A few words about... Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut

Robert Harris · 05-20-2006, 11:55 PM

While one can easily measure the difference between the original theatrical version and Fox DVD of Kingdom of Heaven as that of 144 minutes and the new Director's Cut at 194 minutes, one is left with only numbers.

50 Minutes.

The reality of the situation is that those 50 minutes measure the difference between a beautifully produced and skillfully directed adventure film and an epic masterpiece.

The Director's Cut of Sir Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven is the first film that I've viewed in many years that should be seen in theatres in a 70mm Roadshow blow-up format.

It tackles a thorny and difficult subject, while delivering throughful and intelligent entertainment.

And while the new DVD comes Extremely Highly Recommended, I find myself now waiting impatiently for Fox to deliver a High Definition version, hopefully as one of their early releases.

RAH

**HTF Ads**

Simon Howson · 05-21-2006, 02:13 AM

I got put off Ridley Scott's films after Gladiator, which I found at times to be edited in an incomprehensible fashion. I read the relevant A.C. mag article on that film, and the cinematographer (John Mathieson, same as for Kingdom of Heaven) was quoted as saying he shoots with lots of cameras because it means "Someone has got to be getting something good". I preferred the old days when composition, organisation, planning, and direction meant something. Anyone can make a film if they shoot enough footage, and have enough hard disc space to store and edit the footage...

This is especially sad, because Scott was such a great champion of filming in anamorphic, Alien and Blade Runner are great examples of that format, he even initially wanted to shoot Gladiator in anamorphic, but was talked out of it by Mathieson. Sadly his style became increasingly erratic when he started shooting films in Super 35. But I guess I shouldn't blame film makers for the filmmaking tools they use...

Nkosi · 05-21-2006, 02:59 AM

I've been salivating to see Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, honestly since I saw the theatrical version. While good, it was obvious that scenes had been cut and total plot narratives omitted. When I received word that a longer cut was in existence I've eagerly waited in anticipation. My excitement only grew after reading numerous reviews of the D.C. online. I just got word today that my pre-order of the movie shipped and I literally can't wait to get my hands on this new DVD. I await a masterpiece. I really do. And I hold out hope to someday be able to see such a beautiful film in a theatrical release (maybe) but certainly is a HD release down the road!

Jack _Webster · 05-21-2006, 06:55 AM

The theatrical cut was disappointing, but I've been aching to see the Director's Cut every since I found out what was cut out. I've yet to see anything less than a four star rating for this film.

Amazon says my order is getting ready to ship - and I picked One-Day Shipping - hopefully I'll get it tomorrow and I can relish in it a night early!

Frank@N · 05-21-2006, 09:46 AM

With HD already here, it seems silly to put out a 4-disc SD set for one movie.

Since the TC also tanked at theaters, why didn't Fox put out a more coherent cut on DVD the first time?

They could have sold it originally as a 2-disc and a 4-disc, which would have made more sense last year.

Sorry to be negative, but Fox seems to be moving in baby steps to recoup low box office (which was their fault to begin with for cutting the movie).

Chuck Mayer · 05-21-2006, 09:51 AM

True, true, and true. But I'll take the DVD of the DC any way I can get it, and that's all that matters to me.

David_Blackwell · 05-21-2006, 11:05 AM

I loved the Director's Cut DVD. It took me a while to get through it.

richardWI · 05-21-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank@N

With HD already here, it seems silly to put out a 4-disc SD set for one movie.

Not everyone has jumped on the HD bandwagon.

Steve Schaffer · 05-21-2006, 05:03 PM

Besides which Fox is BD-only so we'd have to wait until mid-June just to get a player and then pay twice what the Toshiba costs.

Colin Jacobson · 05-21-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank@N

With HD already here, it seems silly to put out a 4-disc SD set for one movie.

Why is it that HD fans are acting like SD-DVD has the same audience of users as Beta?

HD has been adopted by VERY few people. SD is in use by millions and millions of people. It's gonna be a long time - if ever - before HD has a higher share.

It seems silly for studios to put all their resources into a tiny niche product and ignore the one with 10s of millions of users...

Aaron Reynolds · 05-21-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

I got put off Ridley Scott's films after Gladiator, which I found at times to be edited in an incomprehensible fashion. I read the relevant A.C. mag article on that film, and the cinematographer (John Mathieson, same as for Kingdom of Heaven) was quoted as saying he shoots with lots of cameras because it means "Someone has got to be getting something good". I preferred the old days when composition, organisation, planning, and direction meant something. Anyone can make a film if they shoot enough footage, and have enough hard disc space to store and edit the footage...

This is especially sad, because Scott was such a great champion of filming in anamorphic, Alien and Blade Runner are great examples of that format, he even initially wanted to shoot Gladiator in anamorphic, but was talked out of it by Mathieson. Sadly his style became increasingly erratic when he started shooting films in Super 35. But I guess I shouldn't blame film makers for the filmmaking tools they use...

The format the film is produced in has nothing to do with poor editing. They're completely unrelated. The director of photography does not dictate how many cameras are used. He's a guy who comes in and the director says "I want it to look like this conceptual idea thingy" and he makes the nuts and bolts of it happen.

I also disliked Gladiator, and found it alternately dull and incomprehensible. However, I loved Kingdom of Heaven as it played theatrically. I'll certainly pick this up, but I'm a little concerned that it'll end up bloated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank@N

Sorry to be negative, but Fox seems to be moving in baby steps to recoup low box office (which was their fault to begin with for cutting the movie).

I don't believe that Fox at any point took this film away from Ridley Scott and cut it. As I understood it, there was a contractually obligated running time maximum, and Scott cut the film to conform to this. If he knew from the outset that his film was going to run overlong (and he had to know from timing the script), then he also knew from the outset that he'd be cutting it for the original presentation and then releasing the long version on DVD afterwards.

I would blame the poor box office on the way the film was marketed. I thought the trailer was dreadful and went into the film expecting the worst -- but I had three hours to kill and it was the only movie that started and ended at the right time. Luckily, I was blown away by it.

Aaron Reynolds · 05-21-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

and the cinematographer (John Mathieson, same as for Kingdom of Heaven) was quoted as saying he shoots with lots of cameras because it means "Someone has got to be getting something good".

Simon, you've presented the quote in an exceptionally dishonest way. Here's the actual passage:

Quote:

Having a large arsenal of up to seven cameras at a time allowed Mathieson and Scott to operate periodically, along with A-camera operator Peter Taylor and Steadicam operator Klemens Becker. "Peter’s very good at handheld work; he kind of floats along," Mathieson testifies. "Klemens’s Steadicam work is very elegant and precise. In those [multi-camera] situations, I was thinking, ’Someone has got to be getting something good."

There's no "because" there -- it's not even implied.