Kingdom of Heaven: Boring, Decent, Good eye candy?

LynneSin loves to make fun of my taste in movies, despite the fact that she gravitates to boring documentaries about how bad everything sucks. I like to watch entertaining escapist movies. There is enough depressing shit going on in the real world.

On LynneSin’s recent question thread I mentioned that I had purchased the Kingdom of Heaven DVD, and now she is giving me no end of grief! Not to mention that one time she was snooping around my DVD drawer and found my copy of Bedazzled, which has become some iconic symbol of my monumentally bad taste in movies in her pea-brain! Look, I happen to think Bedazzled is pretty funny, at least I don’t have The Wedding Crashers! Besides, Brendan Fraser is one of the hottest men on the planet. And for the gentlemen there’s Elizabeth Hurley in lots of tight skirts. So, good eye candy movie.

Which brings me back to KoH. Reading the cover, it sounded like a promising movie. Set in the time of the crusades (I like the ancient past). Directed by Ridley Scott, whose Gladiator is on my top ten list. Starring Orlando Bloom, good actor, great to look at, and other good cast -Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson, Alexander Siddig, Marton Czokas. Seemed to have good action potential. So I bought it.

Now, I will admit, this movie is no Gladiator. I was a little annoyed by the lack of character development. And is Liam Neeson going to die in act one of every movie from, now on? The battle scenes weren’t the most engrossing ever, but better than say, Troy. (Angelina Jolie as Colin Farrell’s mother? I don’t think so!) I liked the fact that the muslims weren’t portrayed as just the bad guys, but that there were good and bad guys on both sides. So, I’d give KoH about 3 stars out of 5. At a minimum, it has Orlando Bloom eye candy.

So what do you think: Boring? Pretty good? Worth it for the Orlando Bloom factor?

I thought Gladiator was boring and Troy was simply stupefying. But I have been sponging up every bit information I can find on the Crusades ever since I saw the movie. And I do admit that I originally saw it because Orlando Bloom is hot!!! I thought that the best character development was of Saladin and Balian. Other than that it was, perhaps, a bit flat. Does your copy have the hour long History Channel documentary, etc. on it? If it does, watch those. In the extras, such as that, the makers of the film admit where they see the film as lacking and what was changed from history. It was quite interesting.

By the way, Angelina Jolie played Colin Farrell's mother in "Alexander", not "Troy." Troy was the one with Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom. So I guess you could say that you got the wrong have of Brangelina!

Have you seen the interviews with the actor who played Saladin? I can find them for you, if you'd like. He did an amazing job of explaining how the Muslims were portrayed and why he took the role.

You mentioned that you liked the ancient past...do you have any recommendations on other movies or books? I just read "Warriors of God" about Saladin and Richard the Lionheart. I was amazed at how true to form the movie stayed.

Sorry to talk so long! I love this movie and you really got me going!

You are so right, I was confused :-). I was thinking of Alexander. I really really wanted to like that movie and I just really really didn't.

Come to think of it, Troy was better than Alexander.

I haven't watched the documentary yet, but I plan to. I love those extras on the DVD!

As for other such movies, I really liked Masada, which is probably 20 years old, but if you haven't seen that, check it out.
I also like Thirteenth Warrior, but LynneSin will no doubt make fun of me for that one too.

I watched it with my 58-year-old mother, and had to explain a lot of the historical context to her. If you're familiar with the history of the 1st-3rd Crusades and can keep up with the characters, it's very, very good.

...I am :rofl:...LynneSin loves to make fun of my taste in movies, despite the fact that she gravitates to boring documentaries about how bad everything sucks. :rofl:

:hi:

It's true, isn't it?

:*

:*

major plot points are covered fairly quickly, and it is easy to miss something if you run to the bathroom or go in the kitchen to grab some popcorn.

I bought it--it really is very good, and Orlando Bloom gives an unusually excellent performance. (Plus, just about any movie with Liam Neeson in it is good.)

Orlando Bloom did a really good job. I thought that was a difficult role, he had to be so noble and honoroable without seeming wimpy or weak. He even had to surrender the city and you were glad he did! That role could have come off too goody-goody, but he played the right balance.

The character development and the relationships overall got a bit of short shrift I thought, but there was a lot of ground to cover.

Fox cut close to an hour out of the theatrical release, and the original version is being released on a special edition DVD.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EHSVQ4/qid=1142644491/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-4322322-4163327?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

AICN's "Moriarty" has seen this cut and liked it:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22100

At three hours, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN feels positively brief, and that's because everything in it seems important, key to our understanding of what's going on, crucial to the development of the characters. It's strange how the shorter version feels longer because you're never given the opportunity to connect with what you're watching.

It's not the director's cut. I didn't see that version in the store or I would have gotten it. A longer version with more exposition would probably be better.

You and Keith will have a WON-DER-FUL life down there!


I loved Clearwater-Clearwater Beach..but St. Pete was really cool,too.

I hear that is a very big deal down there. I guess the Phillies are in Clearwater or somewhere nearby? Apparently the players all run around in limos for the weeks of spring training. I can't imagine where they go, there doesn't seem to be much nightlife.

But yes, I am actually really looking forward to it. Do you go every year? You'll have to stay with us next year! I plan to have a big house with lots of guests space and a pool!

Drove around St. Pete-very very cool and funky neighborhoods..we enjoyed it immensely...funny how it reminded me of Marina Del Rey...only MUCH nicer...you guys are going to LOVE it!

The Cardinals train in Jupiter. Of course that's on the other side of the state, but a car ride can take care of that. ;)

We can stay at Ramsey's place. I would love to go to Spring Training

It's scheduled for May.

And it had nothing to do with the Bloom eye candy factor since I'm a straight male :P

You do have to pay close attention to follow the story properly, but it's well told, well acted, well directed and just well done overall.

The DVD special feature where they give information about the real history of the time and characters was a lot of fun to watch.

I think there were several liberties taken with historical facts; it was more story of how it should have been than a true to life tale. I think James Reston sued the producers claiming the plot was lifted from his book "Warriors of God". I don't understand how you can sue producers making a movie about the Crusades especially when they alter the facts to make a better story.

By the way, did you catch the musical theme borrowed from the 13th Warrior? It turns up in the BAttle for Jerusalem and is very appropriate but is left off the soundtrack CD (Boo!)

I epxected to see in the end credits that Jerry Goldsmith had done the soundtrack for KoH too. I can't imagine how they got away with stealing that whole big riff from the 13th Warrior soundtrack.

DVD? I will probably get it. It seems like since LOTR and all the special editions with that movie the studios are hopping on the "director's cut" bandwagon. I don't think all movies benefit from a "director's cut" and the studios are doing to milk every last penny from a flick. What will we have next, Dukes of Hazzard, the SPECIAL EDITION?

Why make a movie focused on a fictional character like Balian? I mean, with Saladin, Richard the Lion-Hearted, the Knights Templar, the various popes & leaders of the times, they had to use a few of them as supporting characters, but had to use Balian, a possible real person, but I'm pretty sure that he was not the leader of the defense of Jerusalem?

I originally saw it in the theater and thought it was quite good. I have watched it a couple of times since then and get more out of it each time...which for me is the sign of a good movie.

I actually thought the battle scenes were very well done, and thought Bloom, Neeson, and especially Edward Norton under that mask were excellent!!!

You are right though, Liam Neeson does seem to be dying early in alot of movies....

Though at least in the last Batman movie he made it through to the end (nearly)...

ANd I hear he is going to play Abraham Lincoln in Spielberg's so far untitled movie

Okay, I'm going to point out some things that irritate me. They may seem like minutiae to other people but it's important to me.

The use of Trebuchet's by Saladin's Army attacking Jerusalem. Holy Crap is this inaccurate! The swinging arms release the flaming bolts at a 90 deg angle against the walls. Wrong wrong wrong! Trebuchets released stones at a high arc and the type for use in the 1180s did not have a heavy enough counterweight to allow for the throwing of stones heavy enough to obliterate castle walls. It wasn't until cannon were used in castle sieges in the 1490s by the King of France in his invasion of Italy that high curtain walls (typical castle designs for the last 600 years) were shown to be inadequate. Gunpowder and cannon allowed for a perpendicular shot against a castle wall.

The Battle of Hattin in 1187 was the major battle the crusaders rode out against Saladin. I don't think, the film mentions the name. And the battle was the most important of Saladin's career, it was an incredible tactical victory, which turned into a huge strategic victory. This battle should have been done in the film, it would make for great battle depection. I wonder if there were budget constraints. This win cemented Saladin's role as great general. It did get the part correct were Saladin offers the King the cup of water (symbolizing he will be spared) and when the King handed it to Reynauld, Saladin did state I did not offer you that cup and then nearly cut his head off.

Saladin I felt they treated correctly. It is a widely held belief that Saladin's actions were what changed European knight's views on how a warrior should act. And Saladin was immortalized in the works of Sir Walter Scott. Saladin is perhaps one of the greatest rulers of the middle ages since he actually kept his word, often time freed slaves, and didn't put whole peoples to the sword...

Which brings me to Reynauld, played by the Hamish from Braveheart. Reynauld was not a nice man. But, his actions in the movie make him into a demonic half-wit. Most of his actions were carefully weighed in his life. The raiding of caravans back in the lands of Outremer was a source of money that the "Robber Barons" needed to fund their troops. Reynauld did in fact kill and rape (possibly in that order) Saladin's sister. Unmentioned in the film is that Reynauld spent 16 years in a dungeon in Aleppo.

Depictions of King Richard (Richard Couer de'Leon) are always wrong. Richard didn't speak english well, during his 10 year reign he only spent 6 months in England.

Bailian of Ibelin is changed character, but I chalked that up to artistic license. The real Balian was a 40 something Crusader not a 20 something eye-candy guy from somewhere in France.

What the hell was up with the people Bailan takes under his wing. The live in a desert as their people have done for 1000 years but they don't know how to find water. Utterly ridiculous.

The opening bit with the decapitation of Balian's wife and the evil priest were odd to me. I'm not complaining of Christian bashing, the Christians of that time do that well enough for themselves. But it wasn't used properly in the film by Ridley Scott, this could have been shown to be a microcosm for the way the Church of Rome had fallen and lost it's moral compass. Or something. It felt to much like a Deus Ex Machina to free Balian to be a world weary doomed champion...

Overall, the problem with any crusades movie is going to be when do you start. If it's not the First Crusade, much of the back story is going to have to be quickly stated, assumed by the writers, or flat out ignored. Which is what happens with this movie, which glosses over the 90 years prior to the siege of Jerusalem.

I must give Ridley Scott credit because you can't make a big budget movie like this and tell the facts of history, no one wants to see them and it is difficult to get into the multi-faceted issues which made up Medieval politics in the Holy Lands during the 1100s. So, while I disliked it because of egregious historical errors, I still give it 3 stars out of 5. If you want better Ridley Scott films go for The Duellists 1977 starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel.

There was a Balian, there was a Crusade, there was Kingdom of Jerusalem, but pretty much everything else was up for grabs. (Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but you get the picture.) It's still an inspiring movie, a hint of what might have been. Richard the Third has a bit part at the very end where he rides by with a few knights looking for Balian in France. For a jolt of reality, pick up Reston's book, Warrior's of God and check over the logistics involved when Richard set out. (On the other hand,he did get taken hostage on the return trip.) What I found very frustrating about the book is that the details hinted at a far larger story. For example, Saladin captured and executed Christian females in full armor. Who in the world were those women? There were troops fro all over Europe involved in the Crusade. What did that do to the economy of medieval Europe? Richard's ransom was absolutely incredible. What did that do to England? When Saladin was dying, the first thing the local merchants did was to close their shops and hide their goods in anticipation of looting. What does that say about rule of law? What happened after Saladin died? It's not Reston's fault, it's just that Western history so often focuses on the stars and misses the big picture.

instead it settled for merely okay sword & sandal epic.
The treatment of Saladin was one of the few things I lauded. Saladin was one of the few "heros" of the day back then.

It's not supposed to be a history text. Ridley Scott took chances in not portraying the Muslims as bloodthirsty, but truth be told both sides were extremely bloodthirsty. My favorite sentiment from the movie is when one of the characters laments that wars are primarily fought for the rich to gain access to resources. Oh so true!

:boring: :boring: :boring:

And I hated Wedding Crashers

And what's wrong about documentaries about Amish kids who do crank or a community of people who live under the New York Subway system

:shrug:

I have bad movie eye candy - I call that "The Song Remains the Same" (Robert Plant :loveya: )

How do you serve an Empire that was once based on good principles?

How do you restore an Empire to a Republic?

How do you serve your country when it is headed in the wrong direction?