Customer Reviews for

Kingdom of Heaven

Average Rating 4
( 63 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(32)

4 Star

(14)

3 Star

(10)

2 Star

(6)

1 Star

(1)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

What we should have seen

No matter what is done with the film it will never be a perfect movie. It is still historically incorrect. However, the director's cut does improve the story, the missing plot lines fill in all of the holes and the battle scenes are much better than before, plus they re...
No matter what is done with the film it will never be a perfect movie. It is still historically incorrect. However, the director's cut does improve the story, the missing plot lines fill in all of the holes and the battle scenes are much better than before, plus they really pulled out the stops when it comes to the extra features, so based on those reasons i will give it a five.

posted by Anonymous on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

4 out of 10 people found this review helpful.

a poor, pseudo-historical, and dogmatic film

All in all, this movie was a crass attack on Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism), and indeed, religion in general, veiled as a poor, pseudo-historical "account" of the events leading to the Third Crusade. Crusading rhetoric was misrepresented (to a degree), t...
All in all, this movie was a crass attack on Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism), and indeed, religion in general, veiled as a poor, pseudo-historical "account" of the events leading to the Third Crusade. Crusading rhetoric was misrepresented (to a degree), the leading character's identity is preposterously (and inaccurately) developed, Saladin was shown in an unduly righteous and virtuous manner (considering the actual history), the common Christians in Jerusalem were incorrectly shown as witless sheep, the Catholic clergy were improperly categorically damned as hypocritical, warmongering cowards, the Templars were grossly misrepresented--shall I continue? The only redeeming qualities of this movie were the soundtrack (mostly its Gregorian components) and the portrayal of King Baldwin IV the Leper. As the leading current British historian of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, described it--and he would know far better than I--it is the Saddam/bin Laden version of the Crusades and will only serve the interests of the enemies of Western civilization. Had Balian given such a speech in real life as he does in this film, the crowd would not have cheered him, but rather roasted him at the stake, without the need of any encouragement by the local clergy.

posted by Anonymous on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 6 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    a poor, pseudo-historical, and dogmatic film

    All in all, this movie was a crass attack on Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism), and indeed, religion in general, veiled as a poor, pseudo-historical "account" of the events leading to the Third Crusade. Crusading rhetoric was misrepresented (to a degree), the leading character's identity is preposterously (and inaccurately) developed, Saladin was shown in an unduly righteous and virtuous manner (considering the actual history), the common Christians in Jerusalem were incorrectly shown as witless sheep, the Catholic clergy were improperly categorically damned as hypocritical, warmongering cowards, the Templars were grossly misrepresented--shall I continue? The only redeeming qualities of this movie were the soundtrack (mostly its Gregorian components) and the portrayal of King Baldwin IV the Leper. As the leading current British historian of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, described it--and he would know far better than I--it is the Saddam/bin Laden version of the Crusades and will only serve the interests of the enemies of Western civilization. Had Balian given such a speech in real life as he does in this film, the crowd would not have cheered him, but rather roasted him at the stake, without the need of any encouragement by the local clergy.

    4 out of 10 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    A reviewer

    This movie was a severe disappointment. I thought it would put the Christians in a better light, as the heroes. I should have known better. It seems that it is Hollywood's life goal to put Christianity down, especially Catholics, even if it means making crappy movies such as this. Orlando Bloom was in here because of his good looks and being Legolas in LOTR. I was excited that there were other good actors such as Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons and David Thewlis. Tragedy, tragedy, tragedy. Liam Neeson dies within the first ten minutes and David Thewlis I think was supposed to be a priest, but he never dressed nor acted as one. He never really seemed to believe in God, either. He kind of just followed Orlando around. Jeremy Irons was good until he lost his faith for no reason and completely abandoned The Holy City. Orlando's character I think just wanted to fight just to say that he could be in a battle. He had no interest in God, therefore he was fighting in vain. Of course, only the Muslims are the only ones who are good and remain true to their faith and do not make any rash decisions, such as the bloodthirsty Christians. At the end of the movie the characters seemed to say, "Actually, all religions are the same, so can't we all just get along." Uh, no. The men in these Crusades would not have fought to the death for no stupid reason, they believed that their religions were very different, which they still are.

    3 out of 9 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    VERY DISAPPOINTING TO CHRISTIANS

    I believe it was Mr. Scott's main goal to make it look like the Crusades were in vain. He makes the Muslims look they are the ones who want peace and the Christians who are attacking them. Orlando Bloom's character was muddled. He decided to help out Jerusalem to see what it was like and finds out more about God, but still refuses to believe in him. And at the end he fails to defend the city and surrenders it and goes back to his life as the blacksmith hermit. He accomplishes nothing and there is no hero.

    2 out of 6 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    I Also Recommend:

    Let's Address Some Issues Here:

    Ok, after reading over the rest of the reviews I'm slightly concerned; so let's clear up some falacies before moving on the the film. 1. "Who is the knight/priest?". This character is a Knight's Hospitaler, evidenced by his black and white heraldry. All orders of knights that were formed as part of the crusades were considered to be holy men and, by extension, a part of the Church in general; this also includes the Knight's Templar. While this is a simplification of how the heiarchy worked, it is necessary to explain how this film dramatically over-simplified knightly orders. Case in point: the Knight's Templar are blood-thirsty fanatics and the Knight's Hospitaler were holy, devout knights. Neither is correct with the truth lying somewhere in the middle. Also, some people seem to have a problem with the Muslims being portrayed as "too honorable". Well, in fact the Muslims were instructed on European chivalry and were told to follow these edicts; it was only after the Crusaders demonstrated that the codes of Chivalry only applied to *other Christians* did they throw the "rule book" out the window. <BR/><BR/>Now as far as the film goes (b/c, let's face it, if it's made well enough who cares about historical accuracy? ie. Braveheart): This movie had potential. I think the sets and costumes are really something worth seeing, provided you're a big history fan. However, I had some major gripes with this movie. Liam Neeson plays a great character and I think that the interplay between him and Bloom really could have gone somewhere IF he were not killed right at the beginning of the film. In addition to Neeson, the two most interesting members of his retinue are also killed (Big german guy and Moorish buddy). There are also a lot of "what the?!" moments, like when Bloom awakens from a shipwreck to find a living and healthy steed waiting on the beach for him. Ultimately this movie is made up of a hodge-podge of great sets, nice costumes, and a couple of half-way worthwhile actions sequences. Good for watching with friends so you can talk over the scenes where the so-called character development is happening.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    yawn

    thats all i can say is yAWN....there is no conncetion to the characters in this movie so you do not get drawn in to the plot.

    0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 30, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 6 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1