Mfw he didn't watch the director's cut

>mfw he didn't watch the director's cut

Attached: baldwin-iv-battle.jpg (700x372, 42.36K)

A BOARD THAT BEARS HIS HOLY DUBS CANNOT BE BEATEN IN BATTLE

Even the theatrical cut is pretty good, this is Ridley Scott's last great movie.

>there’s an alternate reality where everyone wears these aesthetic masks and you’re stuck in a realm where everyone has to see your ugly face

This is a good film, just not a good historical film

pre senility scott made some real kino

Someone didn't take the guard of the hawk!

>When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus." Or that, "Virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice.

well people are currently wearing paper masks. You have the opportunity to start a trend.

>the director's cut magically fixes Bloom's shitty acting

Attached: conbl.jpg (894x894, 368.45K)

Yes, because there's more material to deepfake Viggo Mortensen onto him now

>Nothing.....Everything
what the fuck was his problem?

I want a cool mask so I can act like a 12 year-old with it on and say stupid shit while recording myself, i'm not joking.

I like intrigue to be cleaver and engaging. That was not found in the director's cut.

nothing.....everything

Film Saladin is a Mary Sue

Attached: Sal.jpg (600x500, 49.58K)

I want to punch this smug bastard so bad bros

>mfw he didn't watch the director's cut

Attached: gfds.png (762x988, 853.34K)

he can't form greater Egypt empire if the mudslimes can't take Jerusalem.

>Christcucks willingly gave jerusalem to jews
Kek

Dilate

Nothing can fix that, but it does fix the theatrical cut's shitty plotting.

Ridley just didn't want to get suicide-bombed by giving him flaws.

the winter france scene is so fucking comfy

>that entirely shitty romance subplot
It tied up a lot of loose ends but god damn it was annoying

it's a shitty by-the-numbers sword and sandal hollywood movie. only good part is the leprous king, and the shot of the army marching with the huge golden cross. so much wasted potential.

A typically fair and balanced take on Christian-Muslim relations by Hollywood. Some cool scenes and good performances though.

>Crusader historians such as Jonathan Riley-Smith, quoted by The Daily Telegraph, called the film "dangerous to Arab relations", calling the movie "Osama bin Laden's version of history" which would "fuel the Islamic fundamentalists".

>fair
>Christians are portrayed as bad, Europe is portrayed as an oppressive place full of dark blues
>Meanwhile the islamic Middle East is portrayed with vibrant colors, muslims are all nice and shit
crusades were a LATE response to 300 years of muslim agression that has consumed literally half of christian world, 3 out of 5 holiest places of christianity were conquered by muh dindu nuffin peaceful arabs

Not to mention their invasions and occupation of europe.

Attached: main-qimg-95950517b51b99079600d0a8f457f055.png (602x500, 259.33K)

checked and checked

I think he was being sarcastic.