2karl-
Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, this film is 2hrs 24 mins 7/10 and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people. director riddly Scott leads an all star cast but flopped in cinemas i saw it in the cinema its all right Martin Hancock ... Michael Sheen ... 3Nathalie Cox ... Eriq Ebouaney ... David Thewlis ...Liam Neeson ... Orlando Bloom ... Kevin McKidd ... Marton Csokas ... Eva Green ... Brendan Gleeson ... Jeremy Irons ....Edward Norton so this film is a strange one indeed it gets caught in between gladiator and Alexander Orlando bloom character is a relucent leader an but grows into his role this film is slow story not the best story from riddly Scott is quiet strange i gave it 7/10 because the battle sequence are good but there is something missing i cant put my finger on it liam nesson gets a 24 minute cameo showing his character king godrey as his reign coming to an end and entrusting his blacksmith soon It is the time of the Crusades during the Middle Ages - the world shaping 200-year collision between Europe and the East . A blacksmith named Balian has lost his family and nearly his faith. The religious wars raging in the far-off Holy Land seem remote to him , yet he is pulled into that immense drama. Amid the pageantry and intrigues of medieval Jerusalem he falls in love, grows into a leader, and ultimately uses all his courage and skill to defend the city against staggering odds. Destiny comes seeking Balian in the form of a great knight,Godfrey of Ibelin, a Crusader briefly home to France from fighting in the East. Revealing himself as Balian's father, Godfrey shows him the true meaning of knighthood and take s him on a journey across continents to the fabled Holy City. In Jerusalem at that moment--between the Second and Third Crusades--a fragile peace prevails, through the efforts of its enlightened Christian king, Baldwin IV, aided by his adviser Tiberias, and the military Clearly, director Ridley Scott does not agree with the above somewhat simplified . In "Kingdom of Heaven", wars and battles are fueled by an assortment of motivations including land, money, political consideration, natural desire for violence, lust for fame, love of the common people, among others. Even more importantly, this "idea" thing does not prevent leaders from practicing tolerance, reaching compromises and even recognizing equality with alien faiths, as the movie tries to show us. .It's difficult to refrain from comparing the attack of Jerusalem with the attack of Minas Tirith, and this very comparison can be construed as an unreserved compliment on Kingdom of Heaven.Another comparison that can be made is the depiction of a mighty army, done so unimaginatively in two similar movies last year. In Kingdom of Heaven,we see first a solitary figure on horseback at a distant mountain gap. "Saladin's army of 200 thousand is here" says Balian. "There's only one person", comes the reply from a follower. "No, they're all here" Balian quietly responses, at which point the angle of the camera starts to rise, first revealing the patch behind the mountain gap, filled with soldiers. Then, as the horizon of our vision continues to extend, layers of mountains and vales continue to appear, together with Saladin's mighty army deployed in an apparently haphazard, but ultimately strategic fashion. This must be seen to appreciate. Of the cast, I must first mention Edward Norton. As the leper king of Jerusalem, he appears all the time behind a mask which covers his entire face, showing only his eyes with disfigured corners. But it's the voice that is so mesmerizing. Ever since Fight Club, Norton's voice has such a timbre that soft as he sounds, there are lurking behind tantalizing hints of subtlety, intrigue, compassion,power, and twenty other different and conflicting emotions all at once.. Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons, playing father and mentor respectively, do not exactly have the most challenging parts in their careers.Eva Green retains the girlish defiance in The Dreamer, but adds to it the maturity and allure required for the role of Sibylla (as portrayed by the script, but not necessarily as recorded in history).And there is good old Brendan Gleeson, in the customary role of big bully fighter which he has perfected in Gangs of New York and Troy. Kingdom of Heaven is just about better than Alexander
guzguzgarbit
While watching Kingdom of Heaven, I just had the strange feeling that I was watching The Lord of the Ring without stakes, good scenario, great acting, humour and good music, and so on... I just found myself bored by the stupid predictable story of a black-smith turning instantly into an over-skilled knight, who will loose every common sense to pursue an unjustified quest of purity and atonement. Bored also by the stiff and unoriginal directing, the 3D modeled cities that look nowhere near realistic and the lack of original elements to disrupt the monotony.It had good elements, it's not a bad movie, but I'm just tired of always watching the same characters, doing the same mistakes, in the same hollow environments and I think that Ridley Scott can do way better than this.
Jim Freeman
I had high hopes for this movie, but political correctness runs all through. Christians are shown as bloodthirsty savages, while the Muslim conquerors are fair and just. It is just so painful to watch this in light of current events and wonder if Saudi Arabia was actually the backer for this stinker.Orlando Bloom you should be ashamed,. Unless of course you have converted to Islam.
cordell-42701
Kingdom of Heaven is not a movie I would normally consider when picking a movie to watch, however, my friend saw it and decided to watch it so I joined him. I am so glad that I did. The scenic shots were amazing and the battle scenes were breathtaking. The story line was enjoyable however I feel that it got very convoluted and extremely difficult to follow about half way in. For example You have no idea what condition causes the king of Israels problems until you are almost done watching the movie. Nothing was added to the film by keeping that from the audience except that it leaves the audience in confusion for many parts of the movie. The plot was a little too complicated. Maybe it was just me but I feel like the movie jumped around in terms of focus way to often and with too much intensity. Besides those points the film was enjoyable. As an audience member you really begin to take the side of the protagonist even when you sometimes feel like you do not need to. I understand that a point like that is something almost every movie contains but it felt especially compelling here. All in all I did enjoy the film even with its one significant downfall.
