A Few Words About A few words about... Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut (2 Viewers)

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

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...

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!

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!

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).

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.

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

Not everyone has jumped on the HD bandwagon.

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.

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...

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.

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

Oh, so sorry, he was thinking (hoping?) he would "get something good". I made a mistaking in proposing that he knew that shooting with multiple cameras would allow him to "get something good". I see how I misrepresented him - I proposed that he had more control than what he really felt, which of course, just further emphasises my point that composition in contemporary Hollywood cinema is very imprecise, scenes are not organised as carefully constructed shot to shot sequences. Rather, footage is accumulated by multiple camera shooting, and the film is constructed as a sometimes incoherent montage in post.

I prefer the older, studio style, when as someone like Minnelli would say, "the scene was pulled through one camera". Just my opinion of course...

Anyway, I've hijacked this thread enough. I'm happy to write more about this over PM.

Gee what a tough crowd we have here! Maybe I'm dumb but I thought Gladiator was magnificent & that Kingdom Of Heaven Fox edition was poor. Like many can't wait to see the DC of KOH

Everyone may say Scott is a visual genius but nothing touches the cinematography and set composition of Alien and Blade Runner. Only in those two films Scott has managed to create real living characters out of their respective decors to the point that they were no longer sets.

Alex

Well yeah! That was the point I was trying to make, but with reference to technology, and contemporary production practices.

I don't think Ridley Scott has surpassed his late 70s and early 80s films.

I'll have to give the D.C. of Kingdom of Heaven a look though.

I'm going to agree with this, and add that the cinematography and set composition are featured less because they are no longer the primary focus of Scott's movies. He tended to linger on those things in the past - he's a more motivated storyteller, now.

As for this silly Super-35 debate... ... I can see everyone's point, and I do suspect that "too much footage = overbaked editing". However, at the most simple level the choice to shoot 35mm was merely a technical decision, not an artistic one.

I think cinematography and production design are part of (film) story telling. I think shooting mountains of footage leads to over hyper editing, which ultimately does not assist good story telling.

It would be interesting to see which version is cut faster, the theatrical version or the director's cut...

I'm not really sure that this is true -- the cameras end up being smaller and lighter, but I don't think they're any easier or harder to get. Rental houses stock what people want to rent, and if there were demand for a large number of matched anamorphic lenses, any halfway decent rental house would have 'em.

I agree, we're taking this in the wrong direction.

I disagree with Alex about Blade Runner in one important way -- the characters are very weak in that film. It is a triumph of design and visuals, but it's a miserable failure in terms of storytelling, in my opinion. I'll agree that Ridley Scott's recent work has been far from his best, but I thought that Kingdom of Heaven was a return to form for him (and I didn't feel it was as hyperactive as some of his other recent work).

I do agree with you about planning and appreciating a thoroughly well-thought out film -- but Ridley Scott gives the impression of being a seat-of-his-pants filmmaker and always has. I think that the difference with films like Alien and Blade Runner was in his budgetary and set constraints, requiring him to do a lot more pre-visualizing. Now that he has freed himself from that constraint, his work has suffered. (Again, I feel Kingdom of Heaven is an exception to this.)

Filmmaking, like so many other arts, is often shaped by its constraints, and the best work comes from innovative solutions.

In the interests of re-tracking -- what's included in this set? I have the DVD of the theatrical version, though I haven't watched much of the supplements yet because I keep leaving it at my wife's grandparents' house. I need to decide if this'll be an attempted rental or a blind buy.

good toknow that almost an hour will be reinserted.

Liam Neeson was good in the TC, so having more screen time is always great