Interesting. It seems the big critics like it but the net geeks don't. Wonder which people will pay more attention to?

I too felt a little discouraged when I found out this was going to be a "cut" version of the movie. When I saw the negative % I immediately thought: "He cut too much."

If they know what's good for them, the net geeks.

I generally pay little attention to either if the trailer makes me want to see a film.

It's usually just a movie I know nothing about where I'll check reviews and net opinons.

Otherwise it's just $6 and 2 hours of my time so I'll just see it and judge for myself. Planning on catching this tomorrow or saturday.

Ebert gives it 3 1/2 stars.

He says it's better than Gladiator too. (he gave Gladiator 2 stars)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/50426001

Are we ready for another "further proof that Ebert has lost it" thread?

saw it last night and it wasn't half as good as gladiator. it was too cut up. it felt like an exteneded version was on it's way to dvd.

Hmm I don't like this whole deal about cutting...

Should I see this or House of Wax tonight?

Well, an extended version IS on it's way to dvd. Something to the tune of 3 hours and 40 minutes so I've heard.

Either way I'm watching this. Scott can do epic, and this subject matter is soemthing I've been dying to see portrayed on screen. Just some great material to work with there.

See House of Wax.


Just came back from KOH and it doesn't even measure up to Gladiator. I may give it a second chance when the Ext. DVD hit stores.

Sh*t, that's what I was fearing. And the RT.com % isn't helping things.
Oh well, already locked into going anyway (part of Mother's Day).

i agree with ebert

gladiator was fluff and not as good as bladerunner or alien. black hawk down was a lot better than gladiator

I actually fel this wasn't Scott's best film, the editing is really bad, and for me - am very curious to see if the Extended cut can improves the film.

I loved it. **** out of *****.

You can't compare it to Gladiator for one reason - No matter how hard he tries, Bloom will never be able to play the heavy like Crowe can.

I liked the story - there is good and bad on both sides. One isn't absolutely better than the other for a specific reason.

I liked the sets. You can actually tell that they built them up more for this film than they did for Gladiator.

Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson and David Thewlis were good in their limited supporting roles.

I just looked on IMDB and I didn't know that Ed Norton played "King Baldwin". I was wondering who it was the entire time, but couldn't figure it out.

eh. fair. nothing we havent seen before really. scott didnt give the game anything new. pacing was off a lot, editing was shit, movie totalled rushed to a sudden halt at the end. orlando wasn't great, but he ddint have much to work with.

nice battles though. suprised at how long it was. it felt really short to me though it was over 2 1/2 hours

This movie is at least 30 minutes too long because the first 90 minutes are fairly uninteresting, especially with the characterizations of the principals engaged in this tale of the battle of Jerusalem during the Crusades. The character introductions just didn't have that cinematic pop, and I was left confused by who was what and who would be important in the overall scheme of the film.

Orlando Bloom either didn't have much to work with via the script, or just couldn't elevate the material to make the opening half of the film all that involving. And then with an hour left, someone flips the switch and Bloom's character suddenly goes from simple blacksmith to super military strategist and leader of men (and boys) in order to protect against the muslim march to Jerusalem. I didn't buy the transformation, but the last hour of battle scenes was pretty good, though a lot of it felt familiar if you have seen the recent medieval fare of flicks (LOTR, Alexander, Troy, etc). Ridley Scott showed some restraint in the use of his patented violent action scenes with the strobe-y effects a la Gladiator.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+ (mainly for the last hour)

Saw it. Thought it was good but not great. I think a lot of people will dislike the movie because it lacks so much in the action category. It's not Gladiator, in fact, it's a totally different movie. Scott's intention of making a parallel with moderna conflicts was pretty obvious. And I have to give kudos for not playing into the conventional good vs. evil approach to a war movie.
That said, this movie really did seem boring at times and more concerned with filling the scene with fancy imagery than telling a story. While it may be historically accurate, I think Scott spent so much time trying to educate that he forgot to entertain. I give it a C+/B-. Interesting and thoughtful at times, but I don't know if that was what I was looking for at the time.

On Charlie Rose's show just now Scott mentioned his next film might be an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. I'm off to vomit and then cry myself to sleep.

That not a good book I take it?

It's one of the best American novels ever written. In my opinion it's unfilmable and Scott is the last person I'd ever want to see direct it.

Not a fan of Scott I take it?

You know, if I had read all of the articles and interviews with the stars and director that reveled in how much of the movie was gone and that what is in theaters is not the true version, I might have skipped it altogether.

In all honesty, if they thought the longer version had potential, then they should have released the three hour+ version, just waited until November or December to do it when people are more likely to sit through a long epic.

He has his moments, but nothing in his filmography suggests he has the kind of depth, as an artist, necessary to make Blood Meridian. I'll just leave it at that.

I agree with you about releasing the extended verison in theaters.

Okay, I need a little clarification. Obviously there was a lot of footage that was cut from the movie but can someone answer me a question. Maybe I dozed off but where the hell where Blooms men at arms when th etemplars came to kill him? And was he on his land? That was a major plunder to me. He has 100 men but they disappear for a chunk if the movie just to allow orlando's character to kill the knights attacking him? Does this make sense to anyone?

I saw this last night and really enjoyed it.

It is a bit lacking in places, namely the early parts, where it seems like they cut a lot of character development out. So I can't wait to see the extended cut to hopefully see some of these things fleshed out.

I thought Bloom did a very good job in the role. I wasn't a huge fan of his (thought he was just mediocre before) but he won me over some with his performance. I thought that while it wasn't oscar worthy or anything, he was convincing throughout.

I'd give it and 3.5/5 for now, with the extended cut having a chance to raise the score.

Heh, none of those are medieval

Anyhow, I agree with much of what's been said. It didn't really live up to my incredibly high expectations. It just felt like something essential was missing, though I have no idea what. Good, but not great. The siege of Jerusalem was pretty incredible though.

Scott's one of my favorite directors (big fan of Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and to an extent - Hannibal (which I found to be intentionally hillarious), Alien is a good movie, but looking back, it really is a formula film to the nth degree). KOH was, imho, very good - but the "frentic" style Scott shoots big battles kind of annoys me still (He did the same thing at the beginning of Gladiator). That all said, I give it a strong 3.5 outta 4. I was entertained and didn't feel dumber leaving the theater (the opposite actually).