Is this movie any good?

>the first muslim Balian encounters in the Holy Land attempts to kill him
>Saladin's subordinates are bloodthirsty zealots
>Saladin intends to kill everyone inside Jerusalem before Balian forces him into a stalemate

That's just autistic screeching. Historical movies (and novels) are not supposed to be 100% accurate.

Why have people been brainwashed into thinking the Crusades were just evil white men killing people. It was a fucking war and the muslims did a bunch of killing and marauding too.

Because out of all the atrocities, we must only remember what whites have done

no.
yes.

>Why have people been brainwashed into thinking the Crusades were just evil white men killing people
I'm pretty sure that's just a Murrican thing.

let me tell you about this little place called al-andalus...

this is a meme opinion.

the writer didn't figure out the story they wanted to tell properly. adding more material hides that by making it feel more like a TV show. it's still bloated and unfocused.

>Jerusalem
>a hilly city surrounded by woods
>In a barren desert

merican education

This very much. Also Ghassan Massoud's performance as Saladin (Salah ad-Din) was absolutely phenomenal. I read a lot about him after this movie, if he would be alive today he would spit on ISIS and other terrorist Muslim groups. He is described as a very intelligent, compassionate and fair leader.

youtube.com/watch?v=ThBOw3ja6hU.

Unrelated, but how the fuck did Disney fuck up the casting for Jafar so bad for their movie Aladdin. Ghassan Massoud would have been absolutely perfect.

Attached: 220px-Ghassan_Massoud.jpg (220x319, 17K)

The Spanish are rather swarthy

>if he would be alive today he would spit on ISIS and other terrorist Muslim groups

well, he was a Kurd so...

>Unrelated, but how the fuck did Disney fuck up the casting for Jafar so bad for their movie Aladdin
Aladdin is set in China

Both cuts are shit. Don't believe the memes.

Templars did nothing wrong

What could have been: The Movie. Don't waste 3 hours watching the directors cut.

What is Jerusalem worth, Yea Forums?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 14K)

About tree fiddy

No, it's terrible,don't watch it under any circumstance.

Only if you watch the DC.

Theatrical 4/10
DC 7/10

Reminder that Alexios I tricked the Catholics and Muslims into fighting one another so he could restore the glory of Byzantium.

And he failed lol

>a screenplay took liberties with the source material to make it fit the medium it was being translated to
Shocking

why didn't the Muslims ever bring the war to the Italian peninsula and sack Rome?

been playing CK2 and it seems like it could be just as easily done as landing crusaders in the Levant

Attached: mfw a Roman woman is fucked by baboons.jpg (1280x720, 45K)

Because landing a force on the Italian peninsula int he 11th century is logistically and technologically much harder than clicking four times on a computer screen you absolute brainlet retard

Because then they'd be stuck with no land connection and endless hordes of infinitely triggered Christians on their northern border, ready to drive them to the furthest shores by any means available.

Naval supplies can only amend that so much, and the Muslims were far from naval supremacy in the Mediterranean at that stage in history.

No, it's historical defamation.

>Every Muslim character is noble and morally perfect
>Every devout Christian is a bloodthirsty maniac
>King Baldwin, a devout Christian IRL, portrayed as cosmopolitan 21st century liberal who kills Christians (but not Muslims of course) if they are too intolerant
>Saladin, who spent his entire life on jihad, is portrayed as a hippie who only attacks Jerusalem when innocent Muslims are killed
>Renard de Chatillon, one of the most revered princes at the time, portrayed as a corrupt moron, gets humiliated by Muslims, and even ahistorically gets killed by Bloom
>Templar Knights played as bloodthirsty devils and not the multilingual negotiators and protectors of pilgrims that they actually were
>Europe is portrayed as a dismal backwater when it was actually experiencing an economic boom at the time.

It's a pro-Muslim propaganda piece more than anything.

Good answer. Thank you good sir.

Shit answer. Feed yourself to the vultures.

This is your brain on LARP

genuine garbage

people here meme it because its pretty and well shot and all that but if you know a thing about the crusades it is next level retarded and only serves to spread common misinformation

if you don't have a real opinion just shut the fuck up

Same thing. Did you even watched it? The movie is about great commanders, not whose religion is better. Baldwin and Saladin both represent the best of the Christian world and the Muslim world, respectively, and each side was filled with hordes of savages.

The guy that was with Saladin was the same type of bloodthirsty zealot as Raynald and Guy of Lusignon, but Saladin won simply because he was the more skillful commander (and didn't cover his men in plate armor while fighting in the desert like a retard), and Bailan ended up being too naive and was left fighting alone basically.

a fuck and a suck

>crusades against muslims were all defensive wars against hostile invading muslim nations who were conquering christian territories and pushing into europe

>1000 years later they're portrayed as heinous wars of arbitrary aggression and greed by evil white men against peaceful muslims who were just minding their own business

how the hell did this happen?

First point only applies to like the first four crusades

(((how indeed)))

Because they weren't defensive wars, autismus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Châtillon

It's not great by any stretch. The whole story is just fucking dumb

>The world needs bad men, Marty.

Attached: 1557645222487.png (300x300, 61K)

>"I will give every last Christian man and woman safe passage from the city."
>"And the Jews?"
>*both men start laughing*

JFC Raimi

Attached: Kingdom of Heaven Raimi Cut.jpg (400x539, 45K)