Kingdom of Heaven (2005) User Reviews

Watch the 3+ Hour Director's Cut, not the Studio's 2+ Hour Butchered Cut

[Walter_Probinsky · 8/10 · 27 April 2019]

There are two versions of this movie that are strikingly different in their impact and emotional meaning. The theatrical release is a 2-plus hour-long studio edit. The director's cut is 3-plus hour-long edit that was released later. I watched both versions back-to-back, and without question, the director's cut is the superior. It's not just a matter of additional footage putting more meat on the bone--more heart is added to the film as well.

The movie is a violent and gritty portrayal of the Crusades era in medieval times, but wrestles artfully with complex issues of faith, morality, justice and diversity and what it means to live a godly life. Apparently, the studio decided such thematic depth was a drawback and that audiences are mostly superficial morons, so they insisted on an edit that presented it as an action movie, leaving in just enough character development to feebly sew the action scenes together. In the process, not only character motivation was lost, but important plot developments in the story.

After watching the shorter edit first--which seemed disjointed and filled with holes in the way of crappy edits--I had to go look up the movie's synopsis online to understand what the hell I had watched. In the director's cut, it was much clearer. But the biggest difference is the thought-provoking character development and dialogue scenes throughout that bring an intelligence to the primitive times being depicted.

At the end of the studio edit, I felt uninspired and filled with a sense that the movie had many missed opportunities.

At the end of the director's cut, I felt I had seen a real movie with real ideas. And I was left thinking about it.

Ridley Scott has had some bad luck with studio interference in his edits, most memorably with the two versions of "Blade Runner." You would think they'd trust his instincts after all this time.

Listen to the other reviews when they say get the Director's Cut of this movie

[hugosoup · 7/10 · 4 April 2019]

I watched the Director's Cut of this movie, which is why I rate it so high. Truly one of the best medieval movies of all time, just do yourself a favor and watch it. Sure, the movie is very long, but trust me, the movie is very well worth your time. Don't waste your time on the theatrical version, it's missing essential minutes that are include in the DC. So yeah, basically, if there was a movie to get the DC for instead of the regular cut, it's this one.

A good movie hidden in the director's cut

[halfred · 8/10 · 13 March 2017]

WARNING: If you want to watch this movie there's two things I recommend.

First: Get yourself the director's cut. The theatrical release has 45 minutes of cuts. The movie doesn't make sense without that material. With those 45 minutes included, this film is a gripping epic with some great cinematography and some really good acting (well, Orlando Bloom is serviceable at best but there is great cast of supporting characters; most notably Edward Norton that delivers an impressive body and voice performance as the always face-covered Leper King).

Second: Renounce any historical accuracy. If you are an expert on Crusades and this time period in general, this movie will probably disappoint you. Every element has some root in real events but they are twisted and turned to service what is essentially a very modern moral lesson.

Some history...

[pmitsi · 15 May 2005]

Kingdom of Heaven is an entertaining and spectacular film, to say the least. However, being an enthusiast of the history of the crusader states, I would like to mention some historical facts and accuracies that generated the film.

For a start, all the main characters of the film are historical figures, from Balian to the unfortunate Baldwin IV (oftenly referred as "Baldwin the Leper"). However, the only connection of Balian and Sybilla was that he indeed helped her defend Jerusalem and negotiated its subsequent surrender to Saladin. However, he was not only a political opponent of her husband (Guy de Lusignan), but also of HERS.

You see, Sibylla actually loved Guy enough as to fight to make him a king, even if the barons of the kingdom were against him. She actually tricked them: She agree to divorced him before her coronation, with the only term to choose herself her new husband. When the barons accepted, she just chose to remarry Guy and established him in the throne of Jerusalem. Balian was married with her stepmother, mother of her half sister Isabella (completely ignored in the film). He conspired with Maria to have another noble, Conrad of Montferrat, marry Isabella, giving Conrad a stronger claim to the kingdom.

Sibylla actually succeeded her son from a previous marriage (Baldwin V), not her brother, as the film suggests. He was a child-king that succeeded his leper uncle but lived only for one year. Indeed Guy was captured in the Battle of Hattin. When Saladin was besieging the Holy City (and Sybilla personally led the defense) and she was permitted to escape to Tripoli with her daughters. However she died of an epidemic 3 years later in Tyre, the only city in the kingdom that did not fall. Her daughters also died of the same epidemic, and Guy (by now released) lost the kingdom of Jerusalem and was compensated with the Lordship of Cyprus by Richard the Lionheart.

Balian died 3 years later. He NEVER retired from the politics of the kingdom as the film suggests.

Entertaining!

[Antagonisten · 7/10 · 2 May 2005]

I can start by admitting that i'm a fan of "Gladiator". And why do i mention this? Because there are more similarities between "Gladiator" and this movie besides having the same director.

What struck me first about this movie was the visual style. Ridley Scott is just one of the best directors right now when it comes to this. Every shot feels thought-through, every color balanced. Most of the time though he still manages to avoid the clinical style of many other directors focused on visuals. "Gladiator" felt somewhat artificial to me when i watched it the first time around, and even more so when watching it on DVD. Many of the special effects-shots are simply not that well-made. "Kingdom of Heaven" though takes full opportunity of the advancements made in technology. The movie looks awesome to say the least.

The script is no revolution of coherence or cohesion, yet it works rather well for this type of movie. Because this is more pure entertainment than anything else. In the press material Ridley Scott stated himself that this should be seen more as entertainment than historical facts. Which is absolutely fine by me i might add, at least as long as he states this beforehand. Perhaps the most disturbing things is for instance the way that Orlando Bloom goes from clueless blacksmith to full-fledged sword-wielding knight in 15 minutes movie-time.

And the actors? Orlando Bloom is in my opinion one of the most over-rated actors around today. Here though he's better than i've seen him before. I think the main thing is that he manages to act and look more like an adult this time, while in most previous movies he has felt almost childish. The rest of the cast consist mostly of quite well-known names and they all do a fine job, making this movie quite well-acted although it's not exactly Shakespeare...

All things said and done i found this movie to be very entertaining. It's visually stunning, reasonably well acted with a decent script and some nice characters. What it lacks in coherence and story it makes up for with a strong and quick pace (for the genre) and some truly impressive action scenes. Wolfgang Petersson and Oliver Stone should watch this before they even think of making another historic epic. Because Ridley Scott has learned the important lesson so well put in "Gladiator": the people want to be entertained! I rate this 7/10.

Best example of "See the Director's Cut"

[Pete-235 · 9/10 · 2 August 2012]

Many of the reviews above I agree with, but I also saw the theatrical version and was very disappointed (6 out of 10). When the Director's Cut came out it was 45 minutes longer, so you fear the worst, MORE of the same. In this case, the story line is filled out and the motivations and characters are fleshed out. Eva Green went from, "why is she in this movie" with virtually no screen time and less dialog to a major character who moves the plot, as you would hope given her billing. The opening scenes in France are greatly expanded and meaningful. The action scenes are better, but not substantially. The Director's cut should have been the official version of the movie, the theatrical cut is a poor excuse.

The Man in the Silver Mask steals film from Bloom's anachronistic Bildungsroman hero

[DrMMGilchrist · 6/10 · 10 May 2005]

(Now refers to Director's Cut)

In theatrical and director's cut alike, 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a botched opportunity. It has spectacular cinematography, and is highly atmospheric, but would have been better if Scott and Monahan had used more of the real story. It suffers from problems common to historical films and novels: the fictionalised hero's travails are irritating, and the sympathetic characters' anachronistic attitudes break suspension of disbelief. All the heroes express open-minded religious/moral values of a post-Enlightenment, near-Unitarian nature, which would have got them burnt in the 12C; more plausibly mediæval mind-sets belong to the villains. Monahan's interpretation of characters and incidents are based on now-outdated historiography, e.g. the depiction of Patriarch Eraclius, in reality a competent figure. The attempts to make the story an anti-imperialist parable for contemporary Middle-Eastern conflicts fail, too, because they are built on misunderstandings of the 12C situation and modern cultural guilt-tripping. The history is interesting in itself; why strain after 'contemporary relevance'? My chief reason for rating it above DeMille's 'The Crusades' is that at least it leaves my favourite Crusades character off-screen and unscathed!

The battles aspire to the standard of Peter Jackson's Tolkien films: Jerusalem is Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith without the unusual wildlife. (I kept expecting Orlando to skate downstairs on his shield while firing arrows...) His charge at Kerak is Faramir's suicide mission crossed with the ride of the Rohirrim. There is a superfluous shipwreck, yet the dramatic - and vital - battle of Hattin, in which the real Balian and Raymond fought, happens off-screen. The importance of the military orders in the Kingdom's defence is diminished. The personal conflict between Raymond and Templar Grand Master Gerard de Ridefort is replaced by depicting all Templars as 'baddies', in the Walter Scott tradition.

Orlando Bloom's 'Balian' strains credulity. Only his defence of Jerusalem and negotiation of its surrender connect him with the real Balian d'Ibelin. Balian was in his 40s, an Outremer-born baron of Italian descent: not illegitimate, not French, never a village wright and smith. He married King Amaury I's Byzantine widow Maria, and did not have an affair with Sibylla (Amaury's daughter by his first wife). So far, so 'Braveheart', in gratuitous inaccuracy...

Sibylla (played by Eva Green) is equally misrepresented. She was devoted to Guy, refusing to divorce him when pressed to: hardly a casual adulteress. ***SPOILER*** She was not regent for her son, Baldwin of Montferrat - Raymond of Tripoli was. The child was not a leper (leprosy is not hereditary or easy to catch), and she did not kill him: he simply died young. The tacked-on 'happy ending' is absurd. She died in the siege of Acre in 1190. And I'm sure she'd *rather* have died than go to live in a village with a blacksmith. In the feudal 1180s, you didn't 'downshift'.

Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) is portrayed as a scheming villain, dressed as a Templar. 'Scheming' suggests a degree of intelligence few writers associate with Guy: not evil, but over-enthusiastically chivalrous, easily led, and simply unlucky. After Sibylla's death, his claim to the throne crumbled, and by then nobody wanted him apart from Richard Oc-e-Non (a cameo-role from Iain Glen) - because he was one of his Poitevin vassals. (Richard also figures in a script gaffe: Sibylla, teaching her son geography, says he is King of England, having succeeded Henry II: in fact, Henry (her cousin) outlived her son by about 3 years!)

Four characters are vaguely recognisable: Baldwin IV (Ed Norton) is the true hero of the film: a gifted, noble and courageous 24-year-old, dying of leprosy. Even finally seeing the ghastly disfigurement behind his serene silver mask does not erase the viewer's perception of his real beauty: his character. The true extent of his disability is played down, however: in his last years, he was blind and crippled, but still went on campaign in a litter, tended by his mother. Also, he is portrayed as essentially peace-loving; in fact, he was a hard-fighting Angevin warrior-king, Henry II's first cousin. And he would not have spurned the sacrament from the Patriarch.

Jeremy Irons plays Count Raymond of Tripoli - but the film (to avoid confusion with Tripoli in Libya) changes his title to Tiberias (in reality, held by his wife). He looks very much the wise, wily, battle-scarred Raymond I've loved. However, the film strikes a wrong note in claiming he withdraws in self-imposed exile to Cyprus. He fought at Hattin, and died of pleurisy - and a broken heart - in Tripoli, aged 47, during the siege of Jerusalem.

Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) also lives up to expectations: brave, tough, charismatic, and shrewd. It is good to see him played by a Middle-Eastern actor, not - as in previous Crusade films - a Western actor in brown make-up, but his ruthlessness is played down. He would have invaded with or without provocation. Reynaud de Châtillon (Brendan Gleeson) is portrayed as opportunistic and violent as he was, but is dressed as a Templar, which he wasn't. Nor did he kill, or even abduct, Saladin's sister. However, his execution by Saladin is a high point of the film: one of the few scenes taken faithfully from contemporary sources.

There are moments when the film takes wing into magnificence: Baldwin's meeting with Saladin in front of their armies, the True Cross flashing in the sun; Saladin praying over his slain soldiers. (I could have done with more in-period music accompanying these images, too.) But Balian's tedious Bildungsroman and anachronistic moralising drag it back to earth. If the real story is to be changed and fictionalised so heavily, why not change the names and set it in a fantasy universe? Why pretend to verisimilitude? I *might just* forgive Ridley Scott if he makes an *accurate* sequel that opens with a ship from Constantinople pulling into the beleaguered port of Tyre, and a dashing, 42-ish blond Italian coming ashore and taking command of the defences...

Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut.

[hitchcockthelegend · 10/10 · 18 May 2011]

"There can be no victory except through God"

Kingdom of Heaven is directed by Ridley Scott and written by William Monahan. It stars Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Marton Csokas, Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson, Alexander Siddig, David Thewlis, Ghassan Massoud and Edward Norton. Cinematography is by John Mathieson and music scored by Harry Gregson-Williams.

Director's Cut, two words that has these days come to mean a marketing ploy to get the home movie fan to part with more cash. Except maybe when they call it something else, such as Unrated Edition or Extended Edition, the Director's Cut has rarely been more than the original theatrical version with some added bits sewed back in. Case in point Ridley Scott's own Gladiator. But Scott is a big advocate of the home formats available to us, and what he says in his introduction on these releases are always telling. Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut is one of the rare cases that deserves the label, it is the cut Scott wanted and with 45 minutes extra in the film, it's now a fully formed epic and without doubt a better film than the one the theatrical cut suggested.

Nutshell plotting finds the story set during the Crusades of the 12th century. Balian (Bloom) is a French village blacksmith who after finally meeting his father Godfrey (Neeson), sets him on a course to aid the city of Jerusalem in its defence against the Muslim leader Saladin (Massoud). Saladin is battling to reclaim the city from the Christians. It's a fictionalised account of Balian de Ibelin the man, but with the Crusades featuring so rarely in movies it's good to see one with attention to detail in relation to the events and time period.

Now this version exists there is no reason to visit the theatrical cut, for although this has one or two missteps in the narrative, big holes have been plugged and characters importantly expanded. Benefiting the most are Eva Green as Sibylla, and Bloom himself as Balian. The former now gets substance on why she transforms from a measured princess to a borderline head-case, and the latter gets a back story which helps us understand why he does what he does. Both actors performances are seen in better light as their characters become more defined. Neeson and Norton, too, also get more screen time, and that can never be a bad thing.

In this day and age the topicality of the film as regards Muslims and Christians is obviously hard to ignore, but Scott and Monahan are not in the market for political posturing. Scott had long wanted to do a film about The Crusades, to make it an historical epic adventure reflecting the period, and he has achieved that without head banging messages. In fact the culmination of the films major battle comes by way of tolerance, compassion and mutual respect, not by over the top histrionics or side picking. It's a crucial point to note that the makers have not demonized the Arab leaders, both Saladin and Nasir (Siddig) are portrayed as intelligent and cultured men of standing. Their drive and determination coming off as respectful as Balian's defence of Jerusalem is. They also provide the film with two of its best acting performances. Impressive considering the film is full of very good acting turns.

It will come as no surprise to fans of Scott's work to find that Kingdom of Heaven is tremendous on production value. Filled out with astonishing visuals and no overuse of CGI, it's arguably Scott's best production: it's certainly his most ambitious. Filmed in Spain and Morocco, the makers easily whisk us back centuries to the France and Jerusalem of the time, the ability to plant us firmly in the time frame is not to be understated. Mathieson (Gladiator) is a big part of that, his colour lensing for France (metallic cold blues) and Jerusalem (dusky yellow and brown hues) is a visual treat and integral to the feel of the story. While Gregson-Williams' score rarely gets a mention, but it's very at one with Scott's vision, a delightful mix of ethnic strains, mystical flair and medieval emphasis. Scott also ups the ante for visceral battles, the horrors of war never more vivid as they are here. Supremely constructed, the siege of Jersualem is one of the finest in cinema, the first sight of fireballs igniting the night sky bringing the hairs on the back of the neck standing to attention. It's just one of many great moments that form part of Scott's breath taking epic.

Badly treated on cinema release by the studio, who even marketed that cut badly, Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut is these days worthy of a revisit and deeper inspection. For rich rewards await the genre faithful. 9.5/10

Cheesy nonsense with some neat crowd scenes

[Bojo375 · 6/10 · 25 March 2021]

I reviewed the director's cut in hopes it would change my lukewarm opinion from having seen the shortened version on release. It's certainly longer, and less choppy I guess, but at its heart it's still a silly boy-fantasy about magical, unearned specialness. Often unbelievable and even insultingly paternalistic (the locals seriously need Orlando Bloom to show them how to find water in the desert?) the film tries and tries to prove how even-handed and thoughtful it is by stating in one speech after another how even-handed and thoughtful its good-guy characters are, meanwhile handicapping the bad guys with simplistic motivations and the stupidest decision-making process on earth.

Bloom is a weak lead and simply can't carry the film. Many of the other actors though are quite good. And of course it looks pretty great. Lots of extras (real and digital) make for some nifty battle scenes, so if that's your jam and you're not too demanding in your screenplay needs, you might want to check it out.

Definitely deserves to be seen on a big screen but the Director's Cut is top notch.

[Fella_shibby · 9/10 · 5 June 2021]

I first saw this in a theatre in 2005 and inspite of owning a dvd (theatrical version) i never revisited it but revisited the 194 mins Director's Cut few days back.

The film has amazing visuals, the landscapes n the battle scenes are stunning.

While these kinda movies are enjoyed on the big screen, the Director's Cut makes more sense and has many scenes included, battle scenes are depicted with more violence than in the theatrical cut and the subplot involving Sybilla's son Baldwin V, is added but its very poignant.

Also more scenes with Hospitaller offering guidance to Balian are present in the Director's Cut. But a scene where Hospitaller guides Balian after Balian survives an attack by Guy's men looked a bit supernatural.

I am generous with a 9 cos the movie is very entertaining.

Wud have easily rated it a 10 if the makers wud have given more footage to the character of Saladin, a true chivalrous knight.

It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy which had been the model of our old chroniclers, won him no less popularity in Frankish Syria than in the lands of Islam - René Grousset (writer).

Despite the Crusaders' slaughter 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 even better, because they often opposed the western Crusaders).

Sometimes Wonderful . Often Irritating

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 18 February 2008]

I'd heard a lot about KINGDOM OF HEAVEN when it was released in 2005 . Most of the reviews were rather uncomplimentary so I made a point of missing it until it was broadcast on Channel 4 last night and as I write this review I remember a lot of beautiful things about this movie . Unfortunately I can remember far more things that annoyed me

Ridley Scott has been swotting up on the films and technique of David Lean and in many ways Scott is a natural successor to that legendary film director . The battle scenes are even better than the ones seen in Jackson's THE TWO TOWERS and RETURN OF THE KING and at no time did I believe I was watching an unconvincing CGI battle fest , just an army of thousands of extras walloping each other over the head like you'd see in the greatest Hollywood epics of yesteryear . Scott has also assembled a truly great cast that includes household names like Neeson and Irons alongside very effective character actors like Norton , Glen , Thewlis , Sheen and Gleeson . It must have been something of a gamble for Scott to cast pretty boy Bloom in the lead role since he's the sort of " movie star " who's only famous because of his good looks rather than any outstanding thespian ability but Orlando Bloom probably gives his greatest performance in this film . The only thing that the director Can be criticised for is an over reliance of slow motion during the battle scenes but apart from that everything else on screen is Oscar worthy , though since Scott was under rewarded at award ceremonies you get the feeling that he was trying a little too hard to win an Oscar

There's an old saying that " if a film is good then it's down to the director and if it's bad it's down to the screenwriter " and this is certainly true of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN . Throughout the running time I was left scratching my head wondering about characters motives and why certain characters did certain things and let's not ignore the clichés of " You are a brave warrior so I will let you live " type moments . Some people claim that the studio should be held responsible rather than screenwriter William Monahan since they made several cuts to the final print and there's a disjointed feel to the narrative . Perhaps this is true but I wonder how many people watching this on DVD or on television like me had to keep logging in to the wikipedia in order to understand what was happening on screen . It should also be pointed out that there's a rather politically correct feel to the story with neither Christians or Muslims being portrayed as out and out villains with only the Knight templars being portrayed as evil . One wonders if the knight templars were still in existence today if they'd be shown in this way . In many ways it's like watching a second world war film where Germans are shown as being as much as victims of Nazism as those in the occupied territories . Honestly I was expecting the templars to goose step in to battle while proclaiming " I vos only obeying orders " . It says something about the quality of director and cast when they can rise above such one dimensional scripting

In short this is a film that is sometimes beautiful and stunning but often irritating , confused and plodding . It is well directed and acted but you often get the impression that it tries too hard and this works against it . Historians probably won't like it and you get the feeling no one will love KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and everyone will give slightly different reasons as to why they didn't love it . In short it's a very flawed masterpiece

Kingdom of Heaven is a Ridley Scott Masterpiece

[rileymullins · 10/10 · 31 August 2006]

Kingdom of Heaven (KOH) is an amazing film. I saw it in the theater but the reason it's so great is because of the 4-Disc Director's Cut, which is a must own for any KOH fan.

Story: A well written script, KOH is about a blacksmith whose wife has committed suicide and he seeks out to redeem her in the city of Jerusalem, but ends up defending the people in the great battle against the Muslims.

Cast: The cast for this film was outstanding. One would at first question Orlando Bloom as the leading role of Balian (let's face it, he's no Russell Crowe), but this is by far his best main character performance. Liam Neeson is great as usual, as Balian's long lost father. Jeremy Irons is a great pick because he looks like he's from the crusades and his voice is undeniable. Obviously he's a great actor as well. Eva Green does very well for basically being the only woman in the film and she also fits the the time period well. Martin Csoskas give a great show as the bloodthirsty wanna-be king. Brendan Gleeson.. Do I even need to say anything? The man is incredible. He's so great at being the jerk. Ghassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig do great as playing Muslims in the film. Edward Norton is completely astounding in his uncredited performance as the leper King Baldwin. He is one of my favorite characters in the film.

Music: The music score for this movie is definitely in the top 10. Harry Gregson-Williams delivers a powerful score in this one. Gregson-Williams was a great pick though straying from Ridley Scott's usual Hans Zimmer.

Other: The sets, the costumes, the editing, the cinematography are all superior. They are all very authentic and beautiful and add to the films realness.

Ridley Scott is brilliant. You can definitely see a resemblance of Gladiator in KOH, which is a great thing because who doesn't like Gladiator. His ability to create worlds is unlike any other director in history. The 4-Disc Director's Cut allows you to see more of what Ridley Scott's methods are like.

4-Disc Director's Cut: It has everything you want to see. It puts approximately 45 minutes back into the film and what a great 45 minutes it is. It goes much more in depth especially with Eva Green's Character Sibylla. It includes all the essentials that you would want in a 4-Disc set.

Overall this is a great film and has become one of my very favorites since the past year or so. There is something about it that even makes it rival the quality of Gladiator. It was very underrated by critics and was very well deserving of some Oscars. Watch it!

Let Down By Orlando

[ferretpossum · 7/10 · 27 April 2005]

This film had the potential to be better than Gladiator - for a start it's a great deal more accurate and it also boasts a smarter script full of contemporary analogies that link it to present-day Middle East conflict.

The special effects are just as spectacular as in Gladiator, and other recent battle epics like King Arthur, and there's a great cast including Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis, Liam Neeson and I really like Eva Green too.

Unfortunately none of these people are the star. Orlando Bloom is. This man is rapidly turning into the English Keanu Reeves - his acting style is best described as "Noble and Anguished". Sometimes he stretches himself and is "Anguished and Noble" instead. He blows the film's big lines and epic moments and reduce this movie to Gladiator-Lite. The other casting problem is Martin Csokas as Guy de Lusignan who is no more than Dick Dastardly in Crusader's garb.

That said, I enjoyed the film, even if I was disappointed that it wasn't better. The battle sequences are excellent and the film contains a surprisingly tolerant message, given the subject.

I Had Wanted to Like this Movie, Well...

[lovefalloutkindagamer · 5/10 · 27 March 2023]

I had high hopes for this film. Not sure where to begin, but as a lover of epics I can say that this one simply falls short.

I guess I can start with the positives.

This is one of the best casted films out there. The score is good, though not iconic. I do love that although this movie is about the crusades, it isn't afraid to criticize them. The costumes are well designed and add an element to the film that elevates it (much like the costumes in 'The 10 Commandments' had done for it). The fight scenes are hit and miss; some are excellent and some are very poor which is a bit jarring to be honest.

Everything I have stated I had expected out of this film from the get go, but I had assumed that it would be enough to get me to love it - regardless of the pacing, plot or any other reason.

Boy was I wrong! LMAO!

It is SO HARD to give out the criticism this film deserves without spoiling it. I suppose I can put it like this: this movie is more in line with a film like 'Troy' than one like 'Gladiator'.

There are many pointless subplots that aren't given any background or followed through to a conclusion. That makes it hard to endure the three hours it takes to get a glimpse of the highlights this movie has to offer (yes, I watched the Director's Cut).

The main character is a mary sue. This guy, a widowed blacksmith, is also for some reason an amazing fighter and expert horseman suddenly. I hate this character writing just as much as I hated Rey's in the star wars sequels.

The love plot was entirely unnecessary and did nothing for the overall movie. That was screen time that should have been given to any of the other subplots or used to better develop the main characters of the film. And as much as I love Jeremy Irons, his character needed less screen time. 'Sibylla' needed less screen time. 'Raynald' needed less screen time. 'The Hospitaller' needed less screen time. This movie refuses to focus on the characters that are the most important. It should have given more to the main three that drive the overall plot: Saladin, Guy de Lusignan and Balian. There is no justification for Guy's thoughts or actions, so he is reduced to the complexity of a cartoon villain.

Final word.

Looking over these notes there is one thing I feel I failed to elaborate on and it is a positive: this is a very aesthetically rich film. The set pieces, the landscapes and - like I previously mentioned - the costumes are the best crafted parts of the film. It's almost worth watching for that alone. Almost.

I do believe those who have not seen many epic films or those simply starved for a good crusader movie, will praise this one highly. But for me I wouldn't even consider placing it in the epic category for it is wanting. It's a great idea for a film that was executed poorly.

5/10 I don't ever see myself sitting through three more hours to watch this one again.

Great

[0U · 4 February 2020]

A exceedingly good film, it was true, dramatic, and amazing. the cast was perfect in their roles, espically Edward Norton. This movie had an amazing plot, characters, and historical accuracy. On the bonus the action was awesome too, Kingdom of Heaven is a must see.

Not quite heavenly, though far from hellish

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 2 October 2019]

'Kingdom of Heaven' had an immensely talented cast going for it, despite being unsure about seeing Orlando Bloom in an especially substantial lead role. It also looked great from the trailer, and have liked a good deal of Harry Gregson-Williams' work which can be one of the better components of films. Ridley Scott is not the most consistent of directors, his best films like 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner' are brilliant but lesser films such as 'Robin Hood' are really not good (personal opinion of course).

There are also films of his that are much better in the director's cut version. 'Legend' is one such example, but the biggest one for me is 'Kingdom of Heaven'. Found it a very mixed bag as the theatrical/ non-director's cut version and found a lot of issues with it (and this is actually forgetting the historical inaccuracies), such as choppy storytelling, erratic pacing and underwritten characters on top of Orlando Bloom and the dialogue. While it is still not a perfect film still in the director's cut version, it is a big improvement and some of what were major problems in the theatrical version are corrected.

Not all though. Do still find Orlando Bloom charisma-void and out of his depth, have nothing against him but this role was a meaty one, even more so in the director's cut where he is more complex, and needed a lot of authority and a wide range of emotions and to me Bloom didn't have enough of either.

Some of the middle of the film stalls a bit in the pace, the storytelling not always going very far. Although the characters are much more interesting in the director's cut edition, a few of them could still have gotten into more depth such as those with not much screen time still and the same goes with the themes, also did that the messaging at times could have been more subtle.

Improvements are many though. The characters generally are far more interesting and better developed, Eva Green's went from one that one questioned the presence of and was hugely underwritten to a well fleshed out character. They interacted more convincingly and not in as stilted a fashion. Despite some aimlessness in the middle, the pace is less erratic and doesn't jump around as much. The story is uneven still, but there is generally more cohesion and less choppiness, more of a sense of resolution with the vast amount going on and for me the contemporary relevance was a good thing.

Dialogue flows better and is less awkward, quite intelligent here too.

Both editions cannot be faulted visually. It is gorgeously shot with lots of atmosphere and the costumes and sets are stunningly evocative, with the siege especially being quite breath-taking. In fact, the action was very tense and powerful in both versions as well but especially in the director's cut. Harry Gregson Williams' score rouses and also has emotional impact, the director's cut does it more justice and a better job is done complementing everything whereas in the theatrical version it was the case of a great score deserving a much better film. Scott directs everything skillfully which is remarkable considering there was a lot to balance. The messaging and everything regarding tolerance and the historical inaccuracies were much criticised and still are, they weren't as big an issue for me.

With the exception of Bloom, the cast are very good. The standouts being an against type Edward Norton who gives a lot of complexity and intensity to his character and Gasshan Massoud showing how to do cool and menacing wonderfully. Eva Green's performance is deeply felt and Jeremy Irons shows a lot of dignity and restraint here.

Overall, didn't care for the theatrical version, but this review is namely for the director's cut which is an infinitely better, if imperfect, version and is a fairer way to judge the film on. My thoughts though. 7/10

excellent, fair to islam, sweeping, narrative could have used tightening...

[Duk · 8/10 · 7 May 2005]

I really enjoyed this movie. The way the movie started in Europe and how dark it was there... and the journey to Jerusalem... just wonderful stuff up to that point.

Liam Neeson, as usual, is just SO GOOD, you wish he had more screen time.

• Orlando Bloom, actually surprisingly, was able to carry the movie as a lead. I was surprised he had the heft to do it, but I agree with the critic who said that the beard helped. He was a man, not a boy.

• Battle scenes... incredible. I was really surprised that they could wow me, since we've been numbed by the quality of battle scenes in so many previous movies, but they did a great job.

• Portrayal of the Muslims. EXTREMELY fair. In being "even-handed" to Christians and Muslims there, if anything, they emphasized the Christian fanatics (in the form of the Templars in particular, to simplify things) as being the "badguys" more than anyone else... (which is historically accurate to some degree, in my understanding). I was surprised and pleased that they tried to be accurate, and didn't try to emphasize some "BAD MUSLIMS" to make it "even".

• Movie is very secular in it's moralizing.

And it portrays Christianity particularly religious men, VERY badly (the Priest who steals the cross from Bloom's wife's corpse... the Bishop in Jerusalem who's ready to convert to Islam at the first sign of defeat... and who also wants to abandon the civilians... the knights templar...) I thought this got a tad gratuitous. There were really NO GOOD Christian FIGURES IN THE MOVIE. The only good purported Christians were basically acting Agnostic (Bloom, Neeson, etc.) The actual religious Christians were made out to be hypocrites.

Meanwhile Saladhudin was a man of honor.. but also somewhat moderate.

• Movie could definitely have a little more narrative focus and maybe have a little more of an emotional circle for Orlando Bloom character. The emotional arc is ALREADY complete fairly early in the movie (Bloom becomes a man of conscience)... and it's kind of boring since the character doesn't really move after that.

But the movie tackled a HUGE topic and tackled it fairly well. I just wish there was a better script to handle the compelling personal journey for Orlando Bloom (from widower, murderer seeking redemption, lost bastard son) that was PROMISED at the beginning.

It seems that as soon as he brings water to his father's old land, he's just about done his journey, and it turns into a simple historical battle movie. (but a darn good one)

Dull

[hengir · 6/10 · 10 October 2006]

A film about Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades has the potential to be very interesting, with all kinds of resonances possible. However 'Kingdom of Heaven' isn't one like that. It had no feel for the historical period and had no contemporary echoes. Being a Ridley Scott film it did look gorgeous. Too gorgeous. It was beautifully crafted but absolutely airless. The costumes were lovely, the scenery was lovely, the spurts of blood were lovely. Everything perfect and lifeless. Indeed I found it dull.

One of its other main problems was Orlando Bloom as Balian. He seemed to have the same expression and the same tone of voice throughout the film. It might have been deliberate or bad acting but the result was the same. You did not believe in the character for one moment. The declaiming of the speech where he rouses the men for the last stand was laughably lame. Compare that say to Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart' battle speech. No contest. The most interesting character was that played by Liam Neeson but unfortunately he didn't last long.

Near the end is the siege of Jerusalem but if you've seen one computer generated battle you've seen them all. I almost expected Gimli and Aragorn to pop up and have a go at the Saracens. It was the biggest set piece and it too was boring. The music score was unsurprising but had lots of nice tunes. It was the most memorable part of a unmemorable film.

Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven is visually stunning and a superb film

[Holt344 · 10/10 · 8 February 2020]

Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott's epic historical film that many found bad with the theatrical cut myself have never seen it but I went straight to the Director's Cut which is the definitive version and I agree. The whole production is massive and impressive, cinematography and the direction of Ridley Scott makes every scene visually stunning, making every scene stand out with expensive and incredible sets. It didn't take long for me to get immersed into the 12th Century and Balian's adventure to Jerusalem as it felt that I was there with them. Now this movie isn't for anyone as it's over three hours long but I found it amazing from start to finish and my interest with that period of time, the medieval times helped a lot. For me it's a masterpiece in its genre, the Director's Cut that is.

The ensemble cast is massive and the cast who plays the respective characters all do an excellent job, bringing the characters to justice and their best to portray the real people behind the characters. What I loved is that every character isn't black and white, there's lots of grey characters that you can't really place in any category of evil or good. Orlando Bloom does a great job in leading the movie as we see it mostly from his eyes, the big names around him makes it the fantastic ensemble they are. The costume and prop department are one of the best things about the movie as without it, it wouldn't really feel immersive or realistic but what we got was a impressive amount of swords, flags, costumes and armor and when they wear the costumes and swords they become the characters.

Solid but weired bits

[fruzlputzl · 7/10 · 8 October 2023]

I saw the directos cut. So basically its a solid movie. The pros: Huge armies, Jerusalem, Medival France,... look is good

But there are some things weird:

• orlando bloom is the incarnation of the good Leader. Good looking, well beaved, high morals, always on the rright path... the bad ones are bad, rally bad... black and white, not a lot in between. The character arc is non existent. The only one who get a character arc is orland blooms love interest... she is the most interesting character by far
• orlando has one facial expression throughout the whole movie
• lepracy is extremely contagious, people hold the kings hand, kiss his hand, touch his mask... thats silly, it would basically kill them
• the fight sceenes are not so well choriographed. It is cut cut cut...
• the romance is really cheese
• orlando is a genius... he orders that wells are being dug... nobody ever thought of this before! His dad owned that property for years
• orlando is the only survivor of the ship and a horse... no way
• where did orlando learn to fight? At the beginning he has no clue and in the end leads the army...
• why is the father returning back home after 20 years. He does not approach Orland and says hey, I am your dad, I am sorry, I have influence and property and wealth in jerusalem, join me. No. He on his way back to Jerusalem stopps and says can you fix our horses, he apologises but Orlando does not immediately follow him, he turns arround and says ok well good bye... its just weired
• the second most important leader in the arab army travels alone through the desert and in the middle of nowhere meets Orlando... with 1 Bodyguard with him... sure.

Two Words

[mfkvk · 10/10 · 16 August 2021]

Balian: What is Jerusalem worth?

Saladin: Nothing...

Saladin: Everything!

An epic quote condensing the tragedy of the human condition into two words.

Well intentioned but a little disappointing

[mstomaso · 6/10 · 13 May 2005]

While I enjoyed this film, and was entertained by it, I have to admit that I was generally disappointed. Orlando Bloom, surrounded by a very impressive cast, stars in this political interpretation of the taking of Jerusalem by Saladin (wonderfully portrayed by Ghassan Massoud). The supporting cast is tremendous. I've already mention Massoud, but I feel that I should also give kudos to Jeremy Irons, Eva Green, Liam Neeson, Marton Csokas and Alexander Siddig for their laudable efforts.

Ridley Scott is a master movie maker and almost always excels in direction and cinematography. However, I got the sense that a great deal must have been cut out of the original script - material which might have helped with continuity - perhaps a few years worth of military and hand-to-hand fighting experience on the part of the lead. Also, the slowing and speeding of film in battle scenes has really become a cliché, and no longer has the impact it had in Braveheart, Black Hawk Down, etc. It's time to develop new techniques or go back to the classical methods. Though I am sure some will disagree, as there are certainly some continuity and plot problems in this film (how does Blooms character become a master tactician while floating on a piece of wreckage en route to Jerusalem?, for example), I felt that this had all of the makings of a great film - a compelling subject, a great director, an excellent cast, and a good script.

Unfortunately - and I say this with some trepidation because I really like the guy - Orlando Bloom just wasn't the right guy for this role. Perhaps he is simply too young and inexperienced, but I felt that his performance was often two-dimensional and just a little derivative of Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn. Scenes that called for emotion were met with Shakespearean vocalization, but little to no facial expression, and very little body language, and though it was not really the centerpiece of the drama, his relationship with the superb Eva Green was, in fact, more compelling than either the central plot or the heroics and antiheroics of medieval warfare going on around him.

This film is worth seeing, if nothing else for the intelligent and understated political messages woven into it. But I think it could have been a much better film than it was.

A Nutshell Review: Kingdom of Heaven

[DICK STEEL · 10/10 · 4 May 2005]

Kingdom of Heaven in 2005 will be what Gladiator was in 2000. Ridley Scott has delivered a worthy follow up to his Oscar winner, which is also based on medieval times, with a central heroic character, and supporting casts of characters based on history.

The sets are as spectacular, instead of just Rome and the Collesuem, we have the Middle East and Jerusalem. The costumes are beautiful, from intricately remade Knights armour, to the desert garb of the Muslim warriors. The soundtrack is a mixture of sounds with middle eastern influences, but somehow pales in comparison with Gladiator and lacks a central theme.

Much is said about how the film portrays religion, given the sensitive subject of the Crusades, but I feel that Ridley has achieved a wonderful balance between how Christianity and Islam are portrayed. Both are given fair airtime on their ideologies, and the film tries to preach (pardon the pun) about tolerance, yet highlights the dangers of fanatical followers of both religions, of misguidance from men in search of worldly power.

Which Christianity took a beating - where senseless battles are waged in the name of Christ, where insensitivity breed contempt. Preists are cast in negative light and given lines like "convert to Islam, repent later" when all around seems lost. It is emphasized in the show that what matters is in your head and in your heart - that noble actions speak louder than mere empty and repetitive "praise the Lord" chants, as if that will protect you during Judgement Day.

Orlando Bloom plays Balian, a blacksmith who became a fugitive, but inherited land and army from his father, Godfrey, played by Liam Neeson. The film can be broadly categorized into 3 acts - the first in which Balian searches for his identity and new life in Jerusalem, the second in which the focus is on religion and politics of the time, and the last, the spectacular siege and war.

Bloom puts up a commendable performance, so to his detractors out there, you're in for a big surprise. Edward Norton had the difficult task of acting through a mask as leper King Baldwin, and I applaud Ridley's decision of casting real Muslim actors to learn from them.

Fans of Eva Green might be disappointed that the relationship between Balian and Queen Sibylla was played down to focus on the battles, but I feel it's a fair trade off.

Firstly, some of you might not like the quick-cut-MTV style editing in Gladiator's fight scenes, especially the close ups. This is repeated here though, in a blood splattering manner. The pan-out and general landscape sweeps are mindblowing, and will leave you wanting more. Think about the battles that you see Lord of The Rings Two Towers and Return of the King - the siege on Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith - Kingdom of Heaven delivers the equivalent, probably even better (without the fantasy elements). This is one medieval war movie whose battles will stick in your mind for some time.

The audience were the only disappointing experience for me - they were laughing at a dialogue near the end, where a "knight" asked who Balian was, and he answered "I'm the blacksmith", in which the "knight" answered "I'm the King". Laughter was abound in the theatre. I was like, HELL-O people! See that lion motif on his armour? That's Richard the Lionheart! D'uh! The Crusades didn't end there, it waged on...

What is Jerusalem worth? Nothing, everything. Watch this, and in my opinion, it has Oscar written all over it. Now to hit the library and research more on the subject!

Braveheart in the sun

[skymovies · 7/10 · 4 May 2005]

Enjoyable though it is, there is nothing in Kingdom of Heaven that hasn't been done equally well, if not better, in Braveheart and Scott's own Gladiator. Granted, the whole production is handsomely staged and the battle scenes are impressive but on those scores it simply cannot top Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings trilogy. And Scott's film doesn't just whiff of familiarity, it positively reeks of it.

Consider the plot: ordinary but principled man loses wife, joins a noble cause, is embroiled in a snowy forest ambush, witnesses a mentor die in a veiled chamber, becomes a peerless warrior and tactician in no time, enjoys a dalliance with a beautiful royal, thus upsetting her war-loving husband and even encounters a leper. Stop me if you've heard any of these before...

What the movie needs is a believable hero. What it has is Orlando Bloom, who gives it his best but fails to convince as a great leader of men. His rallying call of "Come on!" hardly commands the attention like Mel Gibson's "Freedom!" speech or Russell Crowe thunderously demanding "Are you not entertained?" It's like watching Tim Henman trying to inspire a packed football stadium.

And for someone who so frequently extols the virtues of having a pure conscience and mental fortitude, Balian is remarkably unfettered when it comes to fornicating with a married woman. The script stirs up a sandstorm of cute moralising and theologising that the characters largely ignore, especially when it comes to upholding political correctness (newsflash: Muslims and Christians have never really seen eye-to-eye).

As a history lesson, forget it. But in terms of action-adventure, be entertained. And then forget it.

Braveheart does Political Correctness

[jpeagle2005 · 3/10 · 7 May 2005]

Okay. Movie review time.

Ridley Scott's new film, "Kingdom of Heaven".

In a word: Huh? Okay, first of all, explain to me how you can make a movie about the Crusades boring and uncontroversial. Because that's what happened here.

First hour showed the world just how little character development is needed in a "feature film", as long as you've got "plot".

"So you're my dad, and we've never met, and you want me to go with you to Jerusalem. Nah, I'll stick around. Oh, wait, never mind, I killed a guy. I'll go with you." Oh, and by the way, the guy he killed was a priest, and the reason for the execution was that he was wearing his dead wife's necklace. Thin ice, Ridley, very thin ice.

So he goes to repay his sins in the Holy Land. Of course, there is no mention of how he can obtain forgiveness. And no mention of whether he has earned it. But he saved the people. That's what's important.

The second hour entailed a montage of clips, barely tied together and mainly terribly artificial feeling. Many times I felt so removed from the piece that I wondered whether they just had the cameras rolling until they found a shot that looked cool.

Then, whoa, all of a sudden, big finish. We find out that causes are not important, religion is not important, all that is important is saving lives, no matter how many murders it takes to save those lives. All religions are equally stupid, not really, though, because Islam is a little less stupid, and what is best in life is living an ordinary life, never taking part in a cause larger than yourself.

Taa-daa.

Hooray for the ultimate tragedy: a man who commanded armies, who could inspire men to battle, who had power and used it to influence for good, condemns himself to a life of ease.

I give it an emphatic thumbs-down, with the second thumb in the neutral position.