Kingdom of Heaven (2005) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
979 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
The directors cut is a masterpiece, the theatrical cut is not.
Dilanoliver5 July 2019
Synopsis: Still in grief over his wife's sudden death, village blacksmith Balian (Orlando Bloom) joins his long-estranged father, Baron Godfrey (Liam Neeson), as a crusader on the road to Jerusalem. After a perilous journey to the holy city, the valiant young man enters the retinue of the leprous King Baldwin IV (Edward Norton), which is rife with dissent led by the treacherous Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), who wishes to wage war against the Muslims for his own political and personal gain.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Here for the "Historian' rage comments
jjlawler-9832429 June 2019
Love reading the vitriol that a movie made in 2005 isnt a word for word scene by scene documentary of a time that (spoiler) did not have video cameras...What an outrage! Lol.

Either enjoy fiction or never go to see a movir again... Please dont go...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Telling History wrong
alshiha-2218818 June 2019
I have to admit that belin represents man of the people and lovable character.

But Salah Din was a hero who took Jerusalem back from the Christians who originally took it by killing and slaughtering Muslims. He was humble, honorable and a smart leader.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I don't like this movie
raiyanarahman14 May 2019
I don't like this movie. I don't like this movie. I don't like this movie. I don't like this movie.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I know I know..,,,,,,
martyverhagen-3819510 May 2019
I know history and this movie is not factual history. But I loved this movie and have seen it a 1000 times, Isalm leaders are not merciful and all Christians are not slime, I know Hollywood has an agenda but I consider myself as an intelligent movie and can decipher between the two. History is fact and though they try to make u think it's different they can't change it. But as far as a MOVIE experience this one ranks as one of my favorite movies for its Cinematography, Costumes, Acting, Action, and overall Realism (not history). I loved it and continue to watch it over and over, the cast is awesome and despite mixed reviews of Bloom I admit I have a little man crush on him so I tend to overlook the bad ones. One of my favorite even though it's written and directed from a liberal point of view, As a Movie it's Epic, though if it's a history lesson you're looking for don't watch because it's all PC. And I'm a Christian by the way!!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
9 for scenery and Norton
riggo-735033 May 2019
Its a good yarn but not accurate

Norton is just brilliant, Saladin excellent and Guye....

What's wrong with it is easy... the cut version like Prince of Thieves is just ridiculous to explain everything...

Uncut its perfect
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watch the 3+ Hour Director's Cut, not the Studio's 2+ Hour Butchered Cut
Walter_Probinsky27 April 2019
There are two versions of this movie that are strikingly different in their impact and emotional meaning. The theatrical release is a 2-plus hour-long studio edit. The director's cut is 3-plus hour-long edit that was released later. I watched both versions back-to-back,m and without question, the director's cut is the superior. It's not just a matter of additional footage putting more meat on the bone--more heart is added to the film as well.

The movie is a violent and gritty portrayal of the Crusades era in medieval times, but wrestles artfully with complex issues of faith, morality, justice and diversity and what it means to live a godly life. Apparently, the studio decided such thematic depth was a drawback and that audiences are mostly superficial morons, so they insisted on an edit that presented it as an action movie, leaving in just enough character development to feebly sew the action scenes together. In the process, not only character motivation was lost, but important plot developments in the story.

After watching the shorter edit first--which seemed disjointed and filled with holes in the way of crappy edits--I had to read go look up the movie's synopsis online to understand what the hell I had watched. In the director's cut, it was much clearer. But the biggest difference is the thought-provoking character development and dialogue scenes throughout that bring an intelligence to the primitive times being depicted.

At the end of the studio edit, I felt uninspired and filled with a sense that the movie had many missed opportunities.

Then I learned there was a second version--a director's cut. At the end of that version, I felt I had seen a real movie with real ideas. And I was left thinking about it.

Ridley Scott has had some bad luck with studio interference in his edits, most memorably with the two versions of "Blade Runner." You would think they'd trust his instincts after all this time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A mediocre piece of propaganda for cultural relativism
TheNabOwnzz22 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Ridley Scott has in the past directed masterpieces such as Gladiator, Blade Runner & Alien, but it seems that nearly everyone in the end falls victim to the leftist Hollyweird curse that seems to be going on around there, and he has decided to create a film not as something of artistic merit or entertainment value, but as a highly subjective propaganda piece depicting his corrupted ideals.

Admittedly, Kingdom of Heaven is still beautifully photographed, and features superb cinematography ( With the exception of a couple of easy to notice greenscreens, and a lot of badly saturated sequences during the catapult attack in the battle of Hattin ). The production design is also very good, and at least it seems as though visually Scott's quality has not diminished in this film.

So, technically Kingdom of Heaven is not a bad film, but in terms of substance, the audience is left wanting. Orlando Bloom's Balian is a Mary Sue, a seemingly perfect moral character with no obvious flaws. Of course, he does kill a priest at the start ( Who apparently was his own brother aswell ) in an absolutely laughable sequence, giving him the obligatory 'absolve my sins' character arc that has become such a cliché. Apart from this sequence, he is a complete Mary Sue, resulting in a completely uninteresting, superficial character. ( The priest didn't matter anyway... since Christian priests are EVIL! )We do not care about Balian's plight, because he is a cartoonish nonsense character as to what Scott considers to be 'a good Christian'. Of course, Orlando Bloom also plays him with absolutely zero emotional intensity. He is a wooden plank, and should stick to smaller supporting roles such as in The Lord of the Rings, because this man cannot lead a movie. His supposedly poignant scenes with King Baldwin are a joke because of him, and his 'romance' ( If you can even call it that ) with Eva Green's character has absolutely no charisma whatsoever.

Of course, the only real bad guys in this picture are Templars high in fanaticism or ignorant Christian xenophobic priests. The only 'good Christians' are the ones that are struggling with their religion, putting the 'people' before everything else, even their religion. The Muslims are depicted as victims, and their siege near the end is being justified by Scott by showing us these atrocities the Templars have committed, such as destroying a convoy of unarmed civilians. As everyone with half a brain knows, this is pure fantasy. Historical accuracy is being sacrificed for a ham-fisted social message that is not only naive, but extremely dangerous. ( At the end of the real battle of Hattin, many Christians were sold into slavery by Muslim leader Saladdin, but this little detail is of course left out ) It is obvious that this is all influenced by modern day events where the left villainizes patriots concerned about their own country, and i think ( Because of the title card near the end stating that Jerusalem still has this dispute 1000 years later ) that the film is not just an assault on Christianity, but also on Jews to be more 'open-minded'. The Templars are also complete morons, as there is a scene in which a small Templar force attack an entire Muslim army. Of course, on the contrary, the Muslims are depicted as intelligent & sophisticated. It really becomes an utter joke of cultural relativism ( The principle that all cultures are equal, and compatible with eachother, which history has already deemed to be false at every turn ).

Apart from the obvious moral self exaltation, we are also subjected to a final hour which seems like a literal ripoff from The Lord of the Rings, as some shots are nearly indistinguishable from Jackson's masterpiece. However, since we have a main character not worthy of relatability since he is horribly acted and written as a modern day Mary Sue, there is no emotional connection to this sequence at all, leaving it dead and lifeless. Of course, visually and technically there is nothing wrong with it, but Kingdom of Heaven is indeed one of those pictures to which you can apply the term 'Style without substance'. Scott has also admitted himself that the whole point of this movie was to show that 'Not everyone in the West is good, and not every Muslim is bad', showing us his total lack of focus on cinematic quality, while instead focusing more on creating a heavy handed social message. There is even a scene in which Saladdin picks up a crucifix, and puts it on the table as a sign of respect for their religion ( Subtle, Scott.... real subtle... ). Again it's kind of a young boy's fantasy in how Scott sees this world.

Kingdom of Heaven is a visually and technically excellent film, but does not have any substance whatsoever. The entire plot is driven by leftist subjective social messages that will not impress nor fool the intelligent viewer, while creating such a naive muddled morality in the character of Balian that it really only becomes a laughing stock piece of propaganda.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Listen to the other reviews when they say get the Director's Cut of this movie
hugosoup4 April 2019
I watched the Director's Cut of this movie, which is why I rate it so high. Truly one of the best medieval movies of all time, just do yourself a favor and watch it. Sure, the movie is very long, but trust me, the movie is very well worth your time. Don't waste your time on the theatrical version, it's missing essential minutes that are include in the DC. So yeah, basically, if there was a movie to get the DC for instead of the regular cut, it's this one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
is this a comedy?
senioru10 March 2019
I believe this is a parody. It's fascinating that Scott makes a lot of movies based in the medieval era even if he is totally ignorant about the real history.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
CHEER! - (8 stars out of 10)
Front-Row-Reviews6 March 2019
The stage curtains open ...

A complete surprise - not what I expected. One of those movies that builds you into a slow capture. But once they have you hooked, you are definitely hooked.

Finding a reason to hold on after the suicide death of his wife, Balian (Orlando Bloom) , a village blacksmith, is visited one day by a traveler named Godfrey (Liam Neeson), a man claiming to be his father. At first, he spurns him and turns him away. But after Balian kills the village priest for having his wife beheaded in death (because she was a suicide), he rides out to meet Godfrey who is headed to the holy land. It is the story of a blacksmith who became the savior of the people of Jerusalem despite and against impossible odds. It is a love story as well, between Balian and the Sibylla, the Queen of Jerusalem.

This is a very good movie with sweeping landscapes, incredible cinematography and strong characters. Orlando Bloom's acting was spot on here - going from a content and quiet life as a blacksmith to a leader of war. But, he was never over-the-top or unrealistic in his portrayal - nothing "grand" or "majestic". He was a good man with good morals - and even as the leader who would defy great odds, he was still quiet in his ways, yet effective. The battle scenes, in particular the siege of Jerusalem, were jaw dropping and that is where the strength of this movie is - along with the underlying musical score, which was very well done.

I would recommend this movie highly. It starts slow and builds - but the scenes are all very well crafted and filmed. I loved "Kingdom of Heaven" - it is a film of majesty. It's a part of my own personal collection and I will watch it again down the road.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"Director's Cut" makes this movie a true judgement
8512225 March 2019
Greetings from Lithuania.

When i first saw "Kingdom of Heaven" back in 2005, i saw of course theatrical version, which run at around 2 h 10 min. It was just an OK movie, but quickly forgettable and a bit messy. I was disappointed as i was expected this big great epic. Now some years later i stumble upon the "Director's Cut" of this movie, which was more then 45-50 min longer then its theatrical version and desired to see it. What i can safely say - the "Director's Cut" of "Kingdom of Heaven" is one of the few if not the best example of how a new cut (true vision) can turn the whole movie around in the best possible way. I simply loved Director's Cut of "Kingdom of Heaven". It had so many great story lines, which enriched this movie - so many character which in the "original" sounded and looked like out of place now had a true meaning with their actions and true consequences.

Overall, please see "Director's Cut" of "Kingdom of Heaven" if you haven't seen it. It is definitely one of the very best examples of how true director's vision can change the movie into a truly great cinema.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cut up a gem
axolotl6428 January 2019
A number of reviewers have commented regarding the plot. No, it is not completely historically accurate, but I do not think that the directorial/screenwriter license taken adversely impacts the overall messages. What I do think is unfortunate is the disparity between the theatrical release and the director's cut. In the original release I found the character interaction and the general flow of the story, prior to Balian's arrival in Jerusalem to be a bit confusing. Likewise, the relationship between Balian and Sybilla seemed to be missing important detail. All of this is made clear in the director's cut version. I suggest that anyone who watches this film to be sure to select the Director's Cut Roadshow Version. I find it to be vastly superior to the version that was originally screened in the theaters. I can only assume that the added length of the DC was the prohibitive factor.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Before judge you must see extended director's cut.
Mahmoud_ELGENDY_9912115 January 2019
Great story. Its a different movie when you see the extended cut version. And me as arabian muslim i think it told in very fair way.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Beautiful Failure
ccarterglass11 January 2019
This film has no character development, and so is very shallow. While Saladin is correctly presented as a noble character, the Christians are presented as greedy war-mongers and not quite so noble. Although most Muslims may have welcomed it, I wonder at the other citizens of Jerusalem hailing Balian as a hero when he has just surrendered the city to Saladin. There are scenes of great beauty and epic battle scenes, but as a whole the movie is unbelievable.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Just a reminder from the top
igeorge198229 December 2018
Great movie about the fregile harmony during the crusade wars, the hardships of reviving irrigation in a desert-like area, and brutality of political games.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Epic Director's Cut (What an unfortunate movie)
kasabali10 December 2018
Should definitely have the Director's Cut version.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Director's Cut: Ridleys Finest Hour
jmartinezuscm8 December 2018
Kingdom of heaven was a moderate success in 2005 but ultimately wasn't adored in any great sense by critics or audiences and failed to be the hits that preceded it like Troy, The Last Samurai and Scott's own Gladiator. But this theatrical cut wasn't what he intended. The facts and specifics of which, I dont intent to detail here. However, what I do want to do is urge anyone who stumbles upon this title to watch its Director's Cut (the only cut that should exist) as you will lay witness to one of Ridley Scott's best films as well as one of shocking intimacy, thematic brilliance and wonderful amount of sensitivity to various Faith's portrayed in such a turbulent historical time. The film ranks among the best in the genre of Historical epic with grandiose battles staged with flare and tension that only Scott can provide as well as a brilliant attention to period detail such as minor civil disputes as well as local cultural customs about dealing with members of various Faith's in and around Jerusalem, for improved authenticity. Make no mistake, the film doesn't strive for historical accuracy in events but rather uses period accurate details and cultural norms (seen best in peasant life in Catholic France) to give an almost visceral sense of immersion... of being there. The characters all manifest a sense of bitterness brought on by their torn emotions- commitment to their faith as well as a very human desire to command and conquer the lands they feel are the property of their people, mortal and otherwise. Great performances here from an ensemble cast only highlight this epic tale with Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson providing nuanced, committed work of the highest order. Even Orlando Bloom proves himself a confident leading man giving a humble and quiet performance as Balian, not like the more energetic heroes of modern cinema. I couldn't recommend this film more. See it now as it ranks among Scott's most intelligent and finely crafted motion pictures and one that will stick in the memory long after you've finished viewing it. A+
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good and bad
zevt6 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The good:

The first hour promises a superbly crafted and written epic historical movie with dense, intelligent dialog and characters. This hour involves the set-up: An idealistic-minded blacksmith in mourning for his wife and child, finds himself en route to Jerusalem along with a newly discovered father. It's only after this hour that things fall apart.

His traitorous fanatically Christian brother provides the religious catapult for the rest of the movie that involves Holy Land politics, crusades and battles.

The sets and costumes look great (to this historically untrained eye at least). And the couple of battle scenes are epic in scale as only Ridley Scott can create.

The bad:

For starters, Orlando Bloom is passable, but pretty flat as the protagonist. Eva Green is an intense superb actress, but her character is way too modern and liberated for this movie.

As soon as we get to Jerusalem, all of a sudden it becomes a preachy liberal movie with modern idealistic sensibilities, bias, re-interpretation of history and anachronisms galore. There are no really devout Christians, only hypocritical fanatics, Jews are practically nowhere to be seen, and the Arabs are noble, honorable and tolerant people.

There are also some insulting plot developments that try to convince us that Balian the liberal is an idealistic leader. The village he moves into is dry for hundreds of years, and as soon as he arrives they dig and find a well. Evidently, Arabs living in this land had no idea how to dig a well until a European came along. Same goes for his basic and obvious advice to seasoned war veterans about soldiers needing water.

Regarding the people: Even if you were to argue that there was a period where the religions lived together in Jerusalem, it would hardly be the tolerant utopia this movie would have you believe. There would be outbreaks of attacks and intolerance, second-class citizens and treatments, and so on. We know this from thousands of years of history in many countries.

A quick look at the actual historical events in this movie reveals a completely different story than this liberal fantasy movie: Balian initially promised to Saladin never to fight him. Christians had to absolve him of his oath to protect Jerusalem because they decided Christianity is more important than an oath to a non-Christian. Before Saladin took Jerusalem he offered peaceful terms of surrender and they refused. It's only after the siege started that he refused terms. Balian then threatened to kill all Muslims in the city and destroy Muslim holy sites if he didn't offer them quarter. And then they had to pay ransom as part of their surrender, and many of the people were enslaved.

So not only does history blatantly contradict the events in this movie, it depicts very different people, leaders and motivations and the liberalism this movie fantasizes about is nowhere to be seen.

But even as a non-historical fantasy, this movie simply makes no sense. The real fatal problem of this movie is that this movie has agnostics, liberals, atheists and religious people that only pay lip-service to religion, all fighting religious wars with no apparent motivation. Why would a tolerant leader defend a city in a hopeless war against another tolerant leader, if he explicitly states that all he cares about is the people? If that's the case, give up the city and negotiate a peace! In this movie, we have two completely religiously unmotivated but noble and honorable leaders waging battle over a meaningless city without even trying to negotiate before it starts. And then only after they are done dying by the thousands, they simply surrender with the most honorable terms possible when they could have simply done this to begin with. The actual historical version of this story makes a lot more sense in terms of motivations, whereas this fantasy doesn't even begin to make sense.

In summary, the liberal agenda in this movie is so desperate to re-interpret history with its bias, it fails to see that the people and story make no sense as soon as this is done. Therefore it fails both as a history lesson and as a fantasy movie.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Kingdom of Heaven: A Kingdom of Blood and Faith
CuongPham56212 December 2018
After being struck with the disaster of his wife and unborn child's death, Balian (Orlando Bloom) decided to leave his life as a blacksmith behind to join his long-lost father, Baron Godfrey, (Liam Neeson) on a journey to Jerusalem as a crusader. After a perilous journey, Balian arrived at the Holy City and got tangled up in an internal battle between the crusaders that wanted peace and the other that wanted war with the Muslims. The days of peace are numbered, however, as the leprous king Baldwin IV (Edward Norton) was getting nearer to death with every passing day. Unlike Baldwin, his heir, Guy de Lusignan, (Martin Csokas) wanted to wage war with the Muslims for his political and personal gains. Although the movie is criticized to be inaccurate in many parts, the scenes, as well as dialogues, successfully portrays crusaders in the 12th century and what, other than riches and glory, made them travel to a place so far from home. With a simple search on the internet, one could easily find out that Balian d'Ibelin was a historical figure that existed and had little in common with the Balian represented in Kingdom of Heaven. The movie created an interesting and unique background for Balian but it did so at the cost of realism. How is one supposed to believe that a blacksmith during his short time in the Holy Land learned superb swordfighting skills, irrigation, siege defense and got into a love affair with princess Sibylla (Eva Green)? With all the things that he accomplished throughout the movie, Balian needed to have far greater knowledge that a blacksmith can have. But although Balian's journey is not factual, the movie crafted characters that has unique and interesting personalities that viewers can't help but be intrigued by. From the mysterious yet clearly kind Leper King behind a silver mask to the beautiful and mesmerizing Princess Sybilla, we can't help but fall in love with them and sympathize with their tragic life stories. William Thomas from the review website Empire shared "It's so gorgeous you'll forgive it a lot, but this is a frustratingly thin epic." He also felt that the movie looks impressively real but it never feels like it due to reasons like Balian devised digging a well in a place that had been inhabited for more than two thousand years but it is still forgiveable like many other aspects of the movie. Despite having an amazing cast with wonderful lines that bring the crusaders of the 12th century to life, director Ridley Scott failed to capture the intense battle scenes that viewers who watch historical movies would normally expect. Jeffrey M. Anderson from the review website Combustible Celluloid said "Scott is currently one of the worst offenders in the school of shake-the-camera and cut-really-fast; it's a method of covering up action rather than highlighting it, and it usually means that there isn't much action to begin with." For example, in the big battle sequence that shows Balian's few knights going up against a far larger Muslim cavalry force, all we could see were "Dusty, helmeted figures grapple with each other in near-silhouette. He solves the problem by having Balian suddenly whip off his helmet so that we can see his face and flowing hair, even if he's now unprotected." This comes back to the problem many critics believe to be fatal to the movie, historical accuracy. Back in medieval times, armor, although it did not provide absolute protection is still vital to a knight's survival in battle. It really breaks the enjoyment of the movie if the viewer realized Balian wanted to let his hair flow free instead of protecting his head from the thrust of a spear or the swing of a sword. However, despite the obvious neglect of historical accuracy in action scenes, the movie focuses an extreme amount of dedication to the dialogues of its characters. A fair example of this is the scene where Baron Godfrey talks to Balian on his bed after being mortally wounded about Balian's future. Godfrey asked if Balian knew what lies in the Holy Land, it is a place at the end of the world where a man is not what he is born but what he has in himself to be. Balian made it clear all he wants is forgiveness for himself and not land riches nor glory. Godfrey told Balian no matter his positions he is of Godfrey's house and will serve the king of Jerusalem. To this Balian replied, "What could a king asked of a man like me?" "A better world, a kingdom of conscience, a kingdom of heaven with peace between Christians and Muslims." From this touching scene, we can see how Godfrey knows his time is almost over and seek to pass over his title and ideals to Balian, teaching him to follow the king and help him build a true kingdom of God on earth and not just another European-like kingdom. Although Kingdom of Heaven failed to deliver to viewers a true experience of what it was like during the crusades. However, it gave the viewers a romanticized version of the time-period with king Baldwin IV and his followers desperately try to maintain peace on God's kingdom. The movie showed us that maybe there were people that came to the end of the earth for faith, not greed, maybe there were people that wanted to safeguard the helpless in a place devastated by war. It proved that Jerusalem is not just a kingdom of blood but also of faith and that good did exist.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Magical Historical epic by Ridley Scott
kjamestriplett21 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I found Kingdom of Heaven to be an excellent put together cast, setting, action, and plot. My only complaint to say is that the first 1/3 of the film moves way to fast and doesn't have the right pacing. A couple of characters are also unbelievablely not dead, like how one character was shot through the neck with a huge crossbow bolt, yet still lived? I don't think that could happen. One other character is also stabbed and sliced like 5 times before he's dead. But everything afterwards is where the magic is about the film. And the film of course, is magical.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is a film I've watched more than once, and will watch again . . .
charles00014 November 2018
In true Ridley Scott fashion, this is a spectacularly well crafted example of the artform.

Even though I'm somewhat familiar with this history, I make no claims of even remotely being a scholar in this context, so I did not enter into this film experience with that particular orientation.

Of course there is going to be drama, romantic interests, various intrigues which may not match the real history, but that's not really the focal point here. What is the focal point, and what is well conveyed is an immersion into a unique time and cultural era, with its various complexities, conflicts, and intrigues which very much shaped the history that has led to our current world.

As for the production itself, the scenes and camera work are absolutely first rate.

" Ridley Scott received many letters of thanks and congratulations from Muslim groups for his even-handed depiction of the religion. " I can believe that, as I was keenly aware of the delicate nature of portraying this history in such a production, but came away with the feeling that this was a genuinely even-handed effort to deliver this theatrical vision of the time.

As for the cast, where to even start?

Well, the short version is, A+ crew throughout, don't think this could have been cast any better.

But for my personal favorites here, hands down top of the list are Liam Neeson, and Eva Green.

Of course, I freely admit I could watch either of these two in just about anything, and not be lacking for joy in the experience.

Having said that, the performance of everyone here was absolutely spot on. This is a film I've watched more than once, and will watch again.

Without hesitation, 10 stars . . . well done!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A true historical drama, well worth the watch - BUT ONLY the Director's cut!!
shweta-5165718 October 2018
I should start by saying this movie is a rather long one, but not one scene is wasted. Its almost nearly historically accurate. Ridley Scott has tackled a rather controversial biopic, albeit taking a few liberties with the storyline for dramatic purposes.

Among the movie, what I found that stands out most is the depiction of battle. After watching movies your whole life you are nearly numb to it but this movie has done it refreshingly well. Some battle scenes of the movie left my mouth hanging open, a feat only achieved by LOTR previously.

So many of the cast are names and faces you will recognise, it is a shame they did not have more screen time! Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis, Brendon Gleeson and Michael Sheen, all were such a pleasure to watch, I wish they had more screen time.

Another thing that stood out, was the acting of some of the lesser characters! Negative characters played so dastardly well, it was a pleasure watching them on the screen.

You tend to forget what an amazing visionary Ridley Scott is, but this film has firmly reminded me he is one of the greatest directors of our time. A good film, a serious topic, a fantastic director and a stellar cast.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Guess I should have watched Director's cut?
alansabljakovic-3904413 October 2018
Messy and pretty bad story. Start of the movie was so bad like they cut 30 minutes of it. Characters(especially Eva Green) are without motivations and just poorly written. Cinematography was ok and movie is kind of entertaining but i hear director's cut is much better. I should check that out.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A flawed classic but a great watch
tonymcmahon-3678912 October 2018
Ridley Scott took on the crusades having done the Roman Empire five years before with Gladiator. This movie isn't as accomplished as his Roman epic but the imagery has become heavily associated with the events described in the crusades. Who can forget Scott's depiction of the leper king of Jerusalem, Saladin and the Templars? At its release, I found Orlando Bloom unwatchable as the lead but I've come round to him on repeat viewing. His plus side is a certain vulnerability that makes his protagonist more interesting. On the minus side, his pursed lips and Rudy Valentino silent movie like poses make me cringe a little. However, he held the movie together with some great support actors. Musical score and battle scenes excellent.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed