Kingdom of Heaven

[Tauric]

I saw it a few hours ago, and for the most part, liked it.

The begining was a bit forced, I thought. It seemed like certain scenes were cut short. There was not a lot of character development, the motivations of some of the characters were unclear.

I thought the film did a good job showing that there were peace-seeking people on both sides, as well has both sides having their warmongers.

I gave the movie a 7/10 (the script had some flat moments, some of Balian's skills were over the top: he's a blacksmith, and strategist, a hydrological engineer, etc).

Historically speaking, I gave it a B+ ( I majored in medieval history at university).

 

[johnsemlak]

Saw it and liked it, but didn't think it was extraordinary. Much better than previous pseudohistorical epics like Troy, probably not as good as LotR, but worth of comaprison at least for the battle scences.


I thought the main problem is that once King Baldwin dies, the whole direction of the movie is obvious--Raynard leads his army out to a predictable massacre, Saladin besieges Jerusalem, and the city is captured. The battle scenes are impressive, but otherwise very little happens during that last part of the film thats intriguing.[/spoiler]

 

[Imperialus]

One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys".

You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.

 

[johnsemlak]

One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys".

You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.

Yeah, that was interesting. I don't know much about the Knights Hospitaller, or their rivaly with the Templars, but the actions of Reynard, inlcuding his ill-advised aggression towards Saladin and so on, were based on real events.

In general I thnink the religious piety and fanaticism of the Knights and Crusaders was glossed over. It's probably hard to convey to a modern audience.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson), and the battle scenes were quite good (although claiming that they're as good as the ones in Return of the King is a big stretch).

Thankfully. The movie didn't portray Christians as evil and Muslims as good like some of the early reviews claimed (although the movie did seem more willing to show Christians commiting atrocities than Muslims, so I guess there was some bias).

 

[Fast Learner]

I trust critics about as far as I can throw them in most cases....case in point, "Sideways" won all this critical acclaim, but when I actually watched it the other week, I was rather less than impressed. It was supposed to be a comedy?

No, it was supposed to be a drama with dark comedy elements. Which it was. I never understood why some people thought it was a comedy. I guess the previews had too many humorous scenes or something.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

One thing that struck me as rather interesting is how they portrayed the Knights Templar as "bad guys" who were only interested in splitting Moslem skulls while potraying the Knights Hospitaller, (Bailian's friend who wore the black surcoat with a white cross) as "good guys".

You see, a little while after the second crusade the Templars realized that there was much more money to be made as landlords than by looting a pillaging and that living people pay much more in taxes than dead ones. They still wern't praticularly nice fellows but the Hospitaller's were much more fanatical.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment on their portrayal in the film, but a possible explanation (based on my knowledge of the Knights Templar) may have to do with a much later development, historically, that being their denunciation as heretics and subsequent disbanding and destruction by the Catholic church in the early years of the 12th century. AFAIK, the Knights Hospitaller were never subject to any such inquisition. Perhaps this (admittedly after the fact) treatment of the later Knights Templar is what influenced the filmmakers' decision to cast them in a "bad" light.

 

[Klaus]

Dark Jezter: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson) (...)"

Fixed that for ya: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great [except in the D&D movie], as is Liam Neeson) (...)"

 

[Desdichado]

The only problem with these early movie threads, is that I come to them hoping to find someone who's seen the movie and comment, and pretty much the entire first page is pre-movie rumors and discussion. <Sigh>

I'm leaning more and more towards just renting this one after all. My expectations are pretty mixed based on the reviews I've seen and the comments here.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Dark Jezter: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great, as is Liam Neeson) (...)"

Fixed that for ya: "Saw it today. I'd vote it a 7 out of 10. Good scenery, some good performances (Jeremy Irons is always great [except in the D&D movie], as is Liam Neeson) (...)"

Nah, he was great even in the D&D movie. Even when he's over-acting to a silly degree, he's still great.