Kingdom of Heaven

[Wombat]

Like most movies with Ridley Scott, I found the film intriguing, but not for the usual reasons people would associate with that statement. Much like Gladiator he went to a lot of time, trouble, and expense to get so many little things right about Rome, and then went wildly off the mark with large things. This film fits about the same place for me -- so much work on small details (I was very impressed with the armour for the major characters and the fact that they got the tabards for the different knightly Orders correct), yet the tale just didn't gel for me.

In the end I give it a 5 -- some fun popcorn action, some very good acting, and a "Huh?" story.

 

[Vonlok The Bold]

The movie was really enjoyable to me. I did see the faults of it in many places but somehow the whole was equal to much more than the sum of its parts. If I looked at each individual aspect it would have gotten a 5 or a 6. But I gave it an 8.

Acting - It was all adequate. There wasn't a bad performance. There weren't any exceptional performances either, really, but everyone did a suitable job with their parts.

Sets/Scenery - Very nicely done. I especially loved the shots set in Europe. It could have shown a little more of the vastness in the middle east setting, similar to the way it was done in Lawrence of Arabia.

Writing - Not overly sappy which is always a real concern with me. Some characters seemed 2 dimensional and could have used some more develpment. More background on the philosphy of the Templars, and Hospitlars, would have filled out the movie and characters a little bit as well. It was adequate.

Direction/editing - Bloom's character did become a master of all trades seemingly quickly and easily, and it was a minor distraction. It wasn't a huge problem, just something slight that I noticed, and quickly ignored. It had a slight drag in the middle, and some of the rest of the scenes could have been developed more.

The battle scenes were terrific, and fun to watch. I especially liked the smaller scale battle scene that takes place before Balian ever reaches the holy land.

Overall - Like I said above, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts in this movie. It could just be my own bizarre preference, but I liked it.

 

[shilsen]

In the end I give it a 5 -- some fun popcorn action, some very good acting, and a "Huh?" story.

I just got back and that was pretty much my take on it. My main problem with it was that there really was nothing in the movie that really made it stand out for me. None of the characters were developed enough to make one truly interested in them and they were all quite two-dimensional. The story itself wasn't particularly compelling and was fairly predictable, even for someone who doesn't know the history. The action scenes weren't too exciting either, perhaps because I'll never view a siege the same way again after the siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. All in all, it was entertaining, but I wouldn't recommend it to others.

 

[Banshee16]

I just saw the movie tonight, and really liked it. There were a few changes, such as Balian's origins, and the way the ending worked out, but aside from that, it seems to have gotten a lot of the history of what happened correct.

Sort of like Master and Commander, this movie really put me in the middle of the 12th Century. I really enjoyed that aspect, loved the authenticism.

I didn't find Orlando Bloom's acting to be poor. He's not Russel Crowe, but it was a different kind of role. Given the claims that there was no character development, I did find some. The city basically falls, because he refused to do what was necessary, because it would cause him to violate the principles he was trying to live up to, to redeem himself. At the beginning of the movie, he didn't have that direction.

The action scenes were awesome, and the cinematography was beautiful.

There was one character...one of the Muslims serving Saladin that seemed to bear a huge resemblance to the guy that played Dr. Bashere on Deep Space Nine. is that the same actor? I think his name is Alexander Siddig....

The movie did slow down at points, and was not entirely an action movie. But I didn't see that necessarily as a bad thing, as the story of what was going on was important. i do think they should have had more datelines and such, to ensure that non-historians would understand what was going on. I know my girlfriend was a little confused.

Overall, I think the movie deserves a better fate than what the critics would give it. It's a pretty good movie...just not perfect. I'd give it a 7 or 8.

Banshee

 

[Chain Lightning]

I've seen better from Ridley.

But even a bad Ridley film is still worth watching. No where near as good as "Black Hawk Down". I agree with Fast Learner, too much hand held shakey cam. Which I actually don't mind, but its how its done. In "Black Hawk Down" they used hand held too, but I was still able to see what was going on because they'd cut wide more often to re-establish the situation. Or, when they went in close, the didn't go so close as to confuse what I needed to see to make the scene more dramatic. The close in melee fights in "Kingdom of Heaven" were a disappointment to me.

Same problem I had with "Gladiator". Don't know why cinematographers and directors are still using this style. I really don't. The whole "puts me in the action" reason is silly to me. Point 1: I'm not in the action, I'm witness to it. I'm watching a story, not taking part in one.
Point 2: If I was in the action, my peripheral vision would afford me more to see .... and .... I wouldn't be shaking my head like a crazy man while sword fighting.

I would love to see an extended version too on DVD. I can tell a lot of stuff was cut out for film length.

I give it a 7 out of 10. Initially a 6, but the visuals of a lot of scenes were cool enough to elevate the film up one more notch. And the story is semi-decent. Although the plot revolving around the end siege is rather thin and shakey.

 

[Taelorn76]

There was one character...one of the Muslims serving Saladin that seemed to bear a huge resemblance to the guy that played Dr. Bashere on Deep Space Nine. is that the same actor? I think his name is Alexander Siddig....
Banshee

It was the same actor..


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796502/

 

[Banshee16]

I've seen better from Ridley.

But even a bad Ridley film is still worth watching. No where near as good as "Black Hawk Down". I agree with Fast Learner, too much hand held shakey cam. Which I actually don't mind, but its how its done. In "Black Hawk Down" they used hand held too, but I was still able to see what was going on because they'd cut wide more often to re-establish the situation. Or, when they went in close, the didn't go so close as to confuse what I needed to see to make the scene more dramatic. The close in melee fights in "Kingdom of Heaven" were a disappointment to me.

Same problem I had with "Gladiator". Don't know why cinematographers and directors are still using this style. I really don't. The whole "puts me in the action" reason is silly to me. Point 1: I'm not in the action, I'm witness to it. I'm watching a story, not taking part in one.
Point 2: If I was in the action, my peripheral vision would afford me more to see .... and .... I wouldn't be shaking my head like a crazy man while sword fighting.

I would love to see an extended version too on DVD. I can tell a lot of stuff was cut out for film length.

I give it a 7 out of 10. Initially a 6, but the visuals of a lot of scenes were cool enough to elevate the film up one more notch. And the story is semi-decent. Although the plot revolving around the end siege is rather thin and shakey.

I was a little confused as to why they didn't mention the ransom the Christians had to pay to leave.....maybe for fear of making the character of Saladin less sympathetic? Not sure....

I'm interested in finding out what they cut in the movie. If they put it into a DVD, I'm all over that. My concern would be that this movie doesn't do well enough in the theatres to justify an extended DVD. Unless Scott has enough clout to make it happen regardless. $20M on the opening weekend isn't exactly gangbusters.

I agree though....I didn't think it was Ridley Scott's best film, but I actually liked it better than Black Hawk Down. BHD was just 1.5 hours of watching people get killed in ugly ways. Admittedly, they were trying to portray what happened, but I just found that after a while, my brain just shut down. Maybe I don't have the emotional investment because I'm not American or something, I don't know. There just wasn't enough time making me care about the soldiers before they started getting killed.

But even a weak film by Ridley Scott is apparently better than what many other filmmakers can create.

Banshee

 

[Look_a_Unicorn]

I enjoyed this movie- not because it was particularly exciting or dramatic- the plot and characters I found to be a bit weak towards the end- but because of ... well...

I won't go into it, because religious debate isn't a topic for these boards, but I really enjoyed seeing the way the religions were presented as being of equal merit- with equal right to their holy place. I thought it was a ballsy move, and it mimics my own thoughts quite closely.

Or maybe I'm only seeing what I wanted to see?

 

[Flyspeck23]

My anticipations have been rather low, but in the end I liked it (7/10). Much better than Troy - but that doesn't say much, really.

Edward Norton was great - and I didn't even know it had been Norton.

I was a little confused as to why they didn't mention the ransom the Christians had to pay to leave.....maybe for fear of making the character of Saladin less sympathetic? Not sure....

Or maybe for fear of making Balian seem less heroic?

I won't go into it, because religious debate isn't a topic for these boards, but I really enjoyed seeing the way the religions were presented as being of equal merit- with equal right to their holy place. I thought it was a ballsy move, and it mimics my own thoughts quite closely.

Or maybe I'm only seeing what I wanted to see?

No. I'd agree.

 

[Dr. Talos]

It was David Thewliss not Ed Norton, though I do think Ed Norton would have pulled that role off beautifully.