Lightning didn't strike twice. While KOH is far from being an underachiver like Troy or Alexander it is equally far from being another Gladiator. And the reason for that is the first two thirds of the movie. Ridley Scott paces through the movie and leaves the viewer with the feeling that the story is a little (actually a lot) rushed. There's nearly no character development and you don't get a feeling of the time passed (for instance there's a scene where Eva Green arrives at Orlando's city just when he found water to turn this desert into an oasis. A cut follows with the characters talking as if only a day has passed, yet the fields are suddenly completely green). Speaking of Orlando: He's surprisingly good in here, though one must say that he doesn't have a lot to do despite being the main character. He spends the first half being broody and speaking not a lot more lines than Arnie in Conan. In the second half he has to do the token cheesy motivation speech, which he does well. So no complaints there or with the other actors (especially the doc from Deep Space Nine does a really good job as one of the arabs). Another positive thing is the message of the movie. Those who feared Scott would portray muslims as kfaceless killing machines can rest. There's no such thing. And although the christians are technically the bad guys here, Scott doesn't judge. The message of the movie is that religion can be a bad thing cos it drives people into bad things. It even delivers a political message for today when the King tells Orlando that following orders is no excuse for killing, you always have to search your conscience.
But the standout for most moviegoers will be the final battle. It is epic, original and fantastically executed. This scene alone is worth the price of admission. Yet the movie could have been a lot more. Maybe when Scott delivers his three-hour-cut on dvd (which he already told to do), this will be a damn fine movie.
7/10

Read what i wrote in lecter's thread.

I found the film very dissapointing.

D

i saw the movie last night. and i find it abit dissapointing for me. because some reason. i think the movie is moving abit slow to the plot. and Orlando Bloom being the lead role of this movie. doesn't had his character develop well. as well as the others. but this movie is alot much better than Alexander. but below Troy and Gladiator. the only part that excited me is the last battle scenes. it described more or less like LOTR: The Two Towers. well. you can picture it yourself, eh? the last battle was good but not as great as i expected. Ridley Scott deliver a good message with this movie, without talk about bad things form those two big religions (like Levy said), which is a sensitive thing to talk about. overall if you expect anything spectacular in KOH. you won't find any. overall i can only grade it a C for KOH.

My first long review, sorry about English..

‘Kingdom of Heaven’

The result is no masterpiece. Still, one of finest Epic I've ever experienced.

Scott resaved this genre again.

So that, first thing I’d like to do is take my hat off to Mr. Scott. Thank you sir!

But, Is this movie absolutely perfect 'Epic'?

While I was absolutely satisfied (especially, by its presentation of Muslim), I must say this movie is way far from 'Perfect'. It's a great one, but it won't be stated as the same range with the classic epics like 'Gladiator' or 'Braveheart'.

Script is pretty well written, thankfully, dialogue is really good. But movie's script also contains minor flaws here and there..

- First is the storytelling in the first 15 minutes of movie which went on very rush. The effective is the connection between me and Balian (Orlando Bloom) is missing.
- The bad guys of Christian's side (surprisingly, no ANY bad guy from Muslim's side) are too blend. I mean, one dimension. They are absolutely bloody thirsty without why (or maybe they were really like that).
- Surprisingly, quite few action scenes in first half while there're a lot of opportunities of great action scene but the movie avoids to follow the cliché.

In acting part, all actors offer us their best. Yes, including Orlando Bloom.

But I must admit, he was too young for his role. This movie could be much better if they've got someone else who is good actor and more suitable for this role.

Unlike Gladiator which admittedly it has many flaws as much as this one (IMO), but Russel Crowe made the movie flawless (along with fabulous directing of Mr. Scott). While Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven didn't offer any advantage to the movie.

But he's fine. At least, he didn't ruin the film. Those comments about he ruins the film are completely biased (Orly's fan rules!!).

Liam Neeson was great as usual. And even Edward Norton who you won't see him in the movie was just amazing. Jeremy Irons was also great, as is David Thewlis even his part is quite small. Actually, their parts were all 'not so large'. But they're all mentionable (while not memorable). That's why they're called talented actors. If you have the so so actor, the character will be definitely faded under the ground of Jerusalem.

But it was the new faces that surprised me. Eva Green in the role of princess of Jerusalem with a fresh, solid performance. Good performance from female role in Epic! that's not what we've known!

The star of the show, however, is Salah El Deen who is played by syrian actor Ghassan Massoud. I'm telling you this, all memorable scenes in this movie were come from him.

'I'm Salah El Deen, Salah El Deen'

That scene was the best of all, and I was just amazed and truly stunned. What a so convincing performance!

The production work was flawless. The best thing is cinematography, Kingdom of Heaven was so beautiful filmed. But then again, it's not like 'Wow! that's something I've never ever seen'.

There're some minor flaws those aren't actually movie's flaw.

First, why they don't use Arabic language when it comes to the conversation between Muslims and have English subtitle like they did with some scenes. I know, that using English was easier. But that is too formulaic.

Second is minors that will only suffer Muslims (so if you're not Muslim, move to the next paragraph), in one scene when Salah El Deen read 'El Fatihah' to the souls of his soldiers. That scene was a bit ridiculous (he reads just half of it and then suddenly end with 'Sadak Allah El Azeem'). They do the right thing to add this scene in movie but why don't they just make it done completely right. And also many scenes when Muslims are praying but you still can hear Al Azan.
But like I said they're just minor flaws those won't make any effect to non-Muslim viewer.
(and let's not forget, this movie doesn't aim to only Muslim viewer)

Third is a flaw that is NOT a movie's flaw AT ALL. Guess what?

The special edited version by Egyptian censorship. I can understand and can accept in sexuality scene, cutting it off doesn't really ruin the movie. But what upset me is their editing in some conversation scenes which I assume those scenes are concerned with religious issue.

I think that's why pirate's version on internet is still needed.

After all, what is Kingdom of Heaven? Maybe the answer was lied on one quote of Balian;

'If this (Jerusalem) is indeed Kingdom of Heaven, so then let God decide how will it be'

I'd like to end my review with (found it in someone's review);

'Those who don't learn from history, are destined to repeat it'

**** out of *****

B+

PS. This review comes from a muslim who is a big fan of Orlando Bloom.

eh. just ok. nothing really to talk about it. C+

It was decent at best. Never really a memorable part, no attachment to any of the characters or emotion, slow at times, and it just felt almost meaningless, I got nothing from the movie really it was pretty bland. The directing was good, the acting was fair, visually it looked great and the fight sequences were decent so i'd give it a C+.

I don't have the energy to write an in depth critique, i'll just say it seemed a little bit of a let down, and for an epic quite short. The constant slo-mo's in the battle scenes really annoyed me, and in the end i didn't really care what happened. C.

Dear Hollywood,

Due to recent events (originating in New Zealand), a temporary moratorium is being placed on films that are epic in nature. Specially, any scenes containing the following are to be cut immediately:

A. Massive amounts of horse riders
B. Massive amounts of arrows
C. Catapults
D. Flaming and nonflaming ITCs (Items To Catapult)
D. Siege towers
E. Swordfighting
F. Storming of fortified locations.
G. Orlando Bloom.

The above moratorium is to be held until no later than May 06, 2015. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Moviegoers




I've never been so lost before during a movie. It was as if I walked into the last 3 hours of a 6 hour film. Kingdom of Heaven may not be horrible, but it sure is unnecessary. At least Alexander was campy.

C-

I'm on a roll today. Anyone else want a C-? House of Wax? Jiminy Glick?

You just summed up how i feel about these so called epics as of late. Been there, done that, wait a few years before i go to another one.

:laugh: Spot on!

C. It was average at best.

Seemed like the point of the film was: "Hey guys, look how great man Balian was."

:laugh: thanks man I needed that

Yeah seriously, these epics have no originality.

Thank you Mr. Scott, yet another crapfest.


And it looked so gooooodddddddd!

Oh, and the portrayal of the Muslims was so gooooooooddddddd!

Argh, how could you throw all of that away by placing that crap character as the lead!???


Kick him the hell out and have Saladin be the centre! Now what a great film that would have made! Or have the king be at the centre!

But not Bloom's character!

This is a piss-poor attempt to take 21st Century ideology and place it in another period. Bloom's character would have been pelted with stones upon surrender, not applauded!


Hell, a bastard like him would never have gotten that far! Did Scott even consider how unlikely a bastard son would have been to amount to anything beyond a blacksmith?? Hell, I'm surprised he even was a blacksmith.

I forgive Scott the occasional jabs at Christianity (priest stealing cross from dead woman?...urgh) because I think that, he got right. The Christians did horrendous things, and deserve every criticism that they have heaped upon them. They were not the good guys. If anyone was good, it was Saladin, but even he was so-so (but, by his time, great. Even in Europe, he was greatly revered. Dante, for example, places him among the righteous pagans in the Inferno).

So much else is wrong with this film. A really missed opportunity, especially since Scott is so brilliant with the imagery and the battle scenes.

D/D-.

Oh, and Jerusalem is not worth a single life. No place is.

Movie- I loved the movie and thought this was Orlando Bloom's best role by a mile. The battle sequence at the end was simply amazing with Scott at the helm. The pacing was a bit slow, but this is easily the best film I've seen so far this year.

A

I thought it was pretty damn good. Breathtaking visuals, an interesting story I had little to no knowledge of and some very good acting (especially Norton and Thewliss). Ridley was forced to cut the flm after test screenings and you can feel it in the pacing of the movie. Things seem to happen way too fast and some great characters are tossed aside too quickly for my liking. However, the positives definitely outweight the negatives and this one brings the thunder for the third act. I give it a healthy recommendation.

B+

am i like .. the only one here .. who just plain enjoyed it and found it engaging??

**hears tumbleweeds**

B+

This shows you all people. Walk in with absolutely no expectations. hell, I was blasting this a week ago.

More proper review of this soon.

Damn baba, I think we're the only people that didn't walk out dissapointed. I've always been more of a fan of the potential historical epics have then the actual turnout. The only ones in recent years I haven't walked out of with at least some dissapointment were Gladiator and Lord of the Rings. Otherwise, I've thought a lot were mediocre (Pirates of the Carribean B+/B; Master and Commander B-; The Last Samurai B; Alexander C; Troy B) and all out hated a number of others (King Arthur D+; The Alamo D-; Gangs of New York D; House of Flying Daggers C-; The Four Feathers D; Timeline F). So it's my shock and joy to report that Kingdom of Heaven is the first non-LOTR epic I've walked out of since Gladiator where I have had my expectations be exceeded. Kingdom of Heaven isn't a huge crowdpleaser per se. It's far more realistic and even then some of the overdramatic clunkers that have lurched into theaters in the last few years. Many have accused Ridley Scott of blatantly copying the Gladiator formula, but I'd say that to an extent he made Kingdom of Heaven to show all the other amateurs how to REALLY make an epic. The acting is uniformly excellent, with even Orlando Bloom having what's easily his strongest performance to date. Though the side characters like Liam Neeson, David Thewlis, and Edward Norton are all better and more charismatic, he carries the film with shocking ease. And this is from someone who thought he was a joke in Troy and Pirates of the Carribean. As one would expect from a Ridley Scott vehicle, it's a gorgeous movie on a visual level. The production design, cinematography, editing, and costumes all deserves Oscar nominations and I'm positive that it'll get a handful of technical nods. While much of the movie may have had CGI in it, I could never tell, which is the second time it's ever occured (the other being Master and Commander, which while dazzling on a technical level is much more of a film I admire then one I love). But best of all, the storytelling and plot were actually easy to follow and completely understandable, and I wasn't lost once. Unfortunately, this is what's killed a number of these epics, but unlike those Kingdom of Heaven manages to not collapse under it's own weight. Finally, the thing which saved the movie in my eyes was the depiction of the events unfolding. While it's not really fit for a review to get into personal beliefs, the film would have seemed twisted historically had they not made it clear that it was Christian crusaders thirsty for glory, land and wealth that attacked, not vica versa. In that effect, this is probably the most historically fair film I've ever seen regarding the Middle East. Aside from the fact that few, if any, of the Christian leaders were as evenminded and noble as Bloom's Bailan, it nailed the time period. And the film's message is an incredibly important one. When the letters on the screen at the end say that peace is still lacking in the Middle Easy 1000 years later, the impact is profound. It may not be the most original moral to discuss the evils of war, but it's certainly ironic that so much bloodshed occured over what's considered one of the holiest places on earth.
Sure, if you want to see unrealisticly huge action scenes with no substance to back up the style, you may walk out of Kingdom of Heaven dissapointed that the battles for once look remotely possible and not utter fantasy. However, if you expect to see a movie that deals with an important issue in a way that subtly becomes more and more clear, and at the same time is dazzlingly well made, Kingdom of Heaven won't dissapoint. Hats off to Ridley Scott, this is how you're supposed to make a historical epic. A

Movidude, I'm very surprised though that you enjoyed this movie. I really am. Cause you did make a big deal about the portrayal of jews in passions yet seem to have no problems with the portrayal of Christians in this one which was far far worse. Just an observation really but I'm glad someone liked it like i did : )

Thats for sure.

Um, for risk of interjecting when I've seen neither of the movies, I have to respond to that. The "Christians" during the Crusades (if people want to know why I quoted that, I'll elaborate) had some culpability for the turn of events for that century.

What the Jews get nailed for in the Crucifixion is really an unwarranted joke that's somehow been perpetuated through centuries and has lead to ridiculous amounts of unjustified persecution.

Passion showed the Roman soldiers as the criminals, it's sad when people misjudge a movie before even seeing it, as in the case of POTC. Im not talking about you, im just talking in general as you couldve seen weeks before Passion even came out there was all this broo-ha-ha about it.

Its no Braveheart or Gladiator but its better than Troy and Alexander. I found the first hour to be the weakest link about the movie, theres barely any character development for Balian and Godfrey. I didnt really care too much that Godfrey died, serves him right for having a bastard child. Its not till you get to the second hour that you get to see the true development of the story like one of the muslim noblemen said "You reap what you sow", in Kingdom of Heaven the true villians in the movie were the fantatic crusades led by Reynald and Guy. Balian doesnt care much for organized religion but he gets thrust into battle because he believes in defending the good people of Jerusulam. The muslims in the movie are portrayed with honor and arent evil as shown with Saladin calling a truce to the battle of Jerusulam sparing all the men and child behind the walls despite the christians killing almost every single muslim civilian in the beginning of the movie. The siege battle could almost make LOTR make a run for his movie, its just very involving almost the same way as the pc strategy games. In a sense, the movie could of been better because we dont really get a martyr the same way we did in Braveheart and Gladiator but I highly recommend it for the history buffs since the movie is very involving on politics and factions

B+
8.6/10

BTW search up the character's name in http://en.wikipedia.org
Raynald was indeed an evil asshole who pillaged people, he was beheaded by Saladin just like in the movie
It also shows that Saladin was a man with alot of honor too
King Guy wasnt an evil bastard like the movie states and his life was spared in real life, he was captured too
Balian did call for a truce in Jeruslam
King Baldwin existed and was a leper