Tell me about Kingdom of Heaven

[Dark Jezter]

Eh, I wasn't too impressed by Kingdom of Heaven. With the exception of the King of Jerusalim and Saladin, the characters in the movie were uninteresting, the plot dragged, and the cinematography got on my nerves. The siege of Jerusalem at the end was pretty cool, but I wouldn't place it on the same level as battle scenes in the LotR movies. And then there is also the film's obvious bias.

I'd say the movie is probably worth a rental or catching it on cable simply for the siege of Jerusalem, but I wouldn't consider purchasing it. As far as recent historical epics go, Gladiator and the Last Samurai are a lot better (those movies take a fair share of historical liberties as well, but they're still good movies).

 

[Banshee16]

I really liked it. Awesome costumes and good special effects, and despite some views to the contrary, the story I thought was pretty good. It was deeper than Gladiator, though I don't feel that it had as much raw appeal as Gladiator did.

It's based on historical events. Of course, they've been twisted for a political message, but it's the first Crusades-era movie I've seen or heard of, so I thought it was pretty cool. And it had both Templars and Hospitallers in it, which is neat.

I find a big flaw in the movie, for those who aren't familiar with the history is the lack of explanation on some things. When they introduce one of the characters who is a Hospitaler, they don't give any explanation of what that means, or why he's wearing chainmail and a sword, but giving the last rites. So people who haven't done any reading about the topic won't pick up on it. At other times, they don't bother to show that time is passing, so it looks like the main character goes from a blacksmith to a skilled swordsman in 3 days, when in fact the journey (and his training) probably took months.

Then there's the whole thing with manipulating the perceptions of the two sides, when things weren't nearly so clear-cut. But given the political climate of the times, I guess that's to be expected (though maybe not excused) to a degree.

Overall, I really liked it though. I don't feel that it got a fair shake in the box office within North America, though it was more popular in Europe by a fair amount.

I'm interesting in finding out what they do in the director's cut next year. Was the theatrical release white washed because it would be seen by many? If so, would the director's cut be better? Who knows. I've heard they've got enough material for a 4-hour director's cut that is a lot more intense than what is being released on this DVD.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I would have rated it as an average hollywood historical epic, not bad, better than several others released recently (not saying much) but not a classic.

Good battle scenes comparable to RotK.

Took a few historical liberties (that can be viewed as good or bad) but was reasonably accurate on a lot of things. The way the piety fo the Christian Knights was protrayed was where the movie was most off (characters were way too secular sometimes). As Scott said himself, in doing the movie you focus, and perhaps embellish, the interesting historical stuff and glaze over the boring stuff. That's basically what he did.

Hard to rate it. I'd say it's definitely worth seeing but not a must-see. I'd consider renting it or trying to get it at a discount price.

What I found kind of interesting was that in the movie, several of the characters (and the tone of the movie) suggest that people were just going on Crusade for the fun of it, and to gain land and money....but all the documentaries on the DVD (and most books I've read on the topic) say that the Crusaders truly believed in what they were doing, because it was far too great an investment to put together the resources needed to participate. Several of the nobles who took part had to basically sell off parts of their kinddoms, castles etc. in order to be able to afford to outfit troops to go on the Crusade. That makes it kind of obvious what kind of political statement Scott is making.

The Seige of Jerusalem was pretty cool though, as well as several of the "duels".

I was a little annoyed by a rather major change they made at the end. Apparently it made it more internally consistent as a story, but history happened differently.

Banshee

 

[Turanil]

Well, after reading all the posts, I think I've lost any desire to purchase the DVD. Maybe 2 or 3 years from now, when the 4 hours director's cut will be discounted at 10 euros...

 

[Rykion]

It is about the crusades, right? Isn't your statement like saying that the depictions of the holocaust are pro-jew?

No, the Holocaust was the slaughter of innocent civilians by a brutal regime. The Crusades were a counter-offensive by some Christian Kingdoms versus some Muslim Kingdoms. The Muslims had conquered most of the Holy Lands, North Africa, and Spain. Some of these places converted peacefully, but often they were taken by the sword. The First Crusade was an attempt to take back Jerusalem. The Crusaders were often poorly led and didn't trust each other as they were a coalition of armies from Kingdoms used to fighting each other. This led to a lot of suffering in any nation that the Crusaders passed through. It was a war of idealogies with brutality from both sides.

Modern revisionist history has become Crusaders=bad. It just tends to ignore the violence in the expansion of the Muslim Nations.

The movie shows Muslims in a very idealistic light. On the flip side, every Christian clergyman with any screen time in the movie is a criminal or a coward. The Crusaders are shown to be either bloodthirsty warmongers or good secular types.

Edit: I still almost enjoyed the movie, but the whole thing felt rushed. The love story felt tacked on, and Orlando Bloom went from blacksmith to a great fighter and leader without showing a progression inbetween. It wouldn't be a big problem for a dumb action movie, but this was billed as an epic. If an extended cut with 30+ minutes of new footage appears, I will probably pick it up. Also, if anyone from Hollywood is reading, Orlando Bloom does not have the physique of a blacksmith so please stop casting him as one.

 

[evildmguy]

I walked away from the theater thinking it was a good movie but I didn't need to own it on DVD. I did like its take on things and I think we all know that ALL entertainment from Hollywood will take their liberties. As long as it is a good drama, though, I am fine with that. I can read the history later.

I am interested in the director's cut DVD, though. I heard that makes it more tense and explains a lot more. I heard his first version was over three and a half hours and he had to cut over an hour of footage for the theater.

For me, though, the best thing was the siege. I thought the siege in RotK was boring and not well done. While KoH still didn't get it completely right, it was a much better siege, possibly the best I have seen. And most of what they changed was for drama, so I can accept it.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Wombat]

Okay, I have not seen the movie (no real interest), but I thought I would relate a tale of a friend of mine who did go to see it. She is a professor of Medieval History, specializing in the Crusades and the Crusader States. She also thinks that Orlando Bloom is pure yummy on a stick. She got together with three other historians. Before seeing the film they had a big dinner and a LOT to drink.

They were almost ejected from the theatre.

This was because they were laughing so much at the "history".

As she said, in the end the film is about on par historically with Gladiator (aka massive changes for sake of cinema), which puts it far above Braveheart (aka any similarities between this story and history are purely coincidental) but far below something like Reilly: Ace of Spies (in the main correct, if altered for cinematic tension).

Just one person's veiw and not my own.

 

[Zander]

I saw KoH in the cinema within a couple of days of SW Ep III and I have to say that KoH was slightly better. That's not to say that KoH is a great film - it isn't - but I don't regret having seen it. I'll get the director's cut on DVD when it is released but only if I can find it on sale.

Overall, I give KoH 6 to 6.5/10.

 

[WayneLigon]

Says you and Ridley Scott. I for one am glad that audiences rejected any claimed historical accuracy en masse and laughed it out of theaters.

It didn't do so well here ($47M) but did over three times that overseas ($163M); it certainly wasn't a bomb by any means. It made back it's costs ($130M) plus over half again.

I think most complaints were with the pacing and some shoddy character work. It was still a fun little movie if you're not expecting Hollywood to do a historically-accurate film (I think you can pretty much kiss that idea goodbye). I didn't like it enough to buy it, though.

 

[Banshee16]

Okay, I have not seen the movie (no real interest), but I thought I would relate a tale of a friend of mine who did go to see it. She is a professor of Medieval History, specializing in the Crusades and the Crusader States. She also thinks that Orlando Bloom is pure yummy on a stick. She got together with three other historians. Before seeing the film they had a big dinner and a LOT to drink.

They were almost ejected from the theatre.

This was because they were laughing so much at the "history".

As she said, in the end the film is about on par historically with Gladiator (aka massive changes for sake of cinema), which puts it far above Braveheart (aka any similarities between this story and history are purely coincidental) but far below something like Reilly: Ace of Spies (in the main correct, if altered for cinematic tension).

Just one person's veiw and not my own.

Unfortunately, I've learned that Hollywood can't really be trusted to get, well, anything historical right. I especially love it when supposedly "historical" films credit things that British or Canadians, for example did, to Americans. But, they're playing to the primary audience, so they make what they perceive as necessary changes I guess. Maybe it's unavoidable in order to get people into the theatre.

So, I go to these movies figuring I'm there to be entertained. The way I see it, the production values were awesome, costumes were awesome, sets were quite good, the seige was very well done, the dialog was ok.....I think in terms of the actual lines, they were better than Gladiator....but they didn't have the visceral "oomph" that were given to them in Gladiator by Russel Crowe and crew. The history was changed significantly, and watered down too much. The acting ranged from pretty good (ie. Edward Norton) to flat (Queen Sybilla).

I did enjoy myself, and I realize that a movie that actually tackles the topic would *never* get made, so I enjoyed it for what it was. I still liked it better than Troy or King Arthur, though not so much as Gladiator.

Incidentally, I noticed that if you listen very closely, it almost sounds like part of the soundtrack was recycled from the 13th Warrior. If you listen closely, some of the music sounds almost exactly like the music score when the Wendles are coming out of the hills the first time. I think that was the point.

Banshee