Kingdom Of Heaven Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 8147.33 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x296 | 1574.1 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x244 | 743.23 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 309.86 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
It is the time of the Crusades during the Middle Ages - the world shaping 200-year collision between Europe and the East. A blacksmith named Balian has lost his family and nearly his faith. The religious wars raging in the far-off Holy Land seem remote to him, yet he is pulled into that immense drama. Amid the pageantry and intrigues of medieval Jerusalem he falls in love, grows into a leader, and ultimately uses all his courage and skill to defend the city against staggering odds. Destiny comes seeking Balian in the form of a great knight, Godfrey of Ibelin, a Crusader briefly home to France from fighting in the East. Revealing himself as Balian's father, Godfrey shows him the true meaning of knighthood and takes him on a journey across continents to the fabled Holy City. In Jerusalem at that moment--between the Second and Third Crusades--a fragile peace prevails, through the efforts of its enlightened Christian king, Baldwin IV, aided by his advisor Tiberias, and the military restraint of the legendary Muslim leader Saladin. But Baldwin's days are numbered, and strains of fanaticism, greed, and jealousy among the Crusaders threaten to shatter the truce. King Baldwin's vision of peace--a kingdom of heaven--is shared by a handful of knights, including Godfrey of Ibelin, who swear to uphold it with their lives and honor. As Godfrey passes his sword to his son, he also passes on that sacred oath: to protect the helpless, safeguard the peace, and work toward harmony between religions and cultures, so that a kingdom of heaven can flourish on earth. Balian takes the sword and steps into history.
| Liam Neeson | Godfrey |
| Orlando Bloom | Balian |
| Nikolaj Coster-Waldau | Village Sheriff |
| Marton Csokas | Guy de Lusignan |
| Eriq Ebouaney | Firuz |
| Brendan Gleeson | Reynald |
| Martin Hancock | Gravedigger |
| Michael Sheen | Priest |
| Nathalie Cox | Balian's Wife |
| Jouko Ahola | Odo |
| David Thewlis | Hospitaler |
| Philip Glenister | Squire |
| Bronson Webb | Apprentice |
| Kevin McKidd | English Sergeant |
| Steven Robertson | Angelic Priest |
| Alexander Siddig | Nasir |
| Eva Green | Sibylla |
| Jeremy Irons | Tiberias |
| Edward Norton | King Baldwin |
| Ridley Scott |
6.90 out of 10 (23180 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Once again
posted on 26 Aug 2009You expected to get bored and you expected to have seen everything before and that's also what you got. You also expected Orlando Bloom to go through this movie with the same expression for more than 2 hours. Even the male model agencies demand more.The only sensational about it is that the Muslims are regarded in a rather descent way. There is also a peace message. But you have be 12 years old or younger to appreciate this. The only problem is that even 12-years-olds have seen this just too many times before. Too much sand, too much fire, too much beards, too much Bloom, too much caftans.
A pleasant surprise and a good, solid effort
posted on 26 Aug 2009What to expect from such a film? Why do we go and see this type of film anyway? Is it for the actors, the story, the period, the costumes or because of who the Director is? Is it because of Orlando? If it is only for Orlando, then that is a shame because a) If you don't like him, it may put you off the whole film b) it might only be him that you watch on screen and not what is going on around him c) his performance is not as epic as the rest of the film. There was no getting around it for me. I really wanted to like him as the lead and it's not that he was completely unbelievable. However, if he intended to come across as a one-dimensional character with no emotion, well, he succeeded. There were a lot of things going on around him, and it won't spoil it for you to say that these things included, among other things, war, death and love. Despite all these things going on around him, he seemed to take them all in his stride, as if he was expecting them. A little emotion at the key moments would have helped a lot, as it is the small dramatic 'character' moments in film that make it truly unforgettable. Take 'Gladiator' which I guess can be used as a good comparison not least because of the director. We can all agree the fight sequences were great, but what made the movie was us believing all the time what motivated Maximus and his desire was never in doubt. The glue that held the whole thing together were the quieter moments, and this is what made the action more meaningful. In 'Kingdom' Orlando's character was a closed book. We never really 'get' what makes him tick or get any idea of his motivation. He just seems to go with the flow and never gets too emotionally involved.Hence, neither do we. Watch the scene between Edward Norton's character and his sister in the film to get an idea of what I'm trying to say about 'quieter moments'. Instead, we rely on the superb Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, David Thewlis and Edward Norton to carry the emoting side of things. These guys have been around and know what they are doing with this material. I'm afraid Orlando's character lacked the gravitas, charisma and 'hardness' that would make me believe he could do what he did. But Ridley Scott proves again that he can make a film look gorgeous. From the opening shots in the snow to the battles, costumes, sets, locations, extras, the film oozed authenticity for me. I felt that, in 'Gladiator',one could see, occasionally, where reality ended and Computer Generated Imagery began.Here, the technology was spot on and I couldn't see a single join. If the idea of this sort of film is for you, as it is for me, then you will not be disappointed by it. It provides what it promises and packs a more emotional punch than many of the recent 'epics', which have largely been a let down, considering the star power and money invested in most of them.In summary then, it looks fantastic and also feels authentic but would have been better with a slighter older 'weathered' lead to provide the missing element.
I love this movie.
posted on 22 Aug 2009The crusades have always interested me so this movie was definitely waiting for. Some movies that cover huge battles concentrate more on the battle scenes and not the characters. This movie also goes into great depth of the characters involved. The king, even though sick, has great dignity and strength. I think Orlando Bloom was an excellent portrayer of Balian. He brought across Balian's emotions, his morals, and his strengths so that the audience knows this was a valiant man. The battle scenes are incredible with fiery arrows flying through the dark, huge trebuchets slinging rocks, siege towers approaching the walls, and the men fighting for their beliefs. In history this was a bloody battle with the loss of many lives on both sides. I think this movie portrays that very realistically. The movie may not be 100% historically accurate, but it is close. The actors are all good. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves this time period.
Another entry in a over-flowing genre - decent not outstanding
posted on 22 Aug 2009Kingdom of Heaven seems like a film I'd just seen. It is more or less a repeat of the genre with nothing really ground-breakingly new. This genre is starting to get repetitive. Funny Scott brought it back full force with Gladiator. This movie lacks the stunning action and pull of the main character. That being said, it is photographed very well, and has some interesting characters. Orlando Bloom seems to be a sought after actor these days. He's excellent in Lord of the Rings. Though he is not my favorite, he's not bad by any stretch here. I Thought the beginning of the movie was stronger than the last third of it. The movie suffered from a lack of a hard-line villain, but perhaps that was the point anyway, and the lead lady was quite unremarkable and bland. Jeremy Irons gives good support as a disillusioned knight. And I knew the King's voice sounded familiar (as Edward Norton)However the movie suffers from the terrible brainless void of throwing in solo female voice singing to somehow lift scenes' poignancies - it never ever works - though it wasn't rampant here like in some other movies. I cringe every time I hear it. I'd prefer King Arthur to this movie by sheer entertainment value. Just because something has more historical base doesn't mean it merits greater praise or interest. Still Kingdom of Heaven is worth one viewing.
Director's Cut - different, better movie
posted on 20 Aug 2009I thought the theatrical version was okay - a nice way to kill a few hours. But the Director's Cut - wow! A real, epic film. So much is added - and not extended battle scenes but characters, character stories and plot. For me, this may in the Director's version this may be the best thing Ridley Scott has done.In some ways, this is like an old school Hollywood epic in that there is so much more story to it. I'm still not certain what I think of Orlando Bloom in the role. In some ways, I think he's perfect and in others, maybe not the best choice. But either way, given all the other characters, in particular Ghassan Massoud as Saladin, it doesn't really matter. While it's a basic hero story, and Bloom is the hero, it's all the characters around him that flesh the story out that help make this so successful.
No one knows how to make epics like Ridley Scott
posted on 18 Aug 2009This was, in my opinion, quite a good film, and one that spoke more strongly than any I can recall of the strong belief in chivalry and loyalty. Unlike "Gladiator," the events depicted in this film are not fabricated, but are based largely on an actual chapter in the Crusades. As fine a movie as "Gladiator" is, that fact always bothered me that it insisted on creating a false history of Rome.Excellent character work helps elevate this film even more. Orlando Bloom is Balian, a widower and blacksmith in France, and the illegitimate son of a Crusader, Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson, who turns in another fantastic performance). Godfrey returns to France to propose that his son join him in Jerusalem, currently under the control of the Christian King Baldwin (Edward Norton), who won't live to see thirty, thanks to his leprosy.Balian refuses his father's offer, and then murders the priest who insults his newly buried wife. After committing that deed, he joins with his father to forgive his sins in Jerusalem. After his father sustains a mortal wound from local law who seek to arrest Balian, they make the trek to Medina, where Godfrey dies, and Balian meets Guy De Lusignan (a truly villainous turn by the underrated Marton Csokas) a vicious Templar who is also heir to the throne of Jerusalem, by his marriage to Baldwin's sister, Sibylla (Eva Green).In Jerusalem Balian meets Tiberias (Jeremy Irons), the jaded magistrate to the king, whose job is to keep the peace, which includes punishing Templars who venture to disrupt the uneasy peace between the Christians in Jerusalem, and the brilliant military strategist and leader of the Saracens, Saladin (Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud). Chief among the Templars is the bloodthirsty Reynald De Chatillon (perfectly cast Brendan Gleeson).One of the biggest criticisms people have made about the film is the casting of Orlando Bloom in the role of Balian. While perhaps there was a better choice, I can't think, given his age, any other actor who could be cast in the role who hasn't already made a mockery of them self in another epic war movie (I'm thinking Colin Farrell). I thought while he was somewhat overshadowed by some of the other actors, Bloom managed to hold his own as the heroic knight who is forced to choose between what his conscience tells him to do, and the temptation that could corrupt him. There is one scene that is much reminiscent to a scene in "Gladiator," where King Baldwin proposes he marry Sibylla, at the cost of Guy De Lusignan's execution. In retrospect, it reminds me of when Marcus Aurellius asks Maximus to be emperor.Liam Neeson makes quite an impression as Balian's father. Neeson is reaching a defining point in his career. He is one of the finest actors alive, and it shows. Jeremy Irons is also among those actors, but whereas Godfrey still has an idealistic view of Jerusalem, Tiberias is constantly asking himself why he came here.Of my limited knowledge of the Crusades, I knew that if anyone (non-French) could be cast as Reynald, it would be Brendan Gleeson. Whereas Gleeson's red hair is a characteristic that would work to his advantage in the role, the hair that he has in the movie is even redder.David Thewlis tops off the find supporting cast as the Hospitaler, a holy man who travels with the Crusaders primarily as a pacifist, but who can hold his own in battle. When Christians cry out to Crusaders "To kill an infidel is not murder, it is the pathway to Heaven," the Hospitaler explains to Balian the dangers of "religion." Massoud is very noble as Saladin, and I hope to see him in more films produced for a western audience. He is a man who doesn't believe so much in the ideals of his people as in the duty he has to drive out all who would protect the Templars. The one inaccuracy that is made (at least in reviews) is that Saladin was a Kurd, and not a Muslim.The film is an antiwar movie, shot on an amazing scale, with beautiful cinematography, and seamless digital effects, but the message the audience takes away can be different, because the problem is one that we hear about in the news every day.
Subtle wisdom and beautiful battle
posted on 18 Aug 2009I was getting a bit tired of movies with hundreds of extras on horses and the obligatory "Have No Fear" speeches. It is tempting to throw Kingdom Of Heaven on the same pile as Troy or Alexander, but the great difference is, of course, Ridley Scott. The man's got great taste and he can tell a rather complicated story in a crystal clear way. There is only one enormous battle in the movie, and it is so beautifully and touchingly crafted that it blew me away (and after the three LOTR-movies, PLUS Troy and Alexander, that is a real triumph). The only flaw in the movie in my opinion is the casting of Orlando Bloom. He is too much of a slick teen idol to give Balian the same inner torment as Russel Crowe did for Maximus in Gladiator. The fact that this hardly affects the film is, again, the mark of Scott's genius. He is capable of handling the rather slippery contents of KOH dealing with differences between Muslims and Christians with great wisdom and class, subtlety and nuance. The image of the Muslim and Christian soldiers crashing into each other at the hole in the wall of Jerusalem so ragingly that they just form one immobile block of angry men, so wound up in their beliefs that there is no space for movement says so much about the state of the world today. It's images like these that give KOH its heart and soul.
How can a simple blacksmith become a knight, etc,on his own?
posted on 18 Aug 2009Ridley Scott still got it and he is one of the best, but regarding the story and plot, how can simple blacksmith (is there another kind?) becomes a war complete strategist, inventor, excellent fighter , and have strong moral principles, those of a knight? Leaving aside his other attributes, no pool of genes can explain that, only if he is a genius and what a genius! Anyway, this film rates high among others, almost reaching Gladiator, which is the best ever. Those who tried, such as Troy, King Arthur (this one sucks!), Alexander, etc, i forgot about them the minute i left the cinemas. Orlando Bloom is more than OK in his role and the other actors just made it by.
One of the best epics i have ever watched
posted on 18 Aug 2009This movie can be described simply as spectacular. I am a huge fan of this genre of movies. From the much older movies like Spartacus, to the more recent ones such as Braveheart, to the very recent ones such as Troy, i simply love them all. I have seen probably every movie in this genre that is worth watching. So i hope when i tell you that Kingdom of Heaven is one of the best of its kind, you believe me. This movie will capture you from the very beginning and keep your attention until the very end. The battles are brutal and very captivating, the dialog is great and the actors and actresses are fantastic. Rent it, buy it, borrow it from a friend if you have to. Just WATCH IT!
failed attempt
posted on 18 Aug 2009Balian is a blacksmith who does not find the sense of life. When he discovers that he is the son of a knight, he decides to go to Jerusalem to fight in the crusade, defending Christ and God. When he arrives there, he discovers that people doesn't fight for religion, fight for money and hate, which will make him to change his attitude in life. Impressive scenarios and clothes, perfect and convincing, unfortunately, this attempt to repeat Gladiator is not so well done indeed. Film results too much slow and bores sometimes. In the same way, I think that Orlando Bloom is not he best actor to represent a brave knight, he seems horrified during all the movie, when he should to be more confident (at least when he is not fighting, he should keep calm). The secondary actors (Irons and Nesson) are better, but their characters are not deep enough to show what these actors are able to do. It's entertaining but nothing more than that. A good idea with good scenarios, but the attempt to make an epic film is not achieved.
A Politically Correct Whitewash!
posted on 16 Aug 2009I don't go to see too many movies in the theater because they are just not worth the $10. As a result, I am much more inclined to patiently await the release of the film on DVD and rent it at my convenience. It is for this reason that I have just gotten around to seeing Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. Normally, I am a big fan of Mr. Scott, especially of his Gladiator movie, but I must say that his crusading epic has thoroughly missed the mark by proving to be little more that anti-Christian political correctness run amok.The movie's religious phobia becomes apparent quite early. Within the first five minutes, we are immediately confronted with a Catholic priest that steals a crucifix from a dead woman in the process of being buried (we later learn that this is the body of the wife of Orlando Bloom's protagonist, Balian)! This initial shocking scene proves to be the rule, and not the exception, for KoH's non-stop sermonizing against the evils of organized religion. From there, we are deluged with continuous imagery of Catholic noblemen and Crusaders, most notably the Templars and the Hospitallers, indulging in the worst aspects of human conduct, including avarice, war mongering, and senseless brutality. But what about simple 'stupidity', the favorite aspersion cast upon religious folk by the politically correct crowd? Well, not to leave any stone unturned, Mr. Scott provides us with the Bishop of Jerusalem, a man that neatly portrays every dim-witted Christian stereotype ever invented by anti-religious bigots. Not only is he stupid, but he is also a yellow coward. In one particularly interesting scene, the bishop declares that he would willingly abandon his faith, convert to Islam, and abandon his flock just to save his own skin! And this is just a superficial sampling of the anti-Christian tone set by the film!Needless to say, the real heroes of the film, from Bloom's Balian, to Jeremy Iron's Godfrey, are all characters who declare that organized religion is for fools, that the real kingdom of heaven is found in the non-denominational hearts of mankind. It is here that another flaw of the film becomes apparent---the ceaseless humanist sermonizing of the characters. Every line uttered by Bloom, Irons, et alia, is simply dripping with overwrought emotion, as if the dialogue was handed down by God to William Monahan, the scriptwriter. Of course, to anyone with a discerning ear, you quickly realize that all this pontificating amounts to zilch, it is nothing more than political correctness proffered as wisdom. At times it is so silly that it is almost laughable! Only in Hollywood could such dribble be taken seriously.The film's protagonist, Balian, is also a curious character to uphold as a virtuous hero. Shortly into the film, we watch as Balian, in a fit of anger, murder's the village priest by running him through with a sword. Not content with that act of violence, he then throws the dieing priest into his furnace where he watches him burn alive! Balian then flees the authorities and ultimately finds his way to the Holy Land where, shortly after being knighted by his dying father and charged with upholding a virtuous code of conduct, promptly has an affair with the wife of a rival knight! If this is Mr. Scott's idea of a hero, I shudder to think what his idea of a villain is---oh wait, a Christian…that's right.Surely, in an earnest effort to be fair, Mr. Scott portrays Islam with a similarly cynical brush, right? Silly…of course not. In fact, Muslims, as principally portrayed by Ghassan Massoud as Saladin (the only actor to give an excellent performance), the great battler of crusading Europe, are shown as everything that Christians are not….wise, tolerant, and merciful. Mr. Scott seems to have forgotten that the Crusades were a defensive reaction to the slashing, burning, and enslaving of Christians by Islamic armies---but such a admittance would run counter to KoH's endless demonizing of Christian Europe. Therefore, the film's indictment of religion is strictly one-sided. Of course, I do sort of understand this decision as, if Mr. Scott portrayed Islamic clerics with all the hurtful stereotyping he lavished upon Christian clerics, no doubt a fatwa with his name on it would be promulgated throughout the Islamic world. He couldn't have that, could he? Better to play it safe and bash his Western-Christian heritage in the spirit of religious tolerance.Unlike King Arthur, which I truly believe was made to deliberately besmirch the Roman Catholic Church, I do believe that Mr. Scott's intentions were pure. I watched him on many television shows promoting KoH as a film that urges religious tolerance in a post-9/11 world. I do believe that was his intention---and that is what is so sad about this film. Mr. Scott & Co. truly believes that this is a fair and balanced look at religion and the Crusades. In short, it is another example, in a long line of recent examples, of how Hollywood is out of touch with "red state" America. Who, but a Hollywood director, could consider a film that attacks the West and Christianity, while whitewashing Islamic aggression, as a balanced attempt at religious dialogue? Who, but Hollywood insiders, would even contemplate making such a film, releasing it in a nation that suffered over 3000 dead due to Islamic extremism, and expect to have a blockbuster on their hands???Kingdom of Heaven could have filled an important void in our shared cinematic library. The Crusades truly were a significant episode in world history, one that continues to influence the modern world. If Ridley Scott was less interested in ramming a politically correct message down the throats of his audience, and more interested in a serious history flick, in the line of Gettysburg or The Longest Day, Kingdom of Heaven could have been a classic. Alas, as it stands, it might as well have been an Al Jezera production.
A great movie
posted on 10 Aug 2009Kingdom of Heaven is one of the best movies I have seen this year. In other movies I have seen this year, my attention span went in and out as the movie went on. In Kingdom of Heaven, I was thinking about the movie even when I had to go to use the restroom during it. The movie takes place while the Christians still had control of Jerusalem during the Crusades. Orlando Bloom is recruited by a man who he has recently learned is his father, played by the always watchable Liam Neeson, to go to Jersualem to fight in the Crusades. Since Bloom's wife and child are dead, he has no more ties to his home, so he agrees. In Jeruasalem, he finds an uneasy peace going on between Christians and Muslims. I don't think I am giving anything away to say this peace is broken, because there wouldn't be much of a movie because of it. What fascinated me the most was that the kings of both sides would prefer to live in peace rather than make war that would result in thousands getting killed. Unfortunately, there are radicals on both sides who believe they must kill the infidels on the other side and on their own side, especially Christians. Although the film takes place in 1184, the film is still timely in the Middle East today. While getting in line for Star Wars, see this movie too. 10/10
KOH is a worthy historically based film that fans of the genre will enjoy.
posted on 10 Aug 2009Kingdom of Heaven is one of the more enjoyable historically based movies I have seen as of late. It tells of an important time in world history, which I would argue that most people are unaware of. The film makes this story come to life without being too confusing or tedious. The battle scenes are tremendous with moments that have an impact equal to that of some in LOTR. I did have to watch this movie more than once, though, to fully understand the characters and their motivations. I also viewed the version with commentary which was very interesting but takes up a good portion of the screen, so you should have watched the movie through before doing so.
Good film with good messages
posted on 04 Aug 2009After reading the reviews of this movie, I was prepared not to like it and to be disappointed in Orlando Bloom's performance. I am glad I did go and I did like the movie. There is character growth and progression, it is subtle and moving. Bloom delivers a character interpretation that portrays quiet strength and determination. Just because he is not blustering about and shouting does not mean he is not portraying his character. Do all men stomp about and shout and grimace or do some act with dignity and are quiet leaders? This is a story for entertainment. But,there are insightful concepts in place. The most telling one is when the decent Saracen leader picks up the cross off the ground and places it back on the altar. Decent men on both sides of the issues, bad men on both sides of the issues. The acting in general is good. Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons are very good. The photography is great. Better editing would have improved the film. It is a good film to enjoy just as a movie and it also reminds us that actions we take today can be far reaching and destructive into the future.
Well-presented, if stock epic
posted on 04 Aug 2009A beautifully constructed film, exquisitely shot. I wish I'd seen this in a theatre rather than on DVD. The acting has peaks (Liam Neeson, Eva Green, the Saladin of Ghassan Massoud) and troughs (Marton Csokas's Guy de Lusignan and Edward Norton as the reedy King of Jerusalem). Orlando Bloom is good but unconvincing as a leader of men. It's generally a director's picture anyway.This film is directly comparable with a number of other battle set-piece epics, not least Scott's own Gladiator. Kingdom of Heaven compares favourably with this picture, not least as there's a sparing, decorous use of CGI.The problems with this film, such as there are, are to do with its pitch. A big studio number, it has to cater for a broad cross section of audience. Whilst there's obviously a reasonably sophisticated script trying to fight its way out it's subsumed in broad-brush themes and peace-propagandist statements. Most of these are worthy and moral but it makes for lukewarm drama. 6/10
Possibly the best film made about the Crusades
posted on 29 Jul 2009Revised review written 5/18/2008The review below was written on May 8 2005,& was based on the 142 minute running time.Last night I saw the more complete version which runs 194 minutes. It explains some of the details that were given short shrift the first time.The same praise I gave this 3 years back, still applies, It was & still is a monumental film & should be seen by all.At no point is it boring,it is interesting all the way through & you really care for all the peoples,even the ones that supposedly are the villains.The ratings for both versions are the same.Throughout cinema history, There have been many films made about The Crusades, They were always done from the Christian viewpoint,. where the knights very noble & honest men & the Muslims were dastardly evil or cunning.Now this version, we come closer to the truth, where we see good & evil on both sides. The Director Ridley Scott,who is known for action films has crafted a superior film, & if this was December & not May I would venture a guess it would be nominated for many Oscars. (I do hope 20th Century Fox re-releases this in December so it can be deservedly honoured.)Mr.Scott did direct GLADIATOR a few years back & won some Oscars. (this reviewer did not think it deserved them). This time however, he has assembled a cast & crew that worked together & created a memorable film.It stars Orlando Bloom, He has done good work in other films, in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN he not only carries the film,He NOW has become an actor,who will get the roles to match his talent. Liam Neeson has a small role & as usual is great,Jeremy Irons & David Thewles as usual are excellent & in a small role & unbilled is Edward Norton as the leper King Baldwin, (he is in a silver mask for all his scenes ---spoiler alert--the mask is removed on his DeathBed & we see the ravishes of his leprosy----excellent job of make up.The only female role is portrayed by Eva Green ( I do not remember seeing her before---but will look for other films she has been in). Most films of this type the lead actress is usually there for decoration or for sexual purposes. NOT HERE. Not only is she beautiful, she can act & her role is vital to the screenplay.William Monahan has written a literate script that is easy to follow & understand the complexities of the time(Just before the 3rd Crusade).Normally I have trouble hearing the dialogue in many films due the Dolby sound system..Here they use the SUPERIOR THX sound system & you can hear all the dialogue.The action scenes are brilliantly done 100 % better than THE GLADIATOR. Of course many scenes are computer generated & as hard as I tried to look,I was not aware of any images done by the computer: In Gladiator there were many obvious such images.There is a fair amount of brutality, BUT the times were brutal,the battle scenes were natural BUT not off-putting like in a certain film,(Saving Pvt.Ryan).Most of all the characters were real people (Liam Neeson's character was fictitious). There is information on these little know historical personages on the Web. Look them up.& then see this GREAT MOVIE.My rating **** (out of 4) 99 points (out of 100) IMDb 10
An impressive and intelligent Crusade...
posted on 29 Jul 2009...and Ridley Scott's best film since Blade Runner, largely because for once his visuals are matched with a good script that doesn't feel like an afterthought. While most critics found the theatrical version rushed, I had no such problem: true, the film has the quickest shipwreck in screen history and the love story quickly disappears (a shame, because Eva Green gives the film a lightness it otherwise lacks), but for the most part its journey is well told. Nor is it overly politically correct – the Muslims might be more honourable than some of the Crusaders, but that doesn't make them any less ruthless, and for every transparent transparent hypocrites, they are also counterbalanced by David Thewlis' Knight Hospitaler or, in the director's cut, Bill Paterson as a compassionate Bishop who establishes the incompatibility of fanatical adherence to religious law with the actions of a loving Saviour that is one of the film's major themes, just as the 'good' Muslims are counterbalanced by fanatics: both Saladin and Baldwin have to walk a tightrope with their own people to prevent war.For a film about religious and moral ideals, it's a curiously untriumphant epic dealing with the failure of reason and compromise. Even its hero's attempts to live a decent life becomes a part of that failure: when offered the chance to save the city from war and get the girl, his knightly code will not allow him, condemning the people of Jerusalem to war. That, and the fact that it's a film about a loser may well be part of the reason for the film's failure to find an audience in America, but it's also one of the things that makes it so interesting. Even though it's full of historical errors, it does encompass the ebb and flow of a state of mind in a point in history surprisingly well.Orlando Bloom is far from disastrous even if he's not quite good enough. He does the grim and serious stuff well, but he doesn't offer much else: there's no light or shade to the performance, just a conscientiousness that isn't exactly wrong for the character but still leaves you hoping for something more as the third act comes along. If he's not exactly two-dimensional, he does at least manage one-and-a-half more dimensions than Clive Owen did in King Arthur and never embarrasses himself as much as Colin Farrell did in parts of Alexander. The supporting cast are mostly on good form, although Edward Norton seems to be doing Anthony Zerbe's leper turn from Papillon as the dying king.The film was shot largely with real extras for all but the largest crowd scenes, which plays real dividends here. Aside from giving you a sense of a world outside the main characters, it also highlights one of the real limitations of CGi extras: their failure to interact with the elements. It doesn't feel like a computer game but a conflict involving real people, which helps ground the story and give it a sense of weight. John Mathieson's photography is infinitely superior to his overpraised work on Gladiator even though he does overdo the dreariness of Europe.Harry Gregson-Williams' score is competent, but it's telling that much of the film needed to be scored with several cues from Graeme Revell's Crow, Marco Beltrani's Blade and, most effectively in the "Rise a knight" sequence, Jerry Goldsmith's Valhalla prayer from The 13th Warrior - so don't be surprised if you find yourself suddenly wanting to see one of them straight afterwards!The director's cut gives the film more room to breathe but won't make converts of the unbelievers, offering a more leisurely paced version of the film for the faithful who want to revisit its world and characters in a little more detail. It's more of a journey in the extended version, and a bloodier one, although there are a few moments that tip over into self-indulgence and 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. Bloom's limitations are also given a little more room, and Norton's performance suffers a little from using different takes, and at least one of his expanded scenes is simply longer without really being any better. The real winner in the extra footage stakes is Eva Green, whose part is considerably expanded and much more complex, allowing her a mass of contradictory motives (few of them noble), impulses and emotions that were smoothed away in 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 complexity in this cut is more in the characters than in the plot, some of the problems of the theatrical version have been addressed. The shipwreck is just as rushed, but the pacing problems in the astonishingly spectacular siege finale are much improved by the addition of a fairly minimal amount of footage. For all the impressive visuals, in the theatrical cut it paled besides Bloom's previous efforts at the battlements, and felt rushed and underpowered and ultimately overstylized. We're never in the thick of it, either emotionally or visually. In the DC it's no longer quite so hurried, with more of a sense of the human cost that was lacking by simply including characters we briefly get to know among the dead. There is one massive subsequent miscalculation where a redundant swordfight has been added: not only is it completely ineffective, dwarfed by the sheer scale and weight of what has come before, but it's also unnecessary, winding up a plot point no-one cares about any more and simply underlining the events of the previous scene. Immensely impressive stuff.
Historically Inaccurate
posted on 29 Jul 2009This Ridley Scott film is not that awful. Sure the beginning may make one sleep but at least it has wonderful cinematography. Also the acting wasn't bad but it wasn't great either. I felt Orlando Bloom could have done better. Eva Green was beautiful though. Now on to my main complaint. ''Kingdom of Heaven'' is just too post modern and politically correct. Now I don't expect the Crusades to be presented in a positive light but oh my goodness why portray the Muslims as righteous? Not to mention that all three religions have a place in Jerusalem? You see that is why I didn't like this firm... the non belief or agnosticism... trying not to ''offend'' anybody. The Crusaders believed in what they were doing. The Muslims as well. Why can't you show that? This warring and ancient era was completely misinterpreted to match the era of today. That is why movies such as Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven bombed at the box office.Quote on the twisting ideology ---> Twisted Theology --- > The theology in Kingdom of Heaven is also all wrong. The film depicts some monk standing by the roadside repeating: "To kill an infidel is not murder it is the path to heaven!" As any student of the Bible would be able to tell you, neither the concept nor those words appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. However, as any student of the Quran should be able to inform you, that is exactly what the Islamic doctrine of Jihad teaches.At one point early in the film as Muslims bow in prayer towards Mecca, Balian comments: "You allow them to pray?" A knight sneers and answers: "As long as they pay their taxes!" In fact the crusaders never required any extra taxes of Muslims in order to allow them to pray. That is the Islamic doctrine and practice of Jizya. To this day Muslim governments require Jizya – tribute taxes – of dummy's (Jews and Christians under their Islamic rule).Before the crusaders march out to the disastrous battle of Hattin, the film has one knight declaring: "The army of Jesus Christ cannot be beaten." However, there is no such doctrine in the Bible, or in Christian theology. It is, in fact, Islamic dogma that no Muslim army can never be defeated by an infidel army. This Muhammad asserted on the authority of Allah himself. (Something which the recent defeats, of the Taliban, in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein's Muslim military superpower of the Middle East, Iraq, by the Americans has precipitated a serious theological problem for Islamic scholars). ' Also on Ridley Scott ' Just in case anyone misunderstood the motivations behind his movie, Ridley Scott has been quoted as saying: "If we could just take God out of the equation, there would be no f… problem!"One last thing --- > Varia Galley's Filmiliar Cineaste is quite positive about the film and describes it as "A grand success and a moving depiction of the crusades as a bloodbath in the name of piety…Scott…makes the point that religious zealotry…has historically resulted in mass slaughter."Is there without a doubt now why this movie bombed at the box office? And not just the USA (I'm not American though...) but even in Europe plus even if it did bombed at the box office why hasn't it been successful?
Scott rules...
posted on 27 Jul 2009Ridley Scott is the master. He is my favorite director, bar none. Arguably, Scott has helmed the greatest horror movie of all time, Alien, as well as the greatest science fiction movie of all time, Blade Runner (whose special effects, sans C.G.I., rival those of such visual fodder as the Star Wars prequels and the last two Matrix's). Here's the thing about Ridley Scott… he has had an incredible career spanning over three decades, with such films as Legend, Gladiator, White Squall, G.I. Jane, Thelma and Louise, Black Hawk Down, and The Duelists (just to name a few), Scott has shown himself to be an artist of the highest caliber. The fact that Hollywood has thus far shunned and denied these attributes and achievements, even going so far as to "snub" Scott an Oscar for best director when both his movie- Gladiator- and his actor- Russell Crowe- won, is and forever will be irreprehensible and unprofessional in the extreme. There is something… in every single Ridley Scott film… something beautiful, something magical, something astonishing, something stunning. His films are feasts, visual pictures that move across the screen like the brush strokes of a brilliant painting, or like the choreographed fight of a Shaolin monk.With all that said, "Kingdom of Heaven" is not my favorite Ridley Scott film. Is it worth seeing? Yes. Is it worth the price of admission? Hell yes! Is it Scott's best movie to date? No.As it concerns "Kingdom of Heaven"… I wanted more: more passion, more intimacy, more story, more character depth. I enjoyed the premise, and I think rediscovering the lunacy of the Crusades is a wonderful thing. I liked how the script took a strong, close look at religion and the turmoil and dread that always seems to follow, or rather, precede, it. I really liked the films strong anti-war sentiment, and of how ludicrous it is for men to fight and die over a piece of land; the same piece of land that, to this day, zealot men are still fighting and dieing over.However, there was a lot about the film that felt familiar, and not in the best of ways. The first few scenes with the snow floating through the air were a directly facsimile of Gladiator's first few scenes. The enormous, epic battle scenes reminded me of every single enormous, epic battle scene I have ever seen, from Brave Heart to Return of the King to Alexander. I don't really know what happens with those battle scenes either but somewhere along the way, as thousands upon thousands of men topple off battlements and die screaming beneath burning oil, I lose some of my interest. It's almost as if they themselves, meaning the battle scenes, lose aspects of their intimacy and humanity, like a musician who prefers playing smaller clubs than huge amphitheatres. The epic battle scenes are the amphitheatres- enormous, impressive, but somehow distant, the fight scenes between a few men are the smaller clubs- easier to follow, and more detailed and close. There is a fight scene at the beginning of "Kingdom of Heaven" between 7 to 15 men that is much more thought out, much more emotional and impacting, and much more fun than any of the other epic scenes. I think the eye and the mind can only take in so much at one time, and I also think that is why Gladiator worked so well; the fight scenes were, for the most part, man on man, which lent to it an air of closeness and confidence that those epic battle scenes could never hope to achieve. You felt like you were with Maximus in the arena, fighting against tyranny, fighting for the honor of his wife and child."Kingdom of Heaven" is a good movie and worth paying to see. Yes… the script could have been written better (albeit there are some wonderful lines), the battles scenes are over the top, and some of it appears as if Ridley Scott is emulating… Ridley Scott, but it is also beautiful and horrible and breathtaking. Orlando Bloom becomes a man in this film… not the waspish, soft-spoken elf, or the insipidly weak Troy royalty, but a man, capable of leading kingdoms and conquering armies. My only thought is that "Kingdom of Heaven" needed more substance and more depth. I liked it. In fact, I'll probably see it a second time, but, as stated before, it did have and air of familiarity that was not necessarily good.
an excellent movie
posted on 30 Aug 2009The action scenes are very exciting albeit a bit brutal sometimes which was probably true to history but a bit hard on the stomach. The characters existed and the events related in the film are very close to the facts. Oralando Bloom and Jeremy Irons portray their character very well and make them believable. The locations chosen for the film lend the an added feel of authenticity The unfolding of history engages the emotions and awakens a thirst to find out more about this period. I am definitely going to get this film on DVD when it comes out although to appreciate the scenery and the battle scenes,I recommend it being watched first in the cinema A thoroughly enjoyable watch.