Kingdom of Heaven director's cut reviews - Page 2

I just finished watching this for the very first time (Director's Cut). Masterful direction, epic filmmaking at the very top. Few can instill reality and brutality with the poetic punch that Ridley constantly manages. The detail in the scenery is breathtaking, and I'm ready to buy the soundtrack ASAP.

Orlando Bloom proves himself in what's undoubtedly his deepest, most physical role yet. And Eva Green--words can't express just how gorgeous she is. Those eyes are blissfully enchanting. She's the new Bond girl? Not the biggest Bond fan, but CASINO ROYALE has now sparked some interest in me.

Amazon is now selling this bad boy for $19.97 - that's still a steal for this set. Get it ASAP.

Just watched it . . .loved it . . .so much more texture. The only thing that pissed me off, and I don't know if anyone noticed it, is that they still had a small snippet of Jerry Goldsmith's score from the 13th Warrior at that scene where Balien knights that kid near the end. Totally distracting for me in that scene. Anyone else notice this?

Yep, but it's not THAT bad. My distracting part was the use of Graeme Revell's awesome score for The Crow. The part where the 3 Templar knights try to assasinate Balian is the context of this, but it's forgivable, if not odd. It was there in both cuts.

Still, it's an amazing movie

I got this and watched it for the first time the other night, never having seen the original cut. I thought it was good, but not great. Still, I need to watch it again. I felt like there was something lacking after I saw it, but there was so much to digest that it's possible I just missed it.

See, the trouble I have is that there didn't seem to be enough in the film to show the viewer the conflict of ideologies between the Christian and Muslim peoples over the Holy Land, especially among the common people. The nobility and knights in the film seem to value their allegiance to the King of Jerusalem or to Saladin more than to the religious beliefs for which they fight. There was so little discussion of this beyond pithy one-liners here and there making commentary on things we're not shown, that when Balian makes his great "Who has claim?" speech, there seems to be little substance to it.

Now I know the ideological struggle is implied throughout the film, but without discussing it with more depth, the film simply reminds the viewer that the struggle exists, but fails to carry it as the subject of the film, as the title suggests. It's really only a historical character drama about people fighting in a war. There's nothing wrong with that, but some of the characters are bad, like the cartoonishly evil villains (the warmongering leaders of the Templars), and in a straight up character drama, lines like Saladin's comment on what makes Jerusalem so important - "Nothing... Everything!" - seem meaningless. That was a great line, too, but I never felt I was shown anything in the film to give weight to it.

But like I said, I'll watch it again and look for more social commentary. Hopefully it's there, even if it's drowning in Ridley Scott's propensity for theatrics.

(Edited for spelling.)

I can't say I had much of an emotional bond after I watched it, but the stunning images Ridley caught on film and the epic, bravura performances of the leads were enough to satisfy. The siege of Jerusalem contained some of the best money shots and action sequences that most veteran action directors couldn't achieve in their entire careers.

I, too, never saw the theatrical cut, mainly due to the overwhelming bad reviews with the added news that Ridley himself was unhappy with the cut, and was working on getting this version released on DVD. A friend of mine had already picked it up, so I sat down this evening to see what the hubub was about.

This might be one of the most gorgeously shot films of all time. So many shots left me with my jaw dropped at how strikingly beautiful it was. The entire cast was great--including Bloom, finally stepping up and being the star so many people want him to be. Neeson, Gleason, Norton, Thewlis--all spectacular. Eva Green was very good too.

The closest thing I've ever seen to a film that manages to juggle a personal conflict with such an epic scope like this is Lawrence of Arabia. There are many points in this movie where it seem Scott is channeling the ghost of David Lean--I first realized it when I looked at the clock and realized the film's only an hour and twenty minutes into the story, and had already told so much story and covered so much ground. The sign of a good epic is when it makes you feel as though the opening scenes occurred a lifetime ago--not out of slow pacing or drawn out, bloated sequences, but because the film engages you emotionally enough so you travel the long distances with the characters. Balian's life in France, his scenes with Neeson, they all feel distant remnants of this man's journey, and there's still a long hard road to trek. I loved the neutral religious stance the film made--religion should not dictate being a just and good man. That the bishop is one of the slimiest, most fickle characters in the movie is no mistake, nor is it that the most holy man (Hospitaler) is also one of the fiercest warriors.

A great film. A true epic. Sure to be looked back as one of Scott's most under-appreciated masterpieces.

I agree with most of that and most of the praise above, but this film had so much to accomplish that it might have been impossible for it to cover all the ground it set itself up to, even with the extra running time.

I have a problem with Balian's personal conflict, and I think this was brought up when the film first came out, but it's that the Queen and her allies are asking him to marry her on the assumption that someone will assasinate the bad guy (I can't remember the name of the leader of the Templars). If I recall correctly they are not asking Balian to do the killing himself, only implying that the bad guy should die. She begs him to commit to one evil to prevent a much greater one. He refuses, based on his principles, but he's been sleeping with her and living with her for months. I know the choice was based on antiquated ideals, but those ideals are never laid out or explained, and it does kind of seem like an odd choice based on a nebulous virtue.

And one more thing that let me down was that once Balian was established in his position and in his house, which was a wonderful journey all the way through to seeing him improve the land, there was never an effort made to show that the land was threatened. I mean, he obviously lost the land, just as all of the Christians in Jerusalem lost their homes, as he returns in the end to France, but I never got the feeling that anything that Balian had come to possess or cherish felt threatened. Even the Queen is never in danger, so it never felt like he had anything to lose.

I'm being hard on the film, I know, because I essentially agree with the praise, but this movie does not seem to be on the level of Lawrence of Arabia to me.

Balian journey is a spiritual one. The man start with nothing, and goes to Jerusalem, where he can absolve his sins and more importantly, his dead wife. His decision to not participate in a coup on Guy de Lusignan is because if he start compromising now, his journey will mean nothing. The said Kingdom of Heaven is a moral state of mind, a code by which to live. The new cut totally explain why Balian needs this. He needs this redemption. Balian had one thing to lose, one thing left after his wife commited suicide: his integrity. That is why his choice make sense. His land, Sybella, his title; it's all secondary compared to his own virtue.

The depiction of the conflict is well presented, but what is more important is not why they fight, it's how they can reach common ground. Both Christians and Muslims had their moderates ( Baldwin, Godfrey, Tiberias, - Saladin, the Lord Balian captured) and their extremists ( Guy, Reynald, one of Saladin's lieutenant, who's been promised the capture of Jerusalem). All did the extremists explained their aggression by their religion, on both sides. Saladin HAD to conquer Jerusalem, or else the radicals would have deposed him. The core of the film is that the concept of a virtuous man transcend religion. Dogma is what created this violence when the crusader butchered Jerusalem a 100 years ago, and the Muslims are coming back. Only a virtuous man could stop another massacre, in this case Saladin and Balian. The line " Nothing, everything" is gold, because it sums everything up.

For your info, Guy de Lusignan and his buddy were a lot like in the movie - bloodthirsty -.
Balian, not quite, but that's another story.

My copy should be arriving in the mail today from Amazon. I ended up buying 4 other movies when I pre-ordered my copy of this, so I chose to use the Free Super-Saver Shipping option since I spent close to $100 on the films.

Well it sounds like you know a bit about the history of the crusades. I don't. What you may have read into the movie because you already knew about it was not there for me, contextually. I don't need movies to spell everything out to me like I'm in grade school; I just want a self-contained tale that doesn't rely on prior knowledge of historical events to work on a deeper level.

I'm going to watch it again tonight, though, with an open mind to viewing it as a whole and complete story, and there are certainly some parts that I'm really looking forward to seeing again.

I think comparing this to Lawrence of Arabia is stretching it. The sense of scope is there, but while Scott's film is indeed a good movie, I don't find it anywhere near the level of Lean's masterful sheparding of pitch-perfect casting (particularly O'Toole's character who instantly blows Bloom's right out of the kiddie pool), or visual greatness as David Lean was able to conjure.

I'd say Kingdom of Heaven is more along the lines of Scott channeling Cecil B. DeMille's enjoyable The Crusades, which is also epic in scope and has hammy acting as well.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...=5459&Itemid=3

This reviewer and Chris Gore are the only ones that I know who don't like this. What do you guys think?

The reviewer @ dvdfile is apparently mad at Ridley Scott for making some good movies.

I must say after watching the directors cut, it has passed Gladiator in my eyes

and I think the Lean comment was dead on, sure Orlando is not quite O'toole but I would say the Directors Cut has made this his best movie by leaps and bounds

Lacking visual greatness? are we talking about the same movie? cause its simply beautiful and definately more consistant than Lawence

and Thewlis is way better than I remember, and a little bit more Irons than the Theatrical doesnt hurt either

and if I was Eva Green I would sue Fox

but I do have to give them some credit for releasing this cause man are they hit hard by Ridley's team but its all rightfully deserved

My knowledge of history has nothing to do with my appeciation of this movie at all. Hell, it could actually hurt it more than help be love it. They mixed 3 tales, changed them, and that is Kingdom of Heaven. Balian was much older, married, and so on. He barely knew Sybella. But he did defend Jerusalem against Saladin. You can Wiki Balian's name I guess, i'm sure they'll have a lot of info.

Now, the tale presented there is self-contained. My fiancee and my friends who watched it don't know much Crusades history, so they were quite neutral, and they saw the same thing as I did, and then even some more stuff. All the elements are there. Why the Muslims want Jerusalem (vengeance), why the crusaders want it ( Christ ), Balian and Sybella role's in this, and more importantly, why they react like they do.

An impeccable epic, beautifully and tastefully written. Maybe it's not Lawrence Of Arabia but it's as close as anyone has come. This is a beautiful film, alive with images and color and a great score. Orlando Bloom really deserves praise for his first fantastic central performance.

To prepare for Kingdom Of Heaven I watched the extended cut of Gladiator. Unlike Kingdom Of Heaven, Gladiator was a satisfyingly complete film in its theatrical release, and Scott is rightly still happy with it. It always felt more like an action film than an epic to me though, as it whisked from place to place. The terrific extended cut gives it time to breathe as an epic, and modern political parallels are more evident and effective. He then perfected its style for Kingdom Of Heaven, a less theatrical and much more significant film.

It's almost like Ridley Scott can do these great films in his sleep now, so smooth and effortless do they feel. He avoids CGI-assisted indulgence such as the artificial sweeping camera moves of Peter Jackson. With Gladiator and Kingdom Of Heaven he's firmly established the template for the modern epic.

Guys,


There is no doubt that this film is beautifuly lensed, and has some stellar supporting work, but how can we overlook the absolutely one-note dud that is Orlando Bloom? The guy stares pensively out to the horizon and into the camera for 3 hours straight. The film's biggest drawback is its lead. There's just no there there.

I disagree whole-heartedly. I think Bloom did a fantastic job, and carried the heavy weight of the movie on his shoulders quite well.

I really want to buy this set (and I will once my paycheck comes in), not only to own this spectacular film, but also in hopes that there's a feature on the cinematography in the movie--I honestly want to know how the fuck Scott got some of these shots. The cloud formations are almost too amazing to comprehend.

The biggest surprise for me was, of all things, the score. I've never though much of Harry Gregson-Wiliams (he does servicible scores, but he's always felt very bland to me), but goddamn did his music here just grab me and pull me right into the flick. I'm actually a little saddened that he didn't get recognized by the Academy this past year--this is a more than worthy score.

Well G dude your in for a treat

as the chaneling of Lean continues with the addition of an Overture, an Intermisson, and an Entrnace

just finished the commentary, and Ridley is now the king of commentators, the mans knowledge and insight into film and history is just mind boggling

that freaking Blade Runner set cant get here soon enough

Yeah, I really dug the Overture/Intermission/Entr'acte useage. Gave the movie a throwback to the epics of old.

See, I thought Bloom just kinda rode the wave of great work everyone was putting in around him. On repeat viewings, it's really hard to get past the single expression Bloom carries throughout the entire film: deep pensive stare. Repeat. Repeat. And repeat again.. I also agree with Chris Hill about his decision to not marry Cybila. He could've caused the world a whole lot less grief had he done so. At that point in the movie, he wasn't the Model of Morality he strived to be anyway. I also think the comparisons to Lean are a bit much. The movie's good, but comparing it to Lawrence of Arabia is ridiculous. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.

Balian made this choice out of not compromising himself and his beliefs. He wasn't a "Model of Morality", but he sure understood that if he did just that he would never be a knight. He'd be like Guy de Lusignan and all the others who followed their passions over a moral code. It was against a knightly code he was following. Sure, he would have defend the others, but he would never be true, so he would have been defeated from the start.

I think I'm being misread. I don't think this movie is as good as Lawrence of Arabia, but that it's on the same scale and caliber.

Of course it's not Lawrence Of Arabia. That film was about a very complex character and its lead performance met the demands of that character, and then some. Kingdom Of Heaven is about more than just Balian, whose arc and character are more formulaic than that of Lawrence. But, if you ask me, Bloom does an outstanding job anyway.

When I think of Lawrence Of Arabia, the very first thing I think of is the incredible desert cinematography, with light playing on sand dunes. No other film I have seen has come closer to that beauty than Kingdom Of Heaven, so that's why I made the comparison.

it was also intresting to hear in the documentry that the film wasnt digitally graded to a massive extent

he tweaked a bit when he made the digital intermediate, but mainly what we see was what came back from the lab, which is just awe inspiring

the shot of ed norton interring karak is proably my favourite movie shot out of the past five years

Exactly what I meant

Well, sheeit. I had absolutely no interest in this film when it came out theatrically. I had heard that they were making the director's cut, but wasn't interested in that either. But after reading this thread and the reviews that were attatched to it, I hurried my ass over to amazon and bought this puppy. Now I'm sitting here waiting eagerly for it to get here.

I rarely buy movies from Amazon unless they're hard to get titles. I pick up most from Wal-Mart. Purely because they're usually the cheapest place to buy from.

This time I've bought via the CHUD link. Still could've got it for less but hell, if it helps the site I'll do it more often. I didn't realise that before.

I liked the theatrical release so I'm sure I'll love the DC!

OK, I've watched it again. First, I have to say that I regret my comment about social commentary because that's not what I meant, really. I feel it's trite to require some sort of social commentary in every film, as broadly defined as that term can be. What I want out of any film is simply what I feel is essential in order to tell the story properly, and in Kingdom of Heaven I wanted to see the idealogical differences between Muslim and Christian more fully explored.

I can say that there was enough of that in the film to sufficiently contextualize the story after all-- little things that didn't stick in my head so much the first time, like the Muslims praying on the beach at Messina, tolerated so long as they paid their taxes. So I'll rescind that criticism.

I still have a problem with Balian's choice, though. It seems that his conscience is dictated chiefly by his oath of knighthood and by the ten commandments, as far as the film offers any guidelines. The problem for me is that he breaks one commandment, commiting adultery, to satisfy his own desire, but won't even be complicit in another, murder, even if it will save the lives of thousands. Even if the victim is a blatantly evil murderer himself.

You might argue that one commandment could be viewed as more strict than the other, but the film doesn't make this arguement, and that would be a modern interpretation of the commandments anyway.

Still, I enjoyed it more the second time. And Orlando Bloom is great. He acts pensive because that's the defining trait of his character. Balian is brooding, and Bloom broods well.

Actually , A overture,Intermission music ,and Entracte were stadard for every road show release until the death of the Road Show in the late 70's,not just the Lean epics.
I watched the Director's cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" with a group of people after a Society For Creative Anarchonism event. I have never seen such a reaction for a film being shown on DVD.
IMHO it is a tragedy that this version was not the threatrical release. A lot of the problems I had with the threatrcal version were solved with this one.
Not since "Brazil" has a film been butchured so badly.

I second this emotion.

So happy! The release of the 4-disk set has been confirmed for a September release in Australia. I was starting to get worried there, for a while...

I actually didn't mind the theatrical cut too much, (so, so gorgeously shot) but it wasn't all I hoped it would be. Having lurked in this thread for the last month, though, I shall see if my hopes have not been in vain. Genuinely excited with breathless anticipation

I finally got round to watching this last week, but had to spread it over 2 nights. I thought doing that may spoil some of the enjoyment of the film but it didn't.

I liked the theatrical version & had watched that a few times but this is superb. So much more to the story & characters. It's not very often I'll double-dip on a DVD but this is worth every penny. I need to find some time to watch the extras, but I know doing that will make me want to watch the movie again!

What more can I say but well done Ridley Scott!