Dreamers Eva Green clips


http://img220.echo.cx/img220/9384/scar043016jm.jpg

http://rapidshare.de/files/1487941/n...03-01.avi.html

http://img220.echo.cx/img220/9602/scar043029tx.jpg

http://rapidshare.de/files/1488166/n...03-02.avi.html

http://img246.echo.cx/img246/9753/scar043044bc.jpg

http://rapidshare.de/files/1488597/n...03-04.avi.html

http://img246.echo.cx/img246/7642/scar043050tn.jpg

http://rapidshare.de/files/1488424/n...03-05.avi.html

They were more than invaders, they were there to make their fortunes. Something that happened just recently in the Middle East.

Some of the Crusaders were very successful, coming out of the Crusades very rich, some came out dead. Again like the recent Crusade.

No it said they went to where they talked Italian and go until they stop talking Italian.

I think they went through the Balcans where they killed more people than they did in Palestine.

Saw it last night and it's really about Good v Evil and a man with principles succeeding over those led by fanatasism and greed.

I found in todays world Pinochio more believable.

Plus the fact that a blacksmith turns into a great fighter and leader and a wife is allowed to covort with anyone she chooses. Did Ridley Scott ever read a history book or was it about an easy way to get arses on seats?

yep..........they are her

:thumbsup

I think I need to check out that Bertolucci flick with her in it. I heard it was controversial because of all the sex in it.

I did not like the film

Hey you ignorant, self-hating piece of shit why don't you actually stick to what you know (what is that again?).

Most of the crusaders (particularly with regards to the first crusades) where already very wealthy individuals who owned plenty of land within Europe.

The crusades weren't the cause of paranoid Christian fanatics, they where the result of fact. From the time of Mohammed's death Muslims quickly took control (from Christians) of Palestine, Syria and Egypt (once the most heavily Christian areas in the world). In the eight century Muslims had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century they conquered what is known as Turkey today (which was heavily Christian before than). The old Roman Empire was than reduced to little more than Greece, and by the Othordox Christians than reached out asking for Catholics in the West to come aid them in the East (at the time Christians where basically treated as slaves in Islamic countries).

In 1095 Pope Urban II called upon the knights of the Christendom to push back the Islamic conquests and aid their Christian brothers in the East, and that is what lead to the crusades as we know it. At the end of the Crusades (after many years of battle) muslims (unlike shown in the Kingdom of Heaven bullshit movie) where preparing to invade Europe, and where it not for the death of one leader, and poor management by another it is almost undeniable that it would of went ahead. The only thing that stopped it from eventuating was the rising economic strength of Europe. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, a rival to Islam that was driven to non-existance.

Don't even bother with the people on this board... they don't care about what really happend. Only thing they care about is Money, Bashing Christianity, Bashing USA. If it doesn't meet that criteria then it doesn't matter what you say :(

You're blatantly ignoring the fact that Urban II, in fact, did use the prospect of wealth to convince people to go on the first Crusade. Surely you won't deny that many crusaders were adventurers looking for a better life?

religion has nothing to do with conquering, invading and slaughtering others. sometimes religion is used as a pretext, but it is not the cause. if there were no christianity and no islam at the time... they would be fighting for any other reason... maybe for The Great Magic Coconut. does it really matter? pondering the reason itself is irrelevent and no less retarded than saying "its the will of god". Rome did not conquer the world for a god. Neither did the Huns. Neither did the Mongols and so on and so on and so on.

arguing about right and wrong in history is just as stupid as arguing about whose god is better. war has been happening since the dawn of civilization, well before the crusades, happen today in the year 2005 and will continue until the end of time.

power, glory, wealth and security are not religious ideals.

"war is the natural state of man"

:2 cents:

50.,.........

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

very interesting read on the struggle......the mortal struggle.........between Christianity and Islam.......the history of what lead up to the crusades and how they were about power and control.........which all wars are about anyways.

I saw the movie, I have to say I was very dissapointed. Tons of holes in the storyline, as far as movies go it's simply not up to par.

i liked the idea that honourability and being true to god were the theme in this movie, as opposed to doing what leaders in power say should be done in the name of god. :2 cents: :thumbsup

http://www.variety.com/VR1117922320.html

Bound for 'Heaven'?
Pic has been accused of short-shrifting real history

****************

hmmmmmmmm............

The Crusades, like many movements in history, had many players and many had diverging motives. Some were threatened by the rising Islamic aggression and loss of Christian territory. Others saw a moneymaking/land grabbing opportunity. Even others saw it as a 'holy war' against infidels. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857642.html

Going to see it in a few days

If the movie wasn't about the crusades then what is the discussion going on in this thread?


Correct....and the people that they were killing in the Balkans were Jews...not armies, just civlians that were unlucky enough to be caught in their path, and were subsequently brutalized, raped, and murdered in the thousands...

So.... Given your premise, what was the point of slaughtering all those Jews on the way to the Holy Land?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.... I just wonder what the reason was, and what it had to do with Christians defending themselves against Muslims.... :2 cents:

most likely, the answer is that they slaughtered them because they were there. why not slaughter them? everyone is trying to conquer their land... who needs the aggrevation of a revolt or needless fight against people who later have time to arm themselves and fight.

it seems to me that you already have an answer in mind and that you are trying to set up an argument that you feel you can win.

the "stated reasons" are completely irrelevent. the REAL root reasons that drives people are always the same... you conquer lands and slaughter anyone who opposes you. you take their wealth, their land and their property all to enrich yourself, your people and better ensure the safety and survival of your own. every living organism and social organism functions in this way. why does algae kill? why do monkeys kill? why does any living creature kill? it all boils down to the same basic reasons no matter how you rationalize it - safety, security, defense, pre-emptive defense.

i like the sets in the movie. they are spectacular. don't you think?! ;)

The notion that the crusades where about wealth is false, I believe. No doubt some where excited about the opportunity of making money, but for the most part the crusades (the first and following) where most definetly not about getting rich.

It is impossible to justify every action of every war as holy and brave, that is true. Like any war the crusades where brutal, and disgusting (I am certainly not a warmongerer). But the truth is the killing of the Jews was totally opposed by both local bishops, the pope, etc and it was frequently preached that the jews where not to be persecuted. In modern war it would be consider collateral damage (damage that you can't really control - there was no way the leaders of the crusades could control every individual). Whereas the USA might kill a child in a strick with it's tactical weapons, it can hardly be said that their aim in going into war was to kill that child. War is brutal, not everything that happened in the crusades was noble (quite obviously), but the idea that Islam was bent on coexistance until a bunch of religious fanatics from the West came down from nowhere (with no reason) to start killing them, and raping the land is most definitely false.

'most likely' - how would you know what was most likely? You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

why? does there have to be a clear, concrete cause that you agree with or can accept? "we did it for god" - "we are doing this for Allah". i know what the history books say and i know what the chain of events are. do you really believe that christians rolled across the globe trying to spread the message of Jesus of love and peace? or that muslims conquered most of the civilized world before them because they wanted to spread the kind word of Allah for the benefit of mankind while as christians did, they slaughter anyone who does not convert?

why do you need a sword to spread a message or peace and love? whats the point of a religion telling you to slaughter everyone that does not believe what you believe, if not to eliminate opposition (current and future) without prejudice? what then is the point of eliminating opposition to a belief system at all if it is not for the reasons i have already stated?

both christians and muslims were clearly interested in the spoils of war and empire... just as all warriors are. war serves only a few purposes and spreading a message of love and peace is not one of them.

Thanks for showing you have no knowledge about the subject at hand. Perhaps you can join indymedia.org and start writing news articles for them? I am sure they will appreciate your fluff and dance around the true subject at hand.

dont be an idiot. christians slaughtered 10's of 1000's of jews while giving them the option to convert (be baptized) during the first crusade. but that is a pretty simplistic answer though to a rather complex equation of sociology, anthropology, war, conquest and empire dont you think?

a better, although equally simplistic answer is that if someone is not decidedly for you, they are against you and they must be eliminated. that is how empires of the day were built and maintained.

and my point that you seem to be incapable of grasping was simply that "they won't convert to our religion" is not the reason that they or anyone else is killed during the crusades. they are killed because they are in the way and they are potential opposition and will always be a threat to the safety and security of the conquerers.

i just got back from the theater - not particularly moved - but it was entertaining - and that I felt like checking to see what time it was twice - but I didn't.

Who got the DVD as of yet?

I picked up "Murderball" the other day and have watched about half of it; its great so far.

:thumbsup

Hope I could have time to watch it :)