Robert Harris

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;”

Kingdom of Heaven is a gusty film to release in this heavily politicized era, with a war raging in the Middle East. And while there is a great deal to be learned from history in a general sense, as told in Kingdom, it comes up lacking in accuracy.

But Kingdom of Heaven was not written as a history lesson. It was designed to be filmed as superb entertainment, with as its set piece, the siege of Jerusalem in 1187. As such, it never takes sides in the battle, nor should it.

I’m pleased that I gave this film another try after having to shut it down while attempting to view it through huge letters on a demo disc giving me the information that it was owned by Fox. I actually already knew that.

Now, without the bright legend, which made the many dark scenes unviewable, the DVD comes off as a well-rendered, detailed release, with adequate blacks and reasonable shadow detail. Bright scenes are beautiful, crisp and colorful.

I can't help but think that at least some early DVD reviews for this disc may have been based upon something similar to my initial viewing experience.

The great pleasure of this film, however, is much the same as Mr. Scott’s other work, in that he is one of the few filmmakers who can capture the look and feel of a another world, be it alien territory or a part of our own historical past, and make it seem totally believable. Here he succeeds once again.

His recreation of Jerusalem and the impending siege multiplies Sir Laurence Olivier’s brilliant King Henry the Fifth a million fold, displaying precisely how far filmmaking has come in the sixty years since animators inked the flying arrows for the Battle of Agincourt, which would occur 225 years after the film that we discuss.

While Kingdom of Heaven is not apt to regarded as one of the great films of the decade, it stands as a quality release from 20th Century-Fox, and a stunning motion picture.

Recommended.

RAH

Yumbo

I thought it was well told backed by a decent DVD.

Yumbiosis - all things Yumbo

Anthony Thorne

I'm holding out for the extended version next year, given that it's been hinted at so much.

Elijah Sullivan

Thanks for giving the movie a second chance, and encouraging others to do the same, Robert. Kingdom's got a touch of greatness buried under a lot of missed opportunities and has been endlessly lambasted for it's lack of historical fidelity -- both of which distract from the fact that when you put those issues aside, what's left is still impressive.

Personally, I think there's a lot more history behind the movie than people think, and that with so many movies like this coming out recently, medieval epics just don't seem "special" anymore. If this film had been released in the place of Gladiator in 2000, I have a feeling it would win Best Picture in its place.

Some people seem to think that films of this genre are easy. Their success depends on equal quantities of a) historical accuracy, and b) well-photographed bloodshed. It's really so much more than that. This film chose the hardest possible direction to head in: a spiritual epic (which means character development is measured by inner growth and moral victories rather than physical prowess or success on the battlefield) that is anti-war (which means battle scenes that are more disturbing than exciting) and there is no preaching going on for the first two-thirds of the film, which leaves the audience to decide what the film is about (and results in a lot of people I've spoken to assuming the film is about nothing).

It's a difficult film. It would be a disservice to compare Kingdom with Gladiator, Black Hawk Down or the epics of other directors, such as Braveheart. This film doesn't share the same genre as those. Those were adventure films with simple purposes. Adventure films feed on simplicity, and Kingdom is in one way about the absence of simplicity. By giving the issues at hand more credit and assuming they are complicated it also does something very gutsy: it stops relying on adventure. It also places the argument at a higher level than merely politics: it's a spiritual dilemma. To borrow a phrase: a war fought in the heart of each man.

Thematically, I'd rather compare it to Lawrence of Arabia or Seven Samurai. Not in the same league - but it aspires to be, which is one step towards becoming that most others films never take.

Like I said, there's a touch of greatness to it. I invite you all to discover it with open minds and adjusted expectations.

Cheers.

frank manrique

So Saladin emerges nearly a hero (unlike our present day struggles with--read between the lines--he had a penchant for some human kindness for after all, he did meet Saint Francis of Assisi, an Italian Christian friar made prisoner by his minions during those days, ultimately letting him go free and unharmed)...while the Knights Templar are the vilest of all villains (alas! was there ever a more misunderstood group of people)?

I ain't buying it. A better movie of that same subject matter was the 30s black and white film The Crusades and, of course, there also is...EL CID.

Scott's persistent showing of testicular fortitude when it comes to deal with the Christian ethos head on can be mostly forgiven by the highly entertaining spectacle he provides us with his film Kingdom of Haven, so there is some redeeming value to his Herculean effort after all...

-THTS

Dan Hitchman

It seemed like they chickened out and didn't want to really offend anybody (Christians or Muslims or both) so they could get more box office money from all regions of the world, and so there is little real bite and a lot of bluster (I'd say there was a bit of that in Gladiator too). The way it performed world wide, they should have put the meat into it anyway. It wouldn't have hurt, and might have caused quite a buzz.

I have to agree with some reviewers that this huge script problem left the film without much to say.

Truth, in this historical case in particular, is far stranger than fiction.

Too bad Scott and his writers went for sheer spectical over accuracy. We could have learned a leason from a film like this.

Oh well, I guess there's always Good Night, and Good Luck.

Dan

Mark Bendiksen

Elijah Sullivan

I see what you mean. Personally, what I walked away from this movie with was the impression that the filmmakers didn't choose sides - which may have been the more difficult path to take, politically.

All I know is, when I twice saw the film in the theaters, Americans booed the ending (yes, booed) and the French audience cheered. The only reason I can come up with this is: Americans are confrontational, while the French are passive. They are ok with a movie that isn't pushing a political standpoint while Americans can't approach a subject like this without drawing lines in the sand.

I point this out merely the draw your attention to it and to modestly ask the question: do we need to draw that line? Perhaps the fact that a line is drawn in the first place is the cause of the conflict?

I'm ok with people disliking this film (or I'm trying to be ok with it ) I just hope that the film at least raises dialogue, rather than alienating anyone.

Cheers.

Aaron Reynolds

Absolutely. I love that the politics of religion on both sides were allowed to be as important to the story as the action sequences.

I went into the film unarmed with any knowledge aside from that it was a Ridley Scott film. I had no interest in Kingdom of Heaven -- I hated Gladiator (though I am a Ridley Scott fan), am not really into that period of history, and had it on my "miss" list, but I needed to kill exactly three hours in a location where there was nothing but a movie theatre, and it was playing at precisely the right time.

I hadn't seen a trailer, I hadn't seen a promo, and I hadn't read a review. I didn't expect to like it, and instead I loved it.