Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

[Scott]

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005) - I always like historical drama in film, but I must say that Ridley Scott messed up directing this film about the Crusades. He takes the film no where and it just becomes a meaningless film. Well, ok they put a lame ending to it. Some of it I can appreciate what he's trying to say, but Ridley Scott and those responsible didn't have to use the Crusades to communicate their message. A wasted effort on a great subject. Orlando Bloom and Leslie Neesom don't lend much to the film either. Well, I shouldn't be to harsh as there were a few good acting jobs and we did get to see the Crusaders and the Saracens battle it out GLADIATOR style.

[DaveMunger]

The clips I've heard on E! or whatever have me wondering: Does anyone in this movie ever say anything that a Medieval person might concievably say?

[Master Blaster]

Deffinately not a history lesson, but plenty of swordings, arrowings, boiling oilings, axings, arrow to neck and still swordings, whip weilding leperings, and other general testosterone flinging aplenty entertainment. Blaster gives his seal of approval to this one. Coorupted templars kick ass!

[Neville]

Dave Munger wrote: "The clips I've heard on E! or whatever have me wondering: Does anyone in this movie ever say anything that a Medieval person might concievably say?"

Sure, man. I mean, didn't they constantly speaking in literary language and rambling about how good democracy is?

Now seiosly, I've read in a magazine that the film is seriously butchered. The orignal cut by Scott was 3h 40 min, and the theatrical cut is 2h 15 min. I can't tell if the full version is any good (being a Ridley Scott movie, it could be either be great or terrible), but reading the reviews I think I'd better wait for the full version DVD.

[Scott]

Don't get me wrong there were some good moments and characters, but with the subject matter and the money put into this film. I would think something much better could have come out. A few notes:

1) The knight who continued fighting with an arrow thru his neck was quite a movie moment. He managed to kill off 3 or 4 before he died.

2) The leper king with the mask was interesting.

3) The dark templar (the good one) was interesting.

4) Saladin was more interesting than Orlando Blooms character.

5) The two main "bad" templar leaders were well done.

The film just lacked any real direction. Just a mish mash of things. I don't think Ridley Scott did his homework. This film also kinda reveals GLADIATOR'S flaws even more. Trying to blur the rest of the films lack of direction with the over use of "choppy" edited fight scenes as his big movie draw in a Ridley Scott film. The big whigs will probably give this director even more "epic" films to direct.

Maybe the director needs to collaborate with other people with some helpful insight or hand over the film project all together to someone else. Maybe pay this director to stay home and use only his name to draw in an audience.



Post Edited (05-09-05 15:52)

[Master Blaster]

Overall I agree. I think Ridley Scott lost his edge some time ago. Watching the film for strictly for entertainment is fine (which is exactly what I did), but the message behind this movie is just dumb, overlly PC, and badly executed. Here we have the main character, who sort of did something bad but we all understand, patches things up with his long lost papa, goes to get redemption, becomes Dudly Do Right in the process and everything is all the better in the end and everyone lives happily ever after. Even the bad guys get there come-uppins in the end. There was a chance with this story to raise some compelling questions about morality, power, and the greater common good that were completely wasted. And it could have been done without losing one flailing or cranial axing to keep the idiot bloodthirsty masses like me entertained. Still, on the dumb level, since all I want is to satiate my bloodlust it did the trick.

[Zapranoth]

Ugh.

On the bigger picture level, the film's message was a mishmash, as has been said.  Way too much was attempted and not given enough time; the themes of zealousness, Christianity compared to Islam, the attempted contrasting of different kings, exploring what it really means to be a leader...  it was a horrid muddle, and it all failed miserably or was at the very least heavy-handed and dumbed down.  I can't wait to read the Onion's review on this one; it will be scathing.

The battle just gave me a headache after a while, and I *loved* Braveheart, don't get me wrong.  The choppy editing thing is cool, in MODERATION.  

The film decidedly got lost sometime soon after Orlando finishes the fight with Saladin's (? son?) outside of Jerusalem.

The villains sucked.  Both of them.  The guy who played the evil German mastermind from the big rave in XXX?  His part sucked.  And don't get me started about that redhead guy.  He had to be bad because "someone has to do it?"   Auuuugh!

I loved the big beefy Aryan berserker who fought on with the arrow in his throat.  That was cool.

And the priest who was played by the same guy  who played Lupin in the last Harry Potter.  That character was likable; I would have enjoyed more of him.

That movie managed to disappoint me, even though I went in with fairly low expectations.