« How we work: Mark Kostabi, artist | Main | How we work: Joseph Mitchell, writer »

December 06, 2004


I think Lane is a complete a@#hole who has no clue about historical epics and good movies with actual stories even after he sees them! He's just the type to ravage anything that is big because he can and he gets money ...and controversy for it. Did he not listen to the interviews, other reviews and Ridley Scott himself? The biggest mistake Lane made in his review of "Kingdom of Heaven" was comparing it to "Gladiator". If he had any common sense and the least bit of historical knowledge, he would see that there is no grounds to compare or contrast between the two. He will be spat on. Oh, and I'm not a girl. and that should satisfy a rebutle based on support of the leading man Orlando Bloom. Whom I actually thought did a wonderful job and truely knows how to "act"... speaking of the art... something you have no vocabulary for Lane. I'm glad Lane will be a grumpy old man in his later years and not be able to truely appreciate a good thing when he sees it. peace

To be fair, annonymous, Lane's review finds Kingdom of Heaven inferior to Gladiator on the grounds of its story, rather than any historic comparison:

"What cripples "Kingdom of Heaven" is its want of a beat—a basic pulse of expectation that would urge us to stand at Balian’s side and to wonder, like him, what lies over the crest ahead."

anonymous, U r a classic loser.

anthony lane is awesome. no questions asked.

The comments to this entry are closed.