The Daily Bork

May 04, 2005

I give this non-review -1 out of 5

A particularly vacant review of Kingdom of Heaven in Göteborgs Posten, which gave the film 3 out of 5. Funny, but after reading the whole review the reader is left none the wiser about whether or not the film is worth seeing. You know, usual comments about acting, technical merits, plot development etc etc are all conspicuous by their absence. The only thing one learns is that the reviewer, one Emma Engström, is air-headedly anti-American and ignorant of a significant swathe of history. Still, at least Vietnam wasn't mentioned. She must have been having an off day.

Tankeflödena mellan det medeltida Palestina och det moderna Amerika bidrar till att göra Ridley Scotts Kingdom of heaven till ett komplext och intressant filmbygge, tycker GP:s filmrecensent Emma Engström.

Connections between Middle-Ages Palestine and modern America contribute to Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven being a complex and interesting film, thinks reviewer Emma Engström.

Oh lordy. Already with the America crap. Regarding his previous Blackhawk Down...

Hur skulle han balansera bilden av USA:s agerande i världen efter att ha gett den amerikanska militären och dess världssyn en öppen kanal rakt in i miljontals människors hjärnor?

How could he balance the picture of the USA's actions in the world after he gave the American military and its world-view an open channel straight into millions of peoples' brains?

Right... Blackhawk Down was pushing the American military world-view. It sounds like this bimbo didn't even watch that particular film. But on with the show...

Inte helt väntat gör han det genom att berätta om 1100-talets korståg i Jerusalem. Och visst finns de bekanta inslagen där i form av religiös fanatism och politisk turbulens.

Filmen har sin historiska bakgrund i den korta tid av fred som rådde mellan det andra och tredje av de västerländska korstågen in i det heliga landet (Palestina). Det kungarike som korstågsfararna hade upprättat i Jerusalem styrdes i harmoni med muslimerna och sultan Saladin.

Not totally unexpectedly he did it by telling of the 12th-century crusade in Jerusalem. And of course there are familiar themes in the form of religious fanaticism and political turbulence.

The film has its historical background in the short time of peace between the second and third Western-nation crusades in the holy land (Palestine). The kingdom which the crusaders had established in Jerusalem was ruled in harmony with the Muslims and the Sultan Saladin.

Got that? The specifically Western crusades in the holy land of Palestine. Funny, but if she is going to refer to it as the holy land then wouldn't (Israel) be a better expression? It is rather ironic that the left here like to accuse Israel of imperialism and then refer to the region as Palestine, as if legitimising the Roman imperialism that birthed the name to piss off the Jews (remember that there weren't any Muslims around then and that the holy land was only holy to one religion at the time?) The religious fanaticism she refers to? Well, it might be too much of a stretch to expect her to be referring to murderous suicide bombers.

Skip over a bit of plot and actor descriptions, where we learn that during this brief time Muslims, Jews and Christian live in peace until... duh duh duh dah! the Knights Templar arrive to upset everybody. Somewhat of a liberty with history.

Det dröjer inte länge förrän tempelriddarna får mer makt och det är när de skriker: "Det måste bli krig! Det är Guds vilja" som man ser USA:s fanatiska kristna med Bush i spetsen framför sig.

It doesn't take long before the Knights Templar get more power and it is then that they shout "It must be war! It is God's will!" just like one sees in the USA's fanatical Christians with Bush in the lead.

Ah ha, there it is. Now we know who the fanatics are. Not the murderous crazies blowing up busses and beheading whoever they can snatch. Nope, it is that religious fundy W. Oh well, what do you expect from the idiot left in Sweden?

Of course, never explored are why are the Crusaders in Jerusalem. Why are Muslims in Jerusalem (and for that matter Africa, India, Spain etc etc?)

Is it too much to fricking ask that bimbo reviewers try and keep their "first-year of film school" reviews out of daily papers?

Instapundit gives review links here, here and here which are somewhat more critical of the historical factuals and the shallow political analysis. They are a lot more useful than the load of turd written in GP.


  • Well at least she has the decency to be open and frank with her identity and not hide behind anonymity like u do, spreading ur mumbo jumbo.

    Nils Fredhäll, Göteborg

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home