300x223, 23K)

The Christian Crusader military orders were probably some of the finest solders in existance, at least in the Western hemisphere for hundreds of years.
Their knowledge and ability to build fortresses, and were to place them, made the military orders caoable of defending territory with much smaller forces then they typically wound up facing.
In Open combat, the European knights were as effective as the British soldiers at Rourkes Drift, or the Special forces soldiers during the Black Hawk Down incident in Somolia.
While the Crusaders lost battles, they tended to kill huge numbers of opponents in the process, to the point were NOT making a truce, and allowing them to leave, could have resulted in a Pyrrhic victory, for their opponents.

Warring successors after the death of a conqueror is hardly radical, actually it pretty reoccurring pattern throughout history
The set is during the 1100s, at the peak of the Islamic Golden Age, when Islam has been infused by Greco-Roman philosophies that they acquired from people of the conquered lands of Egypt and the Levant, they were perfectly normal for their time, if not "enlightened"
While the modern day Muslims would be considered backward cretins even back in 1100AD

intelligence, extreme sentience leads to dissatisfaction and curiosity, the outlet for this is typically destructive. We all want to feel like the masters of our time, hence the west's obsession with heroes, and instead of survival we seek purpose. You don't have a purpose in a perfect world, so we make it a shit one and act like we are the cure.

He was fine. Stop regurgitating this fucking circlejerk.

>Alexander is better
it had so much potential but stone dropped the ball by not making it as gay as it should have been. those hugging scenes when they should have tonging down and deep-dicking each others asses are so fucking dumb.

those successor wars are the basis for radical islam, the beginnings of using faith to justify violence even against other muslims, who are the majority of victims of radical islam. And attempted genocide on a faith basis happened as early as 700AD. As for the islamic golden age, mostly that can be attributed to the muslim world having common enemies and putting aside their division, there were already divisions over islamic scholarship and whether it should continue with mathematics or stick to the holy writings.

You mean Salafism/Wahhabism? Sufism is typically love-thy-neighbor, unity-of-being, Buddhism-esque stuff.

Attached: 1558803142575.png (500x547, 132K)

>not casting DiCaprio as Alexander
>casting Jaret Leto as his fuck boy

>Salafism
Fuck me, yes

based loaded question baiting the replies you wanted

underrated my friend

Attached: 1557091157249.jpg (580x580, 196K)

because you're a disgusting bigoted incel

I thought the line was amazing and just took it as a brief break in his psychosis where he was trying to justify what he was doing, to himself.

What's Dhirim worth

yuck, wats wrong with his hand?

Few know that this painting is not symbolic

????????

Any sources or books about this

>he was fine

His acting was so god damn wooden back then and about as charismatic as a bucket. The only reason he was picked for the part was because he was a major pull among girls back then.

>This is your brain on "I have knowledge about islam, trust me"
Kys

>dude the crusaders are badass as fuck lmao
>please forget every other crusade but the first and third
>also the greeks were seriously asking for it
Lmao kill yourself crusadercucks.

I literally dont visit /pol/ anymore, I dont need too ;). Based.

Attached: zulu_2799128a_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg (480x300, 56K)

>Implying a white person wrote that

Nice try moshe.

>Kys
Excellent counterpoint my dude

brehs

smoothbrain detected

can someone give a quick rundown why the director's cut is considered better?

additional scenes? edited differently?

t.homosexual

It is not, just a meme

Pretty sure it ads 1 hour of film.
Never watched the theatrical cut but a buddy mine did and he said the theatrical cut makes no sense because of the cut scenes. It removes a lot of context and because of that it makes it seem like characters are just doing random things with no thought.

>crusaders were ebin and based, unstoppable guided by god
>lost iberia
>north africa
>anatolia
>the levant
>and the balkans

The ten minutes extended anal scene

Attached: PowerDVD10 2016-02-01 02-32-06-55.jpg (1920x1080, 196K)

FPBP. Salahuddin scenes were kino though

the cucksaders could do nothing against the faithful.

When the roastie so toastie she give up the ghostie

I've watched the directors cut about halfway through yesterday, and it was pretty boring, the only good scenes were with Liam Neeson's character and the masked King.
Does the movie get better in the second half or should I not bother picking it back up if I didn't like the first half?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra
>The Siege of Maarat, or Ma'arra, occurred in late 1098 in the city of Ma'arrat al-Numan, in what is modern-day Syria, during the First Crusade. It is infamous for the claims of widespread cannibalism displayed by the Crusaders.

they should have put this in the film.
orlando bloom eating humnan flesh would have really excelled this film.

Attached: banner[1].jpg (1981x748, 572K)

Why would they put the first crusade in it?

The only difference is that whites (or specifically the *nglo scum, more recently) don't leave anyone able to dissent against them after they are finished fucking up other countries.
They are basically what Jews would be with more resources and an established state. I guess we are lucky Israel was only created 70 years ago.

why not?
just combine all of them.
it's hollywood. dude.

I really want to enjoy this movie but the nonsensical negative image of crusaders and positive image of Saladin along with the random progressive themes kill all my interest. They could have done something closer to reality and been much better off.

Attached: 1556984844472.jpg (1080x1414, 178K)

Pattinson

>being this much of a dense /pol/ack
yikes

Attached: Kawaii Bobby B.jpg (1920x1080, 86K)

Attached: le-crociate-9.jpg (449x210, 33K)

Directors Cut is still a mediocre film though. Bad acting and plot, historically inaccurate

Attached: shapeimage_2.png (400x300, 244K)

the whole film is too dark

The whole problem is the comming of age storyline. Why would anyone follow a guy who has no experience in fighting while the land is swarmed by knights who have done nothing else their entire lives. Also his father might have made him a knight that does not mean his lands can go to him. Good histlorical films use history as a background and a set of rules for the story bad historical films change history to be able to frame the story they want.

hitler bad jews bad

>"I will give every soul safe conduct to Christian lands. Every soul. The women, the children,
the old and all your knights and soldiers and your queen."
>"What about the jews?"
>both men start laughing

Attached: 1490912046748.jpg (1000x425, 187K)

Adds a crucial bit of context to an otherwise incoherent movie and also features some of its best scenes

lol

w.t.f. are you on about? the movie obviously tried to show both sides having both negative and positive characters, e.g balon and de chateon or saladin and that black tunic muzzi zealot that advocated war.

Imagine still seething over other people and not realizing that the act of seething makes you a lesser being.

literally the cause of every problem in the world

Attached: the jew.png (1162x9616, 1.04M)

>Why was Saladdin such a pussy? If I were him I'd have slaughtered every enemy soldiers and enslaved all the able bodied civilians
That is literally what actually happened.
All the prisoners after the battle of Hattin were killed except Guy de Lusignan and a few other nobles.
All the inhabitants of Jerusalem were sold into slavery unless they could ransom themselves.
Saladin was a religious fanatic even by the standards of the day, he was just super gay for Richard the Lionheart (who was also a mega homo), so they sent each other letters and gifts.

t. mad incel

Why do you faggots always have to derail every thread with your butthurt?

dilate tranny

Attached: gay nazis.jpg (750x1077, 203K)

Do tapeworms have higher IQs than their hosts?

It's more accurate to say Jews are the brain and whites are like the colon or something

Reminds me of this

Attached: white expulsions.jpg (1357x617, 190K)

>want to see historical epic
>don't want to see modern views projected onto that period
>this makes me a /pol/ack or dense
You must be stopped

Attached: 220px-Barbebleue.jpg (220x275, 29K)

>that last one
kek

Someone post the edit with the moon

It's a henna tattoo methinks

Do you incels ever get bored crying about jews?

There is no reason to treat Saladin in such an imaginary positive way and no reason to treat Balon as some lost progressive hero.

bump

>All the inhabitants of Jerusalem were sold into slavery unless they could ransom themselves.
>Allow the people of Jerusalem to go free
and leave with whatever they can carry if they pay a small ransom
>Religious leaders and nobles pay their own ransom and leave with lots of riches, leaving the poor to slavery like the good christians they are
>some of your own lieutenants are so moved by this, they decide to pay the ransom of a couple hundred of poor citizens of the city
>You are the bad guy tho
The crusaders would have simply genocided the entire city

What modern view do you think is projected in this film? Both sides have religious fanatics which defnitely was one of the reasons why the first crusade had happened. There is no indication that this religious fervor had died down when the third crusade was happening.

god doesn't want us to think - but to act

>Sufism
>hippie Islam
It existed before it was even defined.

cultural appropriation

For the time, this was extremely generous/merciful considering the standard would have been wholesale slaughter.

nobody girds their culture, niggers are the only ones who get assmad when people wear braids lol

>some of your own lieutenants are so moved by this, they decide to pay the ransom of a couple hundred of poor citizens of the city
>a couple hundred
15,000 of those who could not pay the ransom were ransomed into slavery. According to Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, 7,000 of them were men and 8,000 were women and children.
Wow, much mercy, bigly generous

>What modern view do you think is projected in this film?

The condemnation of "religion" and separation of the Christian faith from it. That's a distinctly modern view that developed centuries following the Protestant Reformation.
Also the promotion of multiculturalism as a central positive. You're exactly right that religious fanaticism didn't die down but believing your view is right and others are wrong and shouldn't desecrate it regardless of their views of its legitimacy are hardly fanaticism. Regardless, Balon accepts the multicultural position in the end, preferencing the secular over the divine in governance in the high middle ages and contrary to the whole rationale behind the crusades which he seems to be supportive of.
Then we have the modern narrative of the crusaders being power-hungry bigots and Saladin being a noble, multicultural figure. Meanwhile most crusaders went bankrupt to accomplish their mission and protect the Holy Land and left when their job was done rather than getting treasure while Saladin was a proud Muslim who wanted to eventually invade France so to bring the teachings of God to them (by his own words) and made non-muslims second class citizens or slaves. Balon and the resident bishop begged on their knees to have Saladin take them as slaves rather than the people who could not afford it but refused. Saladin could have been a much richer character if they kept to reality and not some modern fantasy.

And no, I'm not saying crusaders were good and Muslims were bad. I'm saying that the crusaders are treated in a far more negative light than is reasonable while Saladin is just plainly fictitious.

It's a common trope in modern to see the middle ages as squalor and blind violence. This is particularly notable when introducing the setting as dark and squalorly in the opening scene. However the period is right in the middle of a renaissance.

Attached: 56706202_2366809136685052_2509342760176189440_n.jpg (779x960, 59K)

Basically the lack of religious fervor in the movie is much of the issue.