Customer Reviews

Action and appeasement at the expense of fact - By: Daibhidh (Dave), 09 Nov 2008
Even before I viewed this film I sensed that the representation of the reason for the Crusades would likely be distorted. My suspicions were proved correct right from the outset. The viewer is quickly led to believe that the Crusaders seized Jerusalem. In fact they had re-captured the city from Islamic conquest. As expected too, the Crusaders including the Christian religion are presentedin a totally negative light. Saladin is portrayed as benevolent, magnanimous & religiously pure. Of course, the Crusading hero is neither religious or politically minded. His attitude enables him to misguidedly define the earthly Jerusalem as the 'kingdom of heaven' thus leaving the viewer with that impression too. Nowherein the bible is the city describedin this way.
These predictable, PC distortions aside, the action is engaging as are the principal characters.
I'd put this filmin the same category as that other piece of Hollywood distortion of history & character, Braveheart: 95% fiction, 5% so so.

---

A noble crusade... - By: Trevor Willsmer, 25 Jul 2008
The 194-minute director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven gives the film more room to breathe, but it won't make converts of the unbelievers. Instead, it's a more leisurely paced version of the film for the faithful who liked the theatrical cut & want to revisit its world & charactersin a little more detail. Closerin style & tone to sixties roadshows than Scott's Gladiator, & all the better for it,in many ways it's the richest & most ambitious of the recent batch of epics. It's more of a journeyin the extended version, & a bloodier one (the added violence will please the gore hounds), although there are a few moments that tip over into self-indulgence & could have been tightened or omitted entirely.

The extended opening allows more character detail, but at the expense of more of Michael Sheen's caricatured greedy priest, now revealed as Balian's brother. Orlando Bloom's limitations are also given a little more room than they hadin the theatrical cut, but he certainly never stoops to the lows of Gerard "I'm wonderful, me" Butlerin Beowulf, Colin Farrell's Alexander or Clive Owen's truly catastrophic non-performancein King Arthur that left that film with a void at its center. Edward Norton's performance as the Leper King suffers a little from using different takes than the theatrical version, & at least one of his expanded scenes is simply longer without really being any better than its equivalentin the shorter version. The real winnerin the extra footage stakes is Eva Green, who I think I'm fallingin love with & whose part is considerably expanded & much more complex, allowing her a mass of contradictory motives (few of them noble), impulses & emotions that were smoothed awayin the theatrical version. The subplot involving her son also helps add more of an emotional charge to Baldwin's death, with the shot of his leprous face no longer gratuitous but essential. In fact,in this version of the film, there are even a couple of genuinely touching sequences.

While the added complexityin this cut is morein the characters thanin the plot, some of the problems of the theatrical version have been addressed. The shipwreck is just as rushedin this cut asin the theatrical version, but the pacing problemsin the astonishingly spectacular siege finale are much improved by the addition of a fairly minimal amount of footage. It no longer seems quite so hurried & there's more of a sense of the human cost after the battle at the Christopher Gate that was lackingin the shorter version by the simple expedient of including characters we briefly get to know among the dead. There IS one massive miscalculation after the siege where a redundant swordfight has been added: not only is it completely ineffective, dwarfed by the sheer scale & weight of what has come before, but it's also unnecessary, winding up a plot point no-one cares about any more & simply underlining the events of the previous scene.

It also now comes with added Bill Paterson, which is rarely a bad thing, especially since his brief scene as a compassionate Bishop establishes the incompatibility of fanatical adherence to religious law with the actions of a loving savior that is one of the film's major themes. Although most of the Christian clerics here are transparent hypocrites, they are also counterbalanced by David Thewlis' Knight Hospitaler just as the `good' Muslims are counterbalanced by fanatics as both Saladin & Baldwin have to walk a tightrope with their own people to prevent war.

Thanks to a strong script this is easily Scott's best film since Blade Runner. Unlike Gladiator it doesn't feel like it was written on the hoof, & he has enough confidencein the material not to overdo the stylistics at the expense of the storytelling: here the visuals serve the picture, which isn't always the casein his past work. Even John Mathieson, probably the worst cinematographer to ever win an Oscar, finally delivers the goods. CGI is used sparingly & very effectively when it is (none of the poor FX problems that plagued parts of Gladiator here, thankfully). Instead, much of the spectacle is shot for real - not only is it usually cheaper, but it's certainly a lot more impressive to look at.

The transfer quality is not as good as on the theatrical version, but it's more than acceptable. The extra features on the 4-disc set are impressive, including a deeply depressed screenwriter mulling over its US failure. Of the additional deleted scenes included as extras, there's nothing that needed to go back into the picture: most are ideas that didn't really work while a couple are just plain silly. The DVD also includes an interesting collection of trailers & TV spots that try to sell it as everything from The Passion of the Christ IIin an outrageous piece of false advertising involving adding a "Don't worry, God is with me" line of dialog notin the film (particularly ironic considering its Humanist viewpoint & the crisis of faith of its hero), a family movie, an epic adventure, a country & western rock video & a kick-ass heavy metal teen bloodbath: anything to avoid mentioning Muslims or, God forbid, history. Can't think why this didn't take off at the US box-office...

---

the first cut is the deepest - By: I. M. Would, 01 Jun 2008
If you are going to watch this movie make sure its the definitive/directors cut. It makes far more sense than the theatrical release/DVD it is, however, still left wanting.
As you would expect for a Ridley Scott film it looks sumptuous, truely breathtakingin places but this cant make up for a flawed script & some poor casting. Orlando struggles with poor characterisation & lacks the gravitas to lead such an epic, starkley highlighted when he shares the srceen with the likes of Jeremy Irons & Liam Neeson (perhaps a better choice?) Even Ed Norton who wears a mask for the whole film comes out of it better. Eva Greens performance is fleshed outin an entire sub plot & benefits greatlyin the process, one of the standout performances of the film.

Whilst making far more sense than the theatre release the editing is still a bit 'jerky' at times with some puzzling & uneccessary scenes restored (do we need to see Guy fiddling with his sword & then getting it on with his wifes maid to understand that he's a bit of a bad 'un - any worse than his wife who's already 'stalked' Balian into bed)

Generally a bit more gory than the original but not gratuitously so the film is far more watchable but can't overcome itsin built deficiencies (poor scripting & slight misscasting) Its a worthy attempt at trying to bring to film a complex & violent period of history whilst obviously trying to draw parrallels with the situationin the middle east today. It succeeds on some levels & not on others but I found that whilst it was historically innacurrate it DOES portray the 'spirit' of the times well & is even handed. I would find it hard to accept that muslim or christian could complain about how their ancestors are portrayed.

The extras are exhaustive & far more interesting & engaging than your average DVD .. I havn't been as interested since the LOTR extended versions so you will always get your moneies worth with this purchase.

Ultimately very watchable but not overly engaging or involving, i was left thinking 'close but no cigar' however it IS the best of the recent clutch of 'sword & sandle' movies &in time, as with many of Ridleys films, feel sure this will be seen as a flawed classic.

---

Film with a message, if you like that kind of thing - By: MM Turner, 16 May 2008
Ridley Scott is one of the greatest film makers of the last thirty years. His breadth is incomparable, & his mastery of story is superb. However, just occasionally, his desire to make a point can become a little obtrusive.

Kingdom of Heaven is a film with a message: mercy saves the day. Fairly earlyin the film, Balian (Orlando Bloom) spares the life of an Arab who he takes to be the servant of the man he has just killed. "Your qualities will be known among your enemies before ever you meet them", is the man's response. Later it turns out that the man is not the servant of the man killed, but his master, & the right hand man of Saladin. A little later, Balian is captured while defending Kerak, & the same man frees him, repeating his quotation. Balian's mercy is strongly contrasted with the butchery & warmongering of his crusader enemies Raynald & Guy. Eventually, Guy & Raynald together start a war which leads inevitably to the destruction of their army & the siege of Jerusalem. After defending it skilfully against several attacks, Balian accepts Saladin's merciful proposal to allow all the people safe passage to a Christian country. Right at the end of the film, Balian refuses Richard the Lionheart's request to joinin a crusade to retake Jerusalem.

The film concludes with the written text: "Almost a thousand years later, peacein the Kingdom of Heaven remains elusive".

This is a beautifully filmed story, with a perfectly timed plot, a strong undercurrent of romance, genuine excitement & wonderfully accurate depictions of the culture & historical background of the times. However, the storyline is not historically accurate: it is largely contrivedin order to hammerin Ridley Scott's point. What is slightly odd is that this is almost exactly the opposite point from the message of his previous epic Gladiator ("I will have my revenge").

I really, really like this film, but, for once with a Ridley Scott production, I see it as a flawed picture (even though, basically, I agree with the message). The point was a little too obvious the first time I watched it. On subsequent viewings, I feel like shouting out 'I get it, I get it!'

Nonetheless, still warmly recommended, if notin the first league of Scott productions.

---

Good potential -> Poor result. - By: WZ, 13 May 2008
I love epics, & here the setting, the visuals, the screenplay, & ( despite some heavy boring cliches ) the story could have made a great one. But the movie suffers from being unbelievably slow-paced & long-winded. There's enough material for an interesting 2 hours at most, but it's over 3 hours long. Disappointing waste of good potential.