It's much tighter with a better lead and Ridley Scott seems much more comfortable with a semi standard revenge drama than a complex theologian epic. What do you think?Įasy comparison is of course with Gladiator, and between those Gladiator is a better made film. I can't help but feel like with someone else in the lead role this would have been a bona fide masterpiece.Ĭurious to hear other people's thoughts! It's one of Ridley's less discussed film but I think it's one of the best ones too. He's much better suited for cheesy adventure fare, less for introspective epics about lofty concepts. It's a film that hinges on its lead, and Bloom (thought he seems to be really trying) just isn't up to the task. In his attempt to shed his boyish charm he just ends up being dull, and it feels like he doesn't quite know what film he's in. It's not a perfect film and I think Orlando Bloom's miscasting is a massive thorn in its side, especially considering every single performance around him is excellent. "BALIAN may know that this man wants a friend: but he’s unable to act except as if he is with a king- whose eyes die a little when he sees that Balian averts his own eyes. This except from the script captures it perfectly: Unlike the Hospitaller he is a man we could maybe understand, only under different circumstances. The aloof sorrow and coolness about him creates a similar unknowable quality, but in a much more tragic and human way. And Norton's King Baldwin IV is something of a revelation as well. He has an assuredness to him, like he knows something no one else does. Thewlis' unnamed Hospitaller character was seen by Scott and writer William Monahan as an actual divine figure of some sort, and I think Thewlis brings a subtle unearthly quality to the character. Perhaps controversial but I thought David Thewlis and Edward Norton in give career best performances. It highlights the ideological conflict of Christianity and war, the inherent hypocrisy, in a way I've been longing to see from many current day war films. The dogma and warmongering of the Crusaders is portrayed as particularly un-Christ like. The meditations on faith and God are genuinely thought provoking, and I thought the choice to separate true holiness from organised religion was very classy. I thought Scott's portrayal of the Muslim/Christian conflict was done with a lot of equity and nuance, much more so than I would have expected from a film made so soon after 9/11. It's shame how much the supposed poor theatrical cut marred this films reputation as it's an excellent examination of faith and war.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |