Kingdom of Heaven

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 really pulled out the stops when it comes to the extra features, so based on those reasons i will give it a five.

3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

Director's Cut is a much better film

This directors cut is the film that should have been released to the theaters in the first place. Watch this version and find a great film in place of the mediocre one you saw the first time. Characters make sense, performances are more complete. Ridley Scott needs to talk to Peter Jackson and find out how to get the film you made released instead of a 2 hour hacked up, studio version. Enjoy the movie you were meant to see!!

3 out of 3 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), 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.

3 out of 8 people found this review helpful.

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.

2 out of 7 people found this review helpful.

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.

An Entertaining Epic

I saw the original version of the film back when it came out in 2005 and I enjoyed it despite its rather disjointed structure (in places) and overly preachy scenes on religion. It's not the greatest film ever made but its actually far more historically accurate than the majority of so called 'historical' films. Sure, there are liberties taken (we know virtually nothing about Balian-which is of course why they wrote a story around him) but that is to be expected. The question to ask with films like this is if it gets the flavor of the time period right, and overall I think it does. The director's cut also goes a long way in fleshing out a number of characters-the entire sub-plot of Sibylla's son is back in and gives her grief far more poignancy. It's too bad that Jeremy Irons' character, Count Raymond of Tiberias is so slighted in the script-it was he who really led the defense of Jerusalem while his wife (who is not mentioned in the film) defended their castle but again, it's a movie. The character of Saladin (Ghassan Massoud in a brilliant performance) is quite accurate by all accounts, as is Baldwin IV (Edward Norton). In the extras disks, the filmmakers openly admit that they distorted the character of Guy (against their will, I will point out) because the studio wanted a mustache twirling villain. The real Guy was a weakling and a fool but not a comic book character. On the other hand Brendan Gleason does a very nice job with Reynald, who was really that bad in 'real life.' The acting in fact is first rate across the board and of course the visuals and soundtrack are absolutely stunning, as is to be expected with a Ridley Scott film. Personally, I think this film is superior to his oscar winning Roman epic, "Gladiator" which also suffers from a disjointed script but takes far more liberties historically than does "Kingdom of Heaven."


One final word about some of the truly ridiculous reviews that have accompanied this offering. The ignorance and anti-Islamic bigotry that infests some of them is really a shame, and I say that as an Athiest. In fact, the real Guy did walk into a trap at the Horns of Hattin (as portrayed in the film) and was denounced by Christian historians for centuries afterward. In fact, the reason we know so much about Crusader atrocities from this period is because they were written down by other Christians. Let's leave our political and religious biases out of movies reviews, shall we?

1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

Kingdom of Blu-Ray

Up-conversion of standard DVDs looks pretty good, so if you're like me, it's not worth $30 a pop (on average) to replace my collection with Blu-Ray discs. Kingdom of Heaven is one of those films that is well worth the extra pixels. On it's own, as a movie, Kingdom of Heaven is a very good film. I'm not all that fond of Orlando Bloom as an actor (he's following in Keanu Reeves's footsteps on his way to becoming the most well-known piece of wood in the industry). But strong performances from a stellar supporting cast, an interesting script, and stunningly good visuals elevate the level of this film to the pantheon of "those I will watch multiple times".

As for the Blu-Ray version, I can only say - beautiful. The investment in a big HD screen and Blu-Ray player and entertainment system seem well worthwhile. I now get a movie-watching experience that bests most movie theaters, and Kingdom of Heaven is a joy to watch. I highly recommend this.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

kick ass movie

Sir Ridley Scott is amazing probably making his third best film, Gladiator as #1 and Black Hawk Down as #2, in this amazing epic there is a great storyline and intense battle scenes, SIR RIDLEY SCOTT is my hero!

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR AGAIN?

I found myself asking this question throughout the entire movie. Sure the battle scenes were excellent (sometimes over the top) and the acting was great, but I thought something was missing. I finally realized that they never did state a concrete fact on why this war was going on. They made Jerusalem look like a stronghold for these peasants who lived there and the Muslims were after the peasants, not the city itself. While they did make references to the Church, they made this one bishop look like a cowardly oaf (like they always do) and Thewlis was a priest/soldier? I thought that priest took a vow to never kill. The only way this movie pulled through was because they had the "good-looking" Orlando Bloom on there, for the girls anyway. At the final confrontation in Jerusalem, Bloom encourages the crowd "Let them come, we have to defend this city." He never gives the real reason why the city is so important, it just is for some reason. In a nutshell, as the movie went on, I thought they started to lose sight of why the Crusades were being fought. Great action movie. Poorly based on historical fact.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

The Crusades in a (mostly) Balanced Light

This film did not find its audience at the box office, but is a grand historical epic in the tradition of Ben-Hur and Braveheart. The director went to great lengths to present an exciting and intellectually stimulating film, and I think he pulls it off well. I have always been fascinated by this time period, and this is the best film treatment of the Crusades I have ever seen. Plenty of drama, lots of realistically flawed characters, great action, and moral questioning await you here. Buy this film!

0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

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.

It's Called a Movie

One must remember that you are watching here is a fictional depiction of historical events. It's an action movie whose primary motive is to entertain. Though there are historical figures and events, it is meant to be an action movie and not a documentary. There is no comedy and very little romance.<BR/><BR/>The effects are well-done, performances solid, and plot/script tight. There is much inspiration to take from the main character who comes "full circle," whose motives and decisions are not always well-considered, but whose courage is unflappable and heart/conscience untainted. <BR/><BR/>To those offended by the depiction of Christians/Catholics, I share your discomfort. But any indignation should be appeased with this. First, it's a fictional depiction of historical events, it does not claim to be a documentary full of facts. Second, if you read books about the Crusades, you will see human motives were very much a part of why these wars were fought. Some seek adventure, escape, and riches. Others just like power and killing. The focus of the movie was greatest on the Christian characters, so we did not get to see much of the Muslims. But recall at least one who wanted nothing more to take the city at any cost. <BR/><BR/>In our (Western) history, the Crusades have traditionally been described as a divinely inspired failed military adventure. Seldom detailed are the wholesale slaughter, i.e. when the crusaders captured Jerusalem or sacked Constantinople, both deeply religious and cosmopolitan cities. I have read many books on the Crusades (I'm recommending one of the most recently published) and I found the movie's depiction fairly accurate. <BR/><BR/>The plot/script is not a blame-game, or Hollywood's attempt to vilify Christians/Catholics. Rather it tries to show the crusades as a harsh reality of base human motives, even in the Kingdom of Heaven, and one character's quest to rise above and beyond it all.

GREAT FILM

This movie is one of the best I have seen because it has a great storyline and a lot of action. To set the record straight for those who criticise its view point, this movie is not about christians or muslims being evil but about our intolerance and our blinding loyalty to religion which is evident even in modern times. Also, Balian protects the people not the city of Jerusalem, because it is his duty as a knight. As the Hospitaller states, "Holiness is in right action.."

How can you not love Orlando!

Orlando Bloom is excellent in every role he plays and he is no disappointment here. Bloom not his usual clean cut look, goes for a rough look here portraying a young man who has to find his place as he battles for his survival. I thought this was an excellent movie about war, courage, sacrifice and hope. I would recommend it to all those who love movies of war and those who love Orlando bloom

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.

For those who say it shows Saladin better than he was.

This is a great movie, and you should definitely watch the extended version. For those who say that it shows Muslims in a better light than they were, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia. "espite his fierce opposition to the Christian powers, Saladin achieved a great reputation in Europe as a chivalrous knight, so much so that there existed by the 14th century an epic poem about his exploits, and Dante included him among the virtuous pagan souls in Limbo. The noble Saladin appears in a sympathetic light in Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman (1825). Despite the Crusaders' slaughter of Muslim men, women, and children when they originally conquered Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin granted amnesty and free passage to all common Catholics and even to the defeated Christian army (the Greek Orthodox Christians were treated better, because they opposed the crusades). An interesting view of Salah al-Din and the world in which he lived is provided by Tariq Ali's novel The Book of Saladin (London: Verso, 1998). Despite the differences in beliefs, Saladin was respected by Christian lords, Richard especially. Richard once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. Saladin in his turn stated that he would rather lose Jerusalem to Richard than to anyone else. After the treaty, Saladin and Richard sent each other many gifts as tokens of respect. However, these two military leaders never met face to face."

Hollywood Fodder

The movie tires to be epic with giant battles, "epic" acting, a score with big orchestral drums, cruel villains, and righteous heroes. All the Villains sneer, speak with gruff "arr matie" pirate voices, and spew scorn. The story is rushed with hardly enough development to make the motivations realistic. Bloom's motivation for the quest is paper thin and he arrives at Jerusalem in a high stature that he never earns. Supposedly we've seen him blossom from a smithy in his home town to a knight in high regard, but I must have blinked during those scenes. Eva Green's character exists only to provide the movie with a female character. She serves no purpose and mostly we see her peering off forlornly through eye shadow onto the various battlefields conveniently outside her bedroom window. Big "epic" battles take place without any real explanation. Some scenes are idiotic. A commander marches his army without water into the desert to fight an entrenched enemy. Bloom gains the tactical upper hand using implausible tactical methods. Men feigning fealty are allowed near enemy rulers close enough with blades long enough to reach their necks. This movie was contrived, poorly written, over acted, rushed, and pointless.

0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

One of the Greatest Epics Ever! 4 & a Half Stars.

Both Ridley & Orlando struck gold yet again with KOH, the 1st film based truly on the Crusades (All those others were Robin Hood/Ivanhoe films). Bloom continues to prove he's our generation's Errol Flynn with another mesmerizing swahbuckling role, this time as a haunted but heroic knight alongside a brilliant cast of legends ( Neeson & Irons) and newcomers ( Green & Csokas ). Maybe the best performance was Ed Norton uncredited as the dying but noble King Baldwin. The film's non-racial portrayal of Muslims was a real breath of fresh air, considering that in the past Arabs have always been seen as terrorist-types in film. This one displayed both Christians & Muslims as noble cultures held together by compassionate leaders but forced into conflict by ruthless scheamers. There were no heroes in that war, just tragic victims in both camps. Everything in KOH is near-perfect minus some tiny plot holes. This ranks with Gladiator, Braveheart & even fictional masterpiece: LOTR. A must own.

A good movie

This movie isn't the best movie out there starring Orlando, but it is a good way to pass an evening. The siege on Jerusalem in the end was the best part.

Kingdom of Heaven

I'll keep this short and sweet: I normally hate epics with fighting and all that, but I saw Orlando as one of the leads and I gave it a chance. LOVED IT!!! Orlando is as hott as ever - the other characters rock - the music fits - the special effects are good...AWESOME MOVIE. Confusing at some points, but it all comes together in the end!