www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Kingdom of Heaven Movie

I am about to watch Kingdom of Heaven the movie. [kingdomofheavenmovie.com] I am sure it is going to bash the Church. I will let you know if you are interested how it was.

Pope Saint Urban II Pray For Us!

Great movie. Did not notice any "church bashing" really except maybe the Latin patriarch, and the closing scene seems to imply that the heros returned to the Holy Land on another Crusade. The character of Salah ad Din was accurate and its interesting that he was a Kurd from present day Tikrit, Iraq.

As far as movies go I think it was very good.

I don't think there was any overt church bashing. I will say however that some of the churchmen are not seen in the best light, but that doesn't make it an attack on the church or even necessarily innacurate.

Michael

I thought the movie was Horrible.

1. A lot of Church bashing. You have to pay attention very carefully.

2. There was a silent hint that the Bishop of Jersuleam was gay and had a "servent."

3. The Knights Templar was portrayed as blood thirsty idiots.

The underline theme was that all religions are equal and relevent and that fighting for one religion over another is stupid.

Hollywood is not capable of showing the Church in a positive light anymore.

Pope Saint Urban II pray for us!

I concur.

Well, we did not see the same movie then.

Do you remember the scene when saladin was about to invade the city? Do you remember the Bishop acted like a coward and said we must leave and don't worry about the lives of the innocent women and children we can sneak out the back and head to Cypres.

That is one of about 20 scenes that made the Church look bad.

Ray-

Agreed with you 100%.

My daughter saw The Kingdom of Heaven, she was very aggrivated at the constant statement 'Ala wills it.' She had to explain to everyone that just because someone says that doesn't mean it is true. She was the only Christian in the group. There was so much about it she didn't like, it may be quicker, take less time to write of the scenes she did like since there were so few. She said it was an F- rating.

Well I thought the movie was very good. I think it portrayed things fairly well and I did not feel it bashed the Church in any way. That it portrayed the Latin Patirarch as cowardly I don't think is bashing the Church because many of the Latin clergy that went on crusade were either fanatic or opportunistic. And I did not think it implied he was gay everyone had servants.

I thought it was unfortunate that the Templars were shown as warmongers but indeed some of the knights certainly were and committed atrocities. On the reverse the Hospitallers were shown as devoted Christian knights who consistently did the right thing.

And I did not feel all religions are equal was the theme but that one must respect the right of others to believe differently and that war while sometimes necessary is never holy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I totally agree with you Deacon Lance! One of our local churches will be showing the movie this Friday, minus children under 13.

As someone who actually knows a thing or two about the crusades I can tell you that the movie was complete fiction, designed to make Muslims look good.

The scene of Saladin setting up crosses at the end was the icing on the cake for me. Utter BS.

When the crusaders win battles, they are shown as gratuitous slaughterers, but when the Muslims win battles, the slaughter is completely cut out and not shown.

All of the clerical figures were caricatures that might as well have come from Voltaire or something.

The whole idea of this movie was that there was some kind of pan-religious paradise in the Middle East, and that the crusaders destroyed it with their gratuitous violence. Complete and utter fiction.

Anyway, I'm rambling. But there isn't an ounce of historical truth in that movie.

LatinTrad

I found the Kingdom of Heaven Movie a wonderful spectacle but an obviously anti-Catholic movie. I just remember that oh so impartial scene where Balian and Saladin come to an agreement over Jerusalem wherein Balian recalls the brutality of the Crusaders in conquering Jerusalem. Now, really, was there any reason to bring that up? Was there no way they could've had the negotiation scene without contrasting the brutal Franks with the reserved and dignified Arabs?

Maybe I should make a film about what Sultan as-Salih and the Khwarismiams did when they broke the treaty of Frederick II had made with Sultan al-Kamil to become 'King of Jerusalem': breaking into the city, slaughtering its inhabitants and plundering its contents.

What irks me is not the portrayal of the Latins (though a lot of it is over the top e.g. the savageness of the Templars). Its the peace loving portrayal of the Saracens! Saladin had promised upon succeeding Nur-ed-Din to drive the Crusaders out. Honourable a warrior that he was, he was just that: a warrior.

I can take people portraying Crusaders as violent, aggressive and intolerant. I can take people portraying clerics as thieves (remember what happened to Balian's wife?) I can even take the grossly historically inaccurate presentation of Balian as the epitome of enlightenment thought on the privatisation of religion. What gets me is the idea that somehow a) Islamdom was happy to have Syria and Palestine torn out of its hands and placed under the charge of Christians and b) apart from lone voices they were uninterested in driving the Dar-al-Harb from the established borders of the Dar-al-Islam.

The worst thing about the movie was that it was boring.