KingdomOfHeaven

Oh look, another historically innacurate epic war film.

I'd like to start out by noting that "the holy land" isn't the geographical name of a place, but rather a term of endearment foisted upon a piece of land by religious groups. Why does all the advertising say "holy land" instead of Israel? Are you afraid to say "Israel?" Are you trying not to step on any religious toes when your film is about one religion feeling superior to another and laying claim to a parcel of land that both are equally entitled to? I'm just asking.

Oh, and why did you feel the need to have Baldwin, the leper king, be integral in a war that started didn't start until a year after he was dead? If I wanted this kind of historical innacuracy I would watch Oliver Stone films.

Now, I understand "based on a true story" means that this is a work of fiction, but "set during the holy crusades" implies a certain degree of historical accuracy. It's okay if you want to make up a story about stuff that happened to a historical guy along the way to a historical place but you are not allowed to rewrite history, even if it gives the story more zing. This isn't someone telling their version of what happened - opinion is fine - I'm a big fan of opinion (clearly) - but, this is a blatent disregard for historical fact.

That aside... well acted, beautifully shot, interesting story, probably not enough war to appease the masses - I'm sick to death of these types of film. Ridley Scott, I love what you do, but, stop.