I know at least me, Omar, and Irishman have seen this. I'd love to hear comments.
--------------------------------
“At first, I thought we were fighting for God, I realized we were actually fighting for wealth and power.”

***1/2

The above quote is not in exact wording, but is what my memory serves. It’s the quote that sticks in my head the most in the entire film. It’s a fact that while many people claim to be doing God’s will; they are simply trying to advance their own agenda. I’m sure God didn’t want the Christians to rip the Holy Land from the Muslims. Pop Urban who said “God wills it” was pretty much working on his own reasons. He could care less what God thought; he wanted Jerusalem in Christian hands, not the Muslims.

‘Kingdom of Heaven’ is Ridley Scott’s new Crusade epic. I can definitely see references from both ‘Gladiator’ and ‘Hannibal’ but I don’t think it’s as big a rehash as everyone thought. It has its differences with ‘Gladiator’ that work in its favor. It’s a beautiful film that even had its potential to succeed ‘Gladiator.’ The film’s characters are heavily dramatized, but there is still much accuracy. Some relationships are brewed up to make the story more compelling such as Balian and Sibylla’s relationship. Balian is a blacksmith whose wife has committed suicide. The priest beheads her corpse because she will be in hell and takes her cross. Godfrey of Ibelin (Barisan in history) comes to reconcile with his estranged illegitimate son. Balian kills the priest and takes his cross back and sets out to catch up to his father he refused to go with. A battle ensues when men come to arrest Balian and Godfrey is wounded.

Balian is knighted and sets out to the Holy Land, where an ambitious young man can prosper. What the film focuses on isn’t the facts. There are many inaccuracies. What the film seems to be concerned with is the violence between religions. The extremists cause the problems. This is probably the big parallel in the film to today’s world, if the last subtitle didn’t give it away. In the first crusade that happened before the movie, the Christians conquered Palestine from the Muslims. Now it is ruled by King Baldwin IV, a 24 year old king with leprosy who wears a silver mask to conceal is disfigured face, which oddly enough is a reminiscence of a certain wheel-chair-bound Hannibal victim in Scott’s ‘Hannibal.’ Baldwin believes all religions have the right to worship. Tiberias (Raymond III of Tripoli in history) agrees. However there are extremists who despise the Muslims such as Guy de Lusignan and Raynald of Châtillon. They attack Muslim caravans killing many of them, which angers Saladin, sultan of Egypt and Syria.

One of the film’s strong points is that the film is pushed without the assistance of constant violence, although there is enough violence to satisfy even the dullest of minds. The first half of the film is supported by acting and breathtaking cinematography. The film opens with a beautiful French view with a large crucifix erected in the side. Jerusalem is also an amazing piece of work. The battle scenes are done very well, although they are nothing new. The first is particularly great to look at due to the snow blown around during it.

This film while great does have its weaknesses. Orlando Bloom is dreadful, not only butchering the good lines he has but he also fails to change his dull emotionless expression in the whole film, save for his screaming scenes. His character is a very good one with conflicting, but honorable views that become hindered by the performance. The best acting in the film is by Jeremy Irons, who makes his presence known and has a real force in himself. Liam Neeson is also very good in his role. His role doesn't have the depth of past roles but he is still good. The supporting cast does its job and nearly compensates Bloom. The beauty, message, and most of the acting are the strengths. The film could’ve been somewhat longer as well. The first part of the film seemed to be rushed, unlike ‘Gladiator,’ which developed itself more fully taking its time. I believe in what Ebert said about the overall meaning for the film. All religions can coexist easily; it’s the extremists on both sides that complicate things. In one scene I truly love, King Baldwin in his beautiful mask meets Saladin in a field one on one while their armies are at opposite sides as Sibylla watches from a castle in the back of the shot. They are honorable men who don’t want bloodshed, and at the end of their discussion Baldwin becomes tired for traveling with his advancing leprosy. Saladin closes by saying he will send him some of his physicians. This is between a Muslim leader and a Christian leader, and I think to myself, “Why can’t we all be like this?”

Well, there is that reported longer "Director's Cut" that is about a hour longer and will be in a SE DVD later in the future.

Anyway, good review Don Vercetti, my boy!

Sounds like Ridley Scott made another solid flick, even despite Woodelf's lack of charisma. Is he the English version of Keanu Reeves?

I put this on my list to get. Thanks for the review DV.

Who knows, it might be superior with more footage. And pretty much for Bloom, somewhat. Even his past roles weren't too good at all.

Just saw this over the weekend. I thought it was pretty entertaining. I won't be buying it on DVD though.

Thanks for the review, it was good. I definetly agree with the part about Orlando Bloom. I don't neccesarily think he is a bad actor, but I think someone else could have pulled the part off better. The word emotionless was right on target.

If it has Edward Norton's name on it, I'll buy it for the pure sake of supporting him, and resuming post as a loyal fan. Perhaps a keepsake to introduce the greatest actor of the current generation to future generations of my family... Just a way to say "I was there."

I saw this movie yesterday, without expecting much. I had seen the previews and I thought I was going to see a sort of Jerusalem "Troy", but I was wrong. This movie has characters you can feel more easily identified with, and the "bad guy" of the story is not an Arab or the soldiers and leaders of a muslim army, but the anti-hero is religion itself, and what it drives fanatics to do.

If evil was supposed to take an encarnation in one of the characters of the story, definetely it would be Guy de Lusignan and Reynald, yet they don't prove to be as evil as fanatics. Lusignan is only a greedy character who wants to have his name to be read in history books. Reynald is simply an asshole.

The character I really loved in the story was King Baldwin IV. Despite his young age, he proves to be a wise, calm, and considerate man, who understands the importance of having peace with the muslims. His appearance on the screen was the kind of thing I looked for during the movie. He just had a sort of prescence you can't stop noticing, and, as Vercetti pointed out, the conversation between Saladin and Baldwin was one scene I particularly liked.

Cant wait to see it.

DS

They pretty much were extremists. Raynald of Châtillon despised the Muslims and wanted a one religion kingdom of just Christianity, which is why he kept attacking their caravans. Guy de Lusignan wanted power, but he was also a Christian extremist who wanted a one-religion kingdom and supported Raynald. He was less brutal then Raynald but he had the same views, although his main ambition was power.

Glad you liked it.

I saw "Kingdom of Heaven" this weekend expecting like many other poeple to see a "Troy" like epic... and that wouldn't be a good thing.

I was plesently supprise by the excellent cast and the expert direction. This has got to be amoung Scott's best firsms...

The weak link in it all is that punk Orlando Bloom. I have a dpersonal disdain for him. Regardless of that minor fault, I really think it's one of the beter films to pop out of this decade.