You forgot to mention on of Islam's greatest acheivements of that approximate time period: the naming of the Hindu Kush.

The Hindu Kush we all know is a mountain range in Afghanistan. Kush is derived from the verb "kushar" which means "to slaughter or kill."

The Hindu Kush is a mountain range named after Islam's glorious slaughter of millions and the eradication two Hindu kingdoms.

Islam brags by naming a mountain range "the Hindu slaughter" in rememberance of a great achivement of the "Religion of Peace."

Somehow, Hollywood forgot to tell us that.

Wow, I didn't know that.

On a purely cinematic level, what could possess Scott to cast Orlando Bloom as his leading man? He's not exactly Errol Flynn, & has little presence

This really upsets me. Why do we always have the concept of crusaders as invaders but no movies showing the Arabs as invaders of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) empire. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (a Roman renaming to demean the Jews) and Egypt were all Christian lands before the Arabs decided to expand their empire with no qualms as to what it would take. Not only had those lands been Christian for over 300 years they had had a Greek culture for over 900. In a place that had thousands of years of conquest and reconquest , why are the crusades singled out as been unnecessary?

It is true that after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, the new rulers allowed the conquered people to practice their faith. However it is also true that a caliph built the Dome of the Rock over the remains of the old Jewish temple denying Jews access to that most holy site for them. The Crusades themselves did not appear in a vacuum. It was an Arab ruler in Jerusalem that decided to tear down Christian holy places and deny pilgrims access to them. Apologist for this ruler now always say that he was mad and his successor did away with his mad dictates, but that doesn’t change the fact that Pope Urban II in Rome (or France when he gave his speech) would not feel that these thing could be done again.

It's the PC police at the studios. I once showed a screenplay I'd written to a friend who went to film school & was into the LA film scene. It included a couple of snippets of dialogue in which gay characters made racial slurs, as indeed, some do, just like everybody else.

She said, GLAAD won't let you show that. Because in Hollywood, gays - like Muslims & other favored minorities - can only be portrayed as victims or paragons

You people need to wake up to some elementary facts of life: white Western Christian males are always bad and everybody else --Jews sometimes excepted, especially of late-- is good. It's simple. Why do you not get this?

I can’t be the first to come up wit this, but I was thinking that the decay of the West is (Surprise!) all Hitler’s fault. Hitler and his ilk were such murdering cruel extremist psychopaths (assholes if you prefer) that everything they touched ended being considered evil by the Europeans, no matter how good it was considered before.

Before WWII, I believe that most Europeans were patriotic, now most think that those thoughts lead to bad consequences. Before WWII most Europeans were proud of their culture and Christian heritage, now they are ashamed. Before WWII European governments were willing to protect their national interest and pay a high cost if need be, now they will not fight for anything (they'd rather pay or bribe).

I can understand how the horrors of WWI and WWII could lead people to reconsider their beliefs and try to change their ways, but not the extent of committing cultural suicide just because you don’t want to emulate, in the slightest, a tyrant that died 60 years ago. Serious logical reflection is OK but guilt and self-loathing do not make anyone a better person.

Darn! That was preachy and not BA-like.

It's not just that white Western Christian males are always bad - they're always stupid as well. Even when they're amoral evil geniuses.

Pappy's right. White Western Christian males are depraved, self-indulgent, stupid, insensitive dolts who nevertheless manage to basically run the world. Therein lies their evilness, because who they really are gives no grounds for understanding what they actually do. Clever, no? Really evil. Who would not feel self-loathing about that? God knows even I am sometimes tempted to vote for a Democrat...(Just kidding). I'll stop rant-posting now. Goodnight. Allahu akbar.

They're piling in the back seat
They're generating steam heat
Pulsating to the back beat
The Blitzkrieg Bop

A pity, really. Ridley Scott is my favorite director, on the strength of efforts like Alien, Black Hawk Down, and (especially) Blade Runner.

So who knew he'd turn out a self-loathing white Western male? (Well, I'd be full of self-loathing, too, had I made Legend, but that really beside the point.)

Didn't he do Gladiator too?

Jeff is right, Bloom is an especially poor choice.

BTW: excellent post, Jeff.

The examples are countless: In the late '70s, ABC ran a popular mini-series called Roots, based on the Alex Haley 'autobiographical' novel. The depictions in this mini-series (a tranquil, idyllic village of peaceful Africans invaded by mean white men from the New World who snatch them up and haul them onto slave ships) arguably did more to shape America's popular conception of the history of slavery than any other cultural artifact. Just one problem: The Village Voice, not exactly a conservative publication, published in 1993 an in-depth investigation ("Alex Haley's Hoax") uncovering the fact that Haley's entire account of his own family's alleged history (the basis of his book and the movie) was a complete hoax. Oops! That didn't stop its memetic force, however, which is still felt today.

This roundup rocks. When I first saw the movies ad I knew I wouldn't be watching it for I knew it was another blue state slap at Christianity, Europe and really America.

If Mars attacked tomorrow, Hollywood would probably take their side too.

Anthony, Ridley Scott is also one of my favorite directors too. However, you may be onto something with your observation that he shows signs of being a self-loathing white male. Remember he did "THELMA and LOUISE". No other movie has as many dislikeable male characters victimizing the poor heroic female leads.

He also did "GI JANE". That movie must have the most idiotic line ever issued by an actress, "Suck my c**k". Demi, my dear, you don't have the antomy for fellatio, but cunnilingus will be acceptable.

Right, the scenes in Roots of Englishmen charging into the African interior with their muskets was total crap, but people buy it. Even the Afrocentrists don't deny the reality that Africans did the actually hunting & capture of slaves; they say the Jews controlled the slave trade.

Thelma & Louse was a good script marred by completely 2 dimensional male characters. They weren't worthy adversaries for the female leads, it was a cheap shot, & it just weakens the movie.

I can't understand why Scott would even want to do another costume epic, & he must know that Bloom is no Russell Crowe. The interview with the Syrian actor is interesting, as he tells how he refused to do certain scenes he felt showed Muslims in a bad light, so they were rewritten (!)

Legend was RANK, but the Tim Curry demon was pretty good

excellent review, jeffie!
how do you make historical epics from pasturized history?

I want to see King John Sobieski at the Gates of Vienna, that would be my movie pic!!

I must admit that "Legend" provided with a pick-up line that actually worked.

Tim Curry as the demon has kidnapped the fair damsel to be his wife. He lays a sumptous feast before her but, understandably, she is sullen and depressed. He then says, "I Value your thoughts my dear, please share them with me." I paraphrased that line with a girl when we were having a moment of awkward silence. She lit up and commented on what a nice thing to say that was. If only she knew that I was quoting a demon!

Jeff, I've been wondering about something: how do you feel about Orlando Bloom? Real Camera Presence, or a bit of a lightweight?

Orlando Bloom - feh.

Karl Urban - HOTT!

Okay, so I'm shallow. Sue me.

And to think if someone of the Christian or Jewish persuasion were to whisper but a bit of criticism about the drek that comes from Hollywood, Ridley, Penn, Robbins, Saradon, et al, would be grabbing as much facetime on the evening news to decry the "attempts at censorship" eminating from those "attempting to establish a Xtian theocracy."

Ridley may not "hate" himself, but is just being a good dhimmi. I'm sure the experiences of all who have crossed moslems, from Rushdie to Theo Van Gogh, has not been lost on him.

Out of curiosity, how much time do you typically spend researching posts like this?

I'm sick of all the PC Hollywood dreck too. If the Jews control Hollywood, then why don't they have films showing the two biggest enemies of the Jews, Blacks and Muslims, as they really are instead of making excuses for these savages!

Well you guys have hit the bigtime getting plugged on jihadwatch by way of another page "zombietime" very entertaining reading
glad to see people are up to speed about Islam

What are all these comments? Jeff, are you commenting to yourself again? We all know "no one" read this post. They couldn't even FIND it if they wanted to!! }:-P~~~

Remeber... Ridley Scott also did Pearl Harbor... and botched that disasterously. He in fact was advised on the historical inaccuracies in the film and tried to shut out any criticism and bury it underground.

Just remember, friends, that Richard the Lionhearted was no slouch in the massacre department.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lionheart.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1191hostages.html

Further, Ridley Scott had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. It was directed by Michael Bay and produced by Bruckenheimer.

Maybe he picked Bloom BECAUSE he's a lightweight. That way he would not overshadow SALADIN.

I read the role originally went to Sigourney Weaver, but she made Saladin look bad

Good lord, this is pathetic.

Have any of the people involved with, or reviewing, this movie read ANY of the original texts on the Crusades? Even in translation? (I haven't read the original French or Latin or Arabic texts myself, but good lord, in translation they aren't difficult. Geoffrey of Monmouth, anyone?) Why should it surprise anyone that there were Muslims and Christians who acted terribly, or that there were Muslims and Christians who acted wonderfully?

And why on earth does anyone care what an ACTOR has to say about these things?

So we know that the director consulted with CAIR before releasing the film. What Christian or Jewish groups or authorites did he consult? None? What a suprise.

Heck, I'd be satisified if he merely consulted a couple of actual historians...

Oops -- my bad. I meant Geoffrey of Villehardouin, who chronicled the Fourth Crusade. Highly readable! The other Geoffrey helped bring us the King Arthur we know and love, not to be confused with the recent travesty of a movie. (Is there a theme here?)

About the killer mountains ... RESEARCH YOU STUPID DUMB****

Hindu Kush

The Hindu Kush or Hindukush (هندوکش in Persian) is a mountain range in Afghanistan as well as in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. It is the westernmost extension of the Pamir Mountains, the Karakoram Range, and the Himalaya. It was previously known as the Caucasus Indicus, a name given to it by the ancient Greeks, who ruled the Hindu Kush region for centuries (see Seleucid Empire and Greco-Bactrian.)

Nomenclature

The origin of the term Hindu Kush (and whether it translates as "Indian Killer") is a point of contention. Numerous possibilities have been put forward, and several are listed here:

* that the name is a corruption of "Caucasus Indicus."
* In modern Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtan -- to defeat, kill, or subdue. This could be interpreted as a memorial to the Indian captives who perished in the mountains while being transported to Central Asian slave markets. Encyclopaedia Americana says of Hindu Kush: "The name means literally "Kills the Hindu," a reminder of the days when slaves from the Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Muslim courts of Central Asia." (disputed — see talk page)
* that the name refers to the last great 'killer' mountains to cross when moving between the Afghan plateau and the Indian subcontinent, named after the toll it took on anyone crossing them;
* that the name is a corruption of Hindu Koh, from the (modern) Persian word Kuh, meaning mountain;
* that the name means Mountains of India or Mountains of the Indus in some of the Iranian languages that are still spoken in the region; that furthermore, many peaks, mountains, and related places in the region have "Kosh" or "Kush" in their names.
* that the name is a posited Avestan appellation meaning "water mountains."

The Hindu Sanskrit name of the Hindu Kush is Pāriyatra Parvat.

It should be noted that the word Hindu originally referred to any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent, or Hind, not followers of the religion as it does now.

The mountain peaks in the eastern part of Afghanistan reach more than 7,000 metres. The highest, in Pakistan, is Tirich Mir at 7,705 m (cf. Mount Everest in Nepal which stands 8,850 m high). The Pamir mountains, which Afghans refer to as the "Roof of the World", extend into Tajikistan, China and Kashmir.

The name got nothing to do with Muslims killing Millions of Hindus and conquering kingdoms ... Its just that on the mountains hindus died ...
They did from slave trade which is definitley horrible ... but the name is not a rememberance of how muslims killed Hindus just for the fun of it ...
Took me 1 minute reasearch to find that out ... arrrgh ...

Two things:
1. Of course Saladin killed people, and of course the Muslims were invaders. But you must realize that compared with the rest of humanity during the early Middle Ages, they were fairly civilized (especially compared to Europeans!). This is history for crying out loud. There are no good guys.
2. This is exactly why I scratched my head in confusion when I heard this film was coming out this year. If the only outcome was going to be to piss people off either by marginalizing Christianity and Islam or by falling too hard on one or the other side, why did anyone think it was a good idea to make a crusades movie?

very entertaining, full of action, great special effect, after all, it just a movie u idiot!!!! ( try not to get on to it seriously...movies is money-makin and fun) LOL!!