**Kingdom of Heaven**

[Rodion Romanovich]

So many through the ages have fought and died for what they believed in, there have been many noble leaders, as well as terrible ones, and tragic kings such as Baldwin IV.

Hehe, that's the reason why I actually enjoy reading history books more than reading novels...

[Sir William Wallace]

i just saw it last night and i was absolutly amazed, i loved it,,, such a great film, it will be a classic

[Pericles]

There's good news.

Ridley Scott has confirmed that the DVD version of KoH will be ONE HOUR LONGER than the theatrical release.

So the DVD version will be 3 hours and 30 minutes long.

This should flesh out the movie and hopefully will include the Battle of Hattin.

Apparently, Scott was pressured by producers to heavily edit the movie for the theatre. Scott originally wanted to have the 3 hr version in the theatres.

This explains a lot about the movie.

[Spartakus]

There's good news.

Ridley Scott has confirmed that the DVD version of KoH will be ONE HOUR LONGER than the theatrical release.

That's excellent news, just what I hoped for, though I was convinced it was in vain.

Pretty sure we'll see Hattin then, more of what took place on the muslim side, and a lot more background info on the characters.

Domo arigatou, Scott.

[_Aetius_]

Aetius:

Sorry, but I find this statement to be totally unbelievable.

KoH is actually one of the better films of the year.

If you don't mind me asking: In what country/city did you see the film?

Are you sure they weren't going to use the washroom and/or buy concestion food?

hows that unbelievable? I didnt follow these people out the door to see where they went, but when groups of people leave and dont return I can only assume they left the movie beause they didnt like it.

If 1 or 2 people leave throughout the movie then you dont really notice but when groups of people from different parts of the theatre start getting up and leaving its pretty obvious why.

Liverpool England

[Colovion]

Hehe, that's the reason why I actually enjoy reading history books more than reading novels...

I"m with you on that one. Certain history books are rather dry, but certain ones are undisputably eye-opening and jaw-dropping that it doesn't matter how amazing the novel is, it's still not depicting a true event. Truth always bring me to appreciate the events much more.

If you want to read some amazing historical novels check out Harold Lamb. He has books on Hannibal, Alexander, Crusades, Tamerlane, the Mongols, Charlemagne - and others. When I first started reading them I felt as if the events in them could not be real, as the books aren't written like a dry history text - but as a creative tapestry depicting events in a person's life which were drawn directly from historical accounts. Deffinately give him at least one read on one of his books, you won't be disapointed.

[Pericles]

hows that unbelievable? I didnt follow these people out the door to see where they went, but when groups of people leave and dont return I can only assume they left the movie beause they didnt like it.

If 1 or 2 people leave throughout the movie then you dont really notice but when groups of people from different parts of the theatre start getting up and leaving its pretty obvious why.

Liverpool England

I have never seen that happen in any theatre I have been in. And I have seen some real stinker movies

KoH was actually a pretty good movie.

I will usually get up half way through a movie and use the washroom and buy some goodies, so if a lot of people do it, it could seem that they were leaving. How could you possibly keep track of who was leaving and returning if you were watching the movie?

It just seems to be really odd.

Were they young people? Girls? Adults?

[_Aetius_]

I have never seen that happen in any theatre I have been in. And I have seen some real stinker movies

KoH was actually a pretty good movie.

I will usually get up half way through a movie and use the washroom and buy some goodies, so if a lot of people do it, it could seem that they were leaving. How could you possibly keep track of who was leaving and returning if you were watching the movie?

It just seems to be really odd.

Were they young people? Girls? Adults?

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving.

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?

[Puzz3D]

I felt Alexander was very engrossing. After reading a historical Biography on the man, I still felt it generally held true to what most movie goers would call his greatest achievements, and also gives the first true dipiction of the chaos on a miles-long battlefield.

I enjoyed Alexander and the mythological symbolism, but was disappointed that important events were skipped. That jump cut to the Battle of Guagamela was very rough, and indicates that Alexander's consolidation of power in Greece was edited out. The narrative is so badly disjointed at that point that no one can follow it. Alexander's two wounds are moved into the wrong battles since only two battles are shown. The way he was wounded the second time in real life is more impressive than what was shown in the movie where in India he scaled a fort's walls alone and jumped into the fort and was saved by his shield bearer with Achille's shield which he had taken from Troy, but the underlying reason he gets wounded is the same and that comes across in the movie. I don't understand not showing Alexander's body lying in state in Alexandria. I fully expected that, and it would have been impressive to see his body covered in hammered gold sheets in full armor. It lay in state for about 500 years. A lot of the detail in the movie is accurately taken from historical references, although all the primary references were destroyed when the library at Alexandria was burned.

If Kingdom of Heaven is going to be released on DVD in an expanded version, I'll wait for that. Expanded versions usually contain expositional material, charcter development and sub-plots and not added battles since battle scenes are expensive to shoot. The studios are not out to cut the battle scenes anyway unless they want a PG-13 rating such as happened with the movie King Arthur.

It seems to me that recently most of the directors of historical epics have been using them to present their personal political or social agenda as though they were making a fictional film. Just the same, there is a great deal of accuracy in these films, but you have to filter out the political and social stuff if you don't agree with it so you can enjoy the rest of the film. I recently watched the film Alexander the Great made in the 1950's, and that is a pretty straight telling of Alexander's life with really bad battle scenes.

[Pericles]

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving.

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?

Don't worry I won't be rehashing the merits of the movie - heheh

The reason I ask about the age, etc is that I could see younger people getting bored and then leaving the theatre, especially groups of young girls and guys...

I, myself, am an older person, so I appreciate long, historical epics....

[Ptah]

Mixed opinions is a good thing, as everyone is entitled to their own. To add my own to the mix;

KOH could be viewed as one of those movies where the screenplay and directing was a disaster, but the actors managed to save it from sinking to the very bottom. I was very satisfied with the individual acting and character depiction, except the screenplay was simply horrible. Perhaps, like Lucas or Spielburg, Scott may be overrated as a director of historic spectacles.

Overall, the acting was good, and casting wasn't bad. Character portrayal was acceptable, but the continuity of the overall story was so disoriented that it was hard to follow just how the young Balian d'Ibelin would become such an important character during the raging turmoils of Saladin's 'reconquista' of Jerusalem.

The historical twist done to actual history is tolerable, barely.

Balian d'Ibelin was the third son of Balian d'Ibelin, Constable to the Count of Jaffa, Lord of Yebna(Ibelin). He was born in the Holy Lands and have never even been in France in his entire life... but that's OK. History portrays this man as a minor lord, but famed and honorable, especially when compared to the greedy and faulty Crusaders of the time. So the director wants him to look like the case of the 'ideal knight'... okay, fine by me. The fact that Baldwin IV was long dead before Saladin made his move to Jerusalem.. okay, that's fine too.

Why create a 'Tiberias'? All the villians are there, in person. So why remove Raymond III, count of Tripoli, cut off a chunk of him and add it to Balian? It is not entirely strange to repress certain characters to make the lead character shine out more, but to take a chunk out of one of the key historical figures and deleting him to create someone did not exist - that's a little too far to go for a historic movie IMO.

The movie itself failed to take a firm grasp on just what it really wants to portraty. What is KOH? Is KOH;

1) a story of self-discovery, a peasant becoming an honorable knight?
2) a success story, of how a poor peasant became a prestigious lord?
3) a love story, between a young knight and a queen?
4) a historic spectacle, with exciting battle scenes?
5) a political story, rejection of fanaticism, peace to all mankind?

Making a movie with several of above themes would be a difficult task for even a good director. Making a GOOD movie with ALL of the above themes intact would be something impossible even for the greatest of directors. KOH loses all sense of integration by trying to mix up all of the above, and as a result, succeeded in none. What it became is a loose, semi-historic, and politically correct "once upon a time..." story.

This young blacksmith, who finds about his origins, and decides to become a knight with the blessings of his recently found father.. okay, no harm done so far. It's still the opening scene.

But the real problem is after the young Balian moves to the Holy Lands. Judging by at least a very loose comparison between the real chronicles and the movie, it would have been at least 10 years Balian spent in Ibelin to become a great lord and prove himself as a worthy ruler. All this, which would be vitally important in adding integrity to the hero of the movie, is dealt in about 5 minutes. Move to Jerusalem, granted king's audience, and then BAM! A blacksmith becomes a benevolent and respected ruler. Geez, how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?

And the major turn-off, was the romance between Sybilla of Jerusalem and Balian. The real Balian actually married Sybilla's mother, Maria Comnena. He was a LOT older than portrayed in the movie too. But okay, this is a movie. Historical twist, right?

But what is this love? A burning passion? Desire? At first look Sybilla falls to a young handsome knight. Nothing surprising.. it's a Hollywood movie. I can understand that. But what about AFTER they spent the night together? What is this sudden urge inside Balian to become a perfect knight, in loyal service of his duties, and turn away from the girl? Spend just one night together, and Balian turns into an icecube. Sybilla (probably) feels used, and she would go ruin the Kingdom of Jerusalem because her one-night stand refuses her love. Scott's depiction of love, a romantic one, is hardly satisfying. Certainly no male audience would ever understand the twisted and rushed relationship like this one, nor would the female audience.

In the end, Balian's last heroic strive to save Jerusalem, the wonderful acting of the colorful villians, and an honorable and fashionable depiction of Salah-ad-Din, would be the only thing that saved this movie from self destruction.


Let's ask ourselves; what did we expect from "KOH"? I for one, when I heard about this movie months and months ago, after I learned that it would be based on the most dramatic events with the most colorful and inspiring characters during the entire Crusades, expected to see the Horns of Hattin. The climactic battle where armour-clad, horse-bound crusader knights met their demise facing Saladin's army.

What did we get? During the course of the entire movie, we get to see three scenes, and ironically, the most inspiring scene was where no battle even took place.

We saw the suicidal kamikaze charge at the gates of Kerak(which ended in like five minutes), the rallying of Crusader armies in front of Kerak, and the fall of Jerusalem. Of these, the rallying of the Crusaders in front of Kerak, was the only scene that was really worth seeing.

The Crusader army lead by Baldwin IV emerges from the horizon. Unlike the lightly armoured, dark coloured Muslims, the Crusaders are visually stunning. The uniformity of the white tunics. The brightly shining mails and shields of the knights. The Templars dressed in white and red, the Hospitallers in black and white. Well armed footsoldiers in service of their lords and order. This 30 second visual, was more impressing than everything else in the movie, as it truly gace us some insight on what the Muslims might have felt when they met Crusaders on the battlefield.

However, flipping the Horns of Hattin with just two cuts, is simply intolerable. Skipping the most important battle of this era, was probably the biggest mistake of this movie. If this movie only had depicted the Horns of Hattin on a dynamic scale that would resemble the battle scenes of "Lord of the Rings", this movie would have been very different.

[Marquis of Roland]

hmmm....so does anyone know the deal with the templar insignias in the movie??? As far as I understood it, all the "templars" in the movie wore only the simple red crusader cross. The knights in blue (as well as balian and his father) wore, as far as I know, wore the even-sided templar cross. So who were the templars and who were the other people???

I understand there were some hospitallers in there as well???

Any historians out there that know this, please respond, I'm a bit confused.

[Thoros of Myr]

Excellent breakdown of the film Ptah. You really hit the nail on the head. Taking out the battle of Hattin was a serious mistep as was the chaotic nature of the story's theme and progression.

Indeed, the 30 seconds in which the Crusader armies are shown in full array is about the most breathtaking part of the film.

I hope that extra hour in the DVD does something to remedy those two problems. I think it's a worthwhile (if frustrating) film for enthusiasts but maybe none else.

[The Storyteller]

Agree very much with Ptah.

I was pretty surprised that I didn't feel bored (it IS a long movie, even with all the cuts), because it is very fast paced - a lot happens in very short spaces of time.

Unfortunately, the characters don't really evolve, the Horns of Hattin battle isn't there (I can't believe anyone would cut that out) and there are too many glaring inconsistencies in the film.

Balian develops far too quickly, from a blacksmith to a lord who can really fight and plan strategically. When he told the priest that making a man a knight would make him a better fighter, he sure wasn't kidding! There's a reason why kung fu movies dedicate several scenes to horrible weird and wacky training methods - the film wouldn't make sense otherwise!

And I really, really hate the way people in Hollywood tumble into bed for no apparent reason. You know what I liked most about Gladiator? He didn't go to bed with the lead actress for no apparent reason!

Also, the characters are very, very flat. Balain is so... nice that it makes me grit my teeth. Saladin is so... nice in his own way that it makes me grit my teeth. I mean, show these guys doing something a little nasty, please! Instead, they're nice nice nice all the way.

Entertaining movie, and I did like it, but not awe inspiring or mind blowing.

[Orda Khan]

Stop looking for history lessons in the movies. What I saw was very much what I expected. I was entertained and that's the reason we all go to the cinema.

.......Orda

[Mega Dux Bob]

I could see who was leaving and who was coming in because we were sitting towards the back, so could hardly miss somebody standing up.

Darn if only id taken a pen and paper id of written down the age and gender of the people leaving.

The only reason I found it odd is because ive never seen it happen before.

In your opinion is was good in mine it was bad, havent we already gone over that ground? havent was already started why we thought the movie was good or bad?

At the local mega plex I go to we get this all the time; people going from theator to theator sort of like they are channel surfing. Very annoying.

[Mega Dux Bob]

hmmm....so does anyone know the deal with the templar insignias in the movie??? As far as I understood it, all the "templars" in the movie wore only the simple red crusader cross. The knights in blue (as well as balian and his father) wore, as far as I know, wore the even-sided templar cross. So who were the templars and who were the other people???

I understand there were some hospitallers in there as well???

Any historians out there that know this, please respond, I'm a bit confused.

The red cross on white field is the Templars (full name Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomun), the confusingly they started off with a white cross on a black field which they show the Hospilters wearing instead of their white cross on a red field. The complex blue cross on a gold field was the device of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the why the count of Tiberious would be wearing and not his own device is beyond me.

BTW Wasn't there a Bishop of Tiberious who featured prominently in all this?

[Colovion]

Stop looking for history lessons in the movies. What I saw was very much what I expected. I was entertained and that's the reason we all go to the cinema.

.......Orda

[_Aetius_]

But the real problem is after the young Balian moves to the Holy Lands. Judging by at least a very loose comparison between the real chronicles and the movie, it would have been at least 10 years Balian spent in Ibelin to become a great lord and prove himself as a worthy ruler. All this, which would be vitally important in adding integrity to the hero of the movie, is dealt in about 5 minutes. Move to Jerusalem, granted king's audience, and then BAM! A blacksmith becomes a benevolent and respected ruler. Geez, how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?

Thats what I was trying to get at earlier, the rise from blacksmith to hero of Christendom is nothing short of meteoric regardless of his fathers title and territory, most men who rise to power so quickly in reality anyway were useless and totally inept. Yet Balian was convieniantly nothing short of perfect.

Also when you said "how are we supposed to feel for the hero when we know nothing of his intentions?" I felt absoutely nothing for Balian the main character I couldnt of cared less about his fate or pain, yet King Baldwin IV in the end not exactly a main main character in the movie mattered to me and deserved the attention of the audience in comparison.

Not just because he was a leper but because despite of that he was a just and brave ruler who clearly deserved better than what he got in the movie and in reality. I dont understand how Scott could make me feel nothing but annoyance at Balian and especially Orlando Bloom who im still waiting for to give a decent performance or atleast play a character I can enjoy watching and yet feel for a character who didnt really play that big a role in the movie in comparison.

Its been a few days since I saw the movie now and have had time to think it over and it wasnt as bad as I thought but even so I wouldnt give the movie more than a 5/10 which still is pretty poor.

[_Aetius_]

And I really, really hate the way people in Hollywood tumble into bed for no apparent reason. You know what I liked most about Gladiator? He didn't go to bed with the lead actress for no apparent reason!

I agree with that, I liked other things about Gladiator more than that though.

[sharrukin]

This movie really annoyed me. Not because it is a bad movie (it isn't) but because it could have been so much better.

The creative licence taken by Ridley Scott is pointless. The historical facts behind this movie have a much better storyline than the movie puts forward. Why does Princess Sibylla marry Guy Lusignan in the movie? It makes no sense. In the actual events she married a fool because she loved him and doomed a kingdom. That has dramatic impact which this film lacks.

Tacking on 20th century morality and socially conscious dialogue detracts from a movie that isn't good enough for it to go unnoticed. It also takes away from the immersion we should feel when watching the movie. I mean that Balian will cheerfully bang Guy Lusignan's wife but won't marry her to stop a war and save thousands from death. Why? Well because that would be wrong! You never get the sense that anyone in this movie actually believes in what they are doing with the lukewarm exceptions of Saladin and King Baldwin. You have endless 'couldn't we all just get along' dialogue and the villains answer to this is 'No' and why? well because were bad to the bone. Couldn't they have gotten a little more complex than saturday afternoon cartoons? Darth Vader had more depth than this.

There was some feeling for the period when Liam Neeson and Orlando Bloom are in France. Liam Neeson and his crew from the holy land were interesting and I really do not understand why they were killed off at the start of the movie. Orlando Bloom's character needed someone to talk to but all the possible candidates were all buried in France.

The actual pace of events and how and why things are happening is so vague that we barely know what's going on and begin to care less. Guy of Lusignan hated Balian for some reason, perhaps because he hated his father? There really doesn't seem to be much reason for it aside from the fact that Guy is the bad guy.

The Characterization in this movie is also pathetic. Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and others are well capable of better than this but they are given badly written dialogue and scenes that are vapid and uninspiring. The Princess Sibylla's relationship with Balian was both pointless and dull, it comes from nothing and leads nowhere. The Reynald of Chatillon character is so flat and one dimensional is almost cartoonish.

[derF]

Ive not seen it, but im under the impression that its the 3rd in a franchise the movie industry is investing into at the moment. At first i thought it was about the Byzantines, i got really excited until i was informed it was about the Crusades. What a bummer.

Anyway, if i miss it, i wont cry. I watched Troy and Alexander and left the theater feeling unimpressed.

Bloom, is far too inconvincing an actor.

[Mega Dux Bob]

This movie really annoyed me. Not because it is a bad movie (it isn't) but because it could have been so much better.

The creative licence taken by Ridley Scott is pointless. The historical facts behind this movie have a much better storyline than the movie puts forward. Why does Princess Sibylla marry Guy Lusignan in the movie? It makes no sense. In the actual events she married a fool because she loved him and doomed a kingdom. That has dramatic impact which this film lacks.

The girl being stupid and marrying the wrong guy and destroying everything would have not have gone over well with the teenage girls in the audiance who came to see Bloom.

[sharrukin]

The girl being stupid and marrying the wrong guy and destroying everything would have not have gone over well with the teenage girls in the audiance who came to see Bloom.

If you needed to put in a love interest then use Balians wife and child who actually existed. The story goes that Balian even sent a message to Saladin asking him to safeguard his family and Saladin agreed. I am sure hollywood could come up with something sappy along these lines because sappy is what they do best.

[Samurai Waki]

I just watched KoH, not bad, although Orlando Bloom has just never done anything for me, not really the inspiring leader type...it should have been Spartacus

[Hurin_Rules]

The Hospitallers (Knight of the Hospital of St. John) always wore the white cross on the black field--that was their standard uniform. YOu can see a picture of it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sandra.s/Hospitallers.html

The Templars habit is here:

http://www.solihull-online.com/templball.htm

The only anachronism on this point in the movie, as far as I can tell, is that Guy of Lusignan, who became king of Jerusalem, wore a Templar habit. In real life, he was never a Templar, so I'm not sure why they had him in a Templar uniform. It may have helped to show the close links between him and the Templars (which is true), but he himself was never a Templar.

David Thewliss's character, who was the guy who helps Baldwin in Messina before they get on the ships, was clearly a hospitaller.

[GonZ]

On the whole I enjoyed the movie despite it's well documented flaws.

Orlando Bloom was miscast imo.

The worst part of the movie for me was nothing to do with the movie itself. It was the people sat two rows behind. Chatting, laughing, mobile phones going off.

About halfway through the movie I'd had enough and went over and asked politely if they could turn it down as they were spoiling other peoples enjoyment of the movie.

Guess what? They turned it down for about 5 minutes, then carried on... actually they were even worse than before. I suppose I should have got the manager but in the end my Mrs and I moved seats.

My blood was boiling though

[edyzmedieval]

LOOOOOL............. Man, that's a very bad part of cinema....

Anyways, please tell me if KoH isn't like Troy or King Arthur.....Because those 2 movies were quite a disaster to me....

[Pericles]

When I go to the movies to watch a history-based film, I usually look for:

* a good story

* does the film evoke time and place

* does the film provide us with a sense of history

I think KoH achieves these.

Yes, there are inaccuracies...

But I don't think Scott set out to give us a history lesson; I think his theme was much bigger than that - he used the setting for the Crusades to tell us something about the on-going conflict in the Middle East over Jerusalem...

I tend to be a bit more forgiving about history and the movies, and consequently, I have a much better time...

If the movie gets me reading more about that time period then it has done its job...

[KRALLODHRIB]

Well, lord knows I never would have thought I'd provide a review of a movie on fansite for a pc game. Ach. . .*@$! it!

While the movie did seem to appeal to a large and evidently uneducated audience, Scott did provide a relatively tight plot and implement an above average (for backassward Hollywood) degree of realism (in terms of the props, tactics, although he neglected to consistenly illustrate their, the depraved Crusaders, historically supported blockheadedness--recall that Crusaders were often the "dregs" of European society, they were sent and directed to the Levant so they could destroy themselves there and not cause harm to the Continent--etc, though the dialogue often became weighed down by anachronisms).

The general impression upon exiting the theatre was, as others have hinted at, "is that all?"

Much too much is missing here for Kingdom to be onsidered a classic in my books, and I don't mean pyrotechics you Star Wars and GTA fans! Additionally, I think the love story should have been developed a bit more. I love the Leper bit, though the money shot was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long. Ye, we get your point Scott: Lepers lose their noses. Too bad Scott lost his tact during editing. This is similar to the gratuitous violence glorifying images repleat in the film; apealing to the slobbering masses, yes, but it is largely unecessary to draw so much attention to it.

And while some would critisize the way Catholicism is protrayed, I found it refreshing to see it demonized as Islam has traditionally been by Hollywood. Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to steroetypes of any sort but there is a message here that evidently Scott really wanted to make: that the Crusaders went to a foreign land and messed with it so they got what they deserved (perhaps a great deal less) and ended up getting a great deal when Saladin let them live even after the crimes that the Cursaders committed there. It is a fact that terrible, incomprehensible atrocities were commitited by both Catholics and Muslims, but I think the consensus of honest historians would readily agree that Europeans were MUCH MORE barbarous than Arabs during the Middle Ages--it was in fact the Arabs that preserved much of the classical knowledge that came to be "rediscovered with the Renaissance".


Still, any work that attempts to recreate history in a culturally and historically sensitive manner is always appreciated by the educated.