CaressofSteel75
Joined Dec 2013
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings379
CaressofSteel75's rating
Reviews121
CaressofSteel75's rating
Kingdom of Heaven was the type of movie that I had been wanting to see for a long time- a well thought out epic that does a good job covering a fascinating era of history, even if it is an obscure era for a lot of people. That's not to say this movie doesn't have its problems. Orlando Bloom has never been a compelling leading man, so a lot of this is more than he can carry by himself. The preferred director's cut is very long with a lot of down time in between key scenes.
Balian de Ibelan, played by Orlando Bloom, joins the Crusades in Jerusalem. He becomes instrumental in the regime of King Baldwin IV, the leper king, excellently played by Edward Norton. Although the history isn't 100% spot on, it gives a fairly detailed account of the Christian Crusaders holding Jerusalem against Saladin until the inevitable Muslim takeover in 1187.
All of the major players in this movie are real historical figures. The most fascinating has to be King Baldwin IV, who suffered from leprosy and ruled Jerusalem until his death at age 24. Ed Norton plays the character with a high degree of political ethics and spirituality. He might be the best character in the whole movie. The Muslims, including Saladin himself, played by Ghassan Massoud, are also portrayed as ethical warriors. In fact, the only character I didn't like in this was the Bishop, played by Bill Paterson. He was a smaller character who I think wound up on the cutting room floor in the theatrical version, but in the director's cut he's seen as a typical craven and hypocritical religious figure. That's really getting to be a cliche. The Knights Templar seem to get a bad wrap in this as well. They're positioned as just some evil henchmen. I'm not an expert on the era of Baldwin IV, but I don't think they fell out of favor until Pope Clement V, who came along much later.
Based on the numerous suggestions here on IMDB and elsewhere, I went right to the director's cut and ignored the much shorter theatrical version. I therefore can't compare the two directly, but it seems to me that if they cut an hour out of this for the theater, the shorter version would have a lot of problems. So, enjoy a good movie about the Great Crusades and the controversy of Jerusalem, and be sure to see the director's cut. God wills it!
Balian de Ibelan, played by Orlando Bloom, joins the Crusades in Jerusalem. He becomes instrumental in the regime of King Baldwin IV, the leper king, excellently played by Edward Norton. Although the history isn't 100% spot on, it gives a fairly detailed account of the Christian Crusaders holding Jerusalem against Saladin until the inevitable Muslim takeover in 1187.
All of the major players in this movie are real historical figures. The most fascinating has to be King Baldwin IV, who suffered from leprosy and ruled Jerusalem until his death at age 24. Ed Norton plays the character with a high degree of political ethics and spirituality. He might be the best character in the whole movie. The Muslims, including Saladin himself, played by Ghassan Massoud, are also portrayed as ethical warriors. In fact, the only character I didn't like in this was the Bishop, played by Bill Paterson. He was a smaller character who I think wound up on the cutting room floor in the theatrical version, but in the director's cut he's seen as a typical craven and hypocritical religious figure. That's really getting to be a cliche. The Knights Templar seem to get a bad wrap in this as well. They're positioned as just some evil henchmen. I'm not an expert on the era of Baldwin IV, but I don't think they fell out of favor until Pope Clement V, who came along much later.
Based on the numerous suggestions here on IMDB and elsewhere, I went right to the director's cut and ignored the much shorter theatrical version. I therefore can't compare the two directly, but it seems to me that if they cut an hour out of this for the theater, the shorter version would have a lot of problems. So, enjoy a good movie about the Great Crusades and the controversy of Jerusalem, and be sure to see the director's cut. God wills it!
I thought I had seen them all, but I managed to completely miss Grave of the Vampire until very recently. That's how obscure this one is.
It's ultra low budget horror with Big Bill Smith starring as the son of vampire Caleb Croft. He was conceived as the result of the sexual assault of his mother. The half man/half vampire grows up and finally tries to settle the score with his father, who is still on a bloody rampage all those years later.
Bill Smith still looks very youthful in this, although he was already closing in on forty when this film was made. By 1980 he did look middle aged. Michael Pataki gets a good part as the vampire, Caleb Croft. He was always a skilled actor, and the miniscule budget they had to work with here didn't slow him down.
This movie touches on the the difficult subject of sexual assault which was still very controversial and not often seen in films of that era. That was back when we still had some moral fiber, even when it came to drive-in horror movies. If you're a B movie horror fan, you'll find that this one isn't too bad.
It's ultra low budget horror with Big Bill Smith starring as the son of vampire Caleb Croft. He was conceived as the result of the sexual assault of his mother. The half man/half vampire grows up and finally tries to settle the score with his father, who is still on a bloody rampage all those years later.
Bill Smith still looks very youthful in this, although he was already closing in on forty when this film was made. By 1980 he did look middle aged. Michael Pataki gets a good part as the vampire, Caleb Croft. He was always a skilled actor, and the miniscule budget they had to work with here didn't slow him down.
This movie touches on the the difficult subject of sexual assault which was still very controversial and not often seen in films of that era. That was back when we still had some moral fiber, even when it came to drive-in horror movies. If you're a B movie horror fan, you'll find that this one isn't too bad.
The Torture Chamber of Doctor Sadism is a pretty watchable entry in 1960s horror. The English title seems shocking in itself, and it's a fairly intense movie for 1967.
Christopher Lee starts it off as Count Regula, who is brutally executed by quartering after murdering a dozen women. Years later, Lex Barker, a member of the aristocracy, is summoned to an old castle to find out his true identity. (without giving away too much, he's a man who does not know who is family was or where he's even from). Along the way he picks up a baroness, her servant and a thief who's masquerading as a priest.
The secret they uncover at the castle involves Dr. Regula's undead servant who is attempting to bring his master back to life to complete his revenge for his execution decades earlier.
There are a lot of vivid and eerie images in this one, including the woods leading to the castle that are full of bodies being hanged from trees and trees sprouting human limbs. The castle itself is a diabolical torture chamber full of snake pits, death by pendulum and even the iron maiden.
Even though he was well known as Tarzan, I initially thought this role was a real departure for Lex Barker, but if you look through his credits you'll find that he did a number of strange B movie shockers over his career, including several in Germany and Italy.
Karin Dor who also popped up in You Only Live Twice is good as the female lead. Much of her work in her career was in Germany.
I'm sure that a lot of people thought this movie was pushing the envelope in 1967, and the vivid color in this made for some memorable images. I think this movie should be leveled up somewhat. It's as good as a lot of the Hammer features from that era.
Christopher Lee starts it off as Count Regula, who is brutally executed by quartering after murdering a dozen women. Years later, Lex Barker, a member of the aristocracy, is summoned to an old castle to find out his true identity. (without giving away too much, he's a man who does not know who is family was or where he's even from). Along the way he picks up a baroness, her servant and a thief who's masquerading as a priest.
The secret they uncover at the castle involves Dr. Regula's undead servant who is attempting to bring his master back to life to complete his revenge for his execution decades earlier.
There are a lot of vivid and eerie images in this one, including the woods leading to the castle that are full of bodies being hanged from trees and trees sprouting human limbs. The castle itself is a diabolical torture chamber full of snake pits, death by pendulum and even the iron maiden.
Even though he was well known as Tarzan, I initially thought this role was a real departure for Lex Barker, but if you look through his credits you'll find that he did a number of strange B movie shockers over his career, including several in Germany and Italy.
Karin Dor who also popped up in You Only Live Twice is good as the female lead. Much of her work in her career was in Germany.
I'm sure that a lot of people thought this movie was pushing the envelope in 1967, and the vivid color in this made for some memorable images. I think this movie should be leveled up somewhat. It's as good as a lot of the Hammer features from that era.