Author |
Message |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Archie Gates wrote: Kingdom of Heaven is the most frustrating movie of the year, not because it was so thoroughly bad, but worse: it had enough nuggets of greatness that you could get a good sense of the much better film that could have been made and I was left feeling truly sorry for the many talented people who worked on this misguided movie, some of whom put in some great work and whose efforts were wasted.
The first 20 or more minutes are so recycled that I practically expected a Greenpeace stamp of approval to show up in the corner of the screen. We have the long lost father, the losing of loved ones (apparently real fun only begins in Hollywood after your wife or parents die), the mentor/student relationship, complete with the obligatory mentor death. The character of Balian, played by Orlando Bloom, is taken through a series of preposterous events at a rapid speed, as if the movie is saying "There was this blacksmith Balian, yadda yadda, he's a Knight now."
In the space of a few minutes, Balian buries his wife, learns and accepts without blinking that this stranger who claims to be the Baron of Ibelin is his father, commits murder, gets trained as an expert fighter, fights a group of soldiers, travels on a ship that gets wrecked in a storm, meets a stranger who he duels and gets led to Jerusalem. It's easy to fault Bloom as an actor, it's certainly clear now that he isn't a great one, but after seeing the even more bland Christian Bale in Batman Begins I can't fault just Bloom here. An actor can work for an audience if he at least looks the part and is directed well and has interesting lines to say. Part of the problem in Kingdom was that Bloom was simply miscast. Bloom's Balian looks unlikely to even lift a Crusader era sword, he might have a hard time lifting the scabbard and while his acting is monotonous, I saw enough duplications of Crowe's Gladiator expressions to convince me that he was doing what Ridley Scott told him to do.
But then something unexpected happens, just when I am about to give up on the movie. Three supporting characters appear that are acted and written so well it's astonishing, it is as if they walked in from another, much better film and were attempting to stage a coup and take over this mess of movie. Edward Norton plays the King, a leper, a visually striking and original character, full of intelligence and determination. All of his scenes were magnetic even though he was behind a mask and more than probably recording his lines in a studio later. His confrontation with Saladin in person, and the following confrontation with an errant Knight, beating him and forcing him to kiss his ring was a memorable high point of Kingdom that delivered finally what we expect, something original and grand. Also good was Eva Green as Sybilla, who has a real charisma and regal bearing, convincing in her role and showing a maturity older than her years. It is hard to believe she is only 25, this actress has the talent and charm of a more experienced actress. Green is going to go places if Hollywood gives her a chance.
Then there is Ghassan Massoud who would have ended up stealing Kingdom of Heaven if he was given any more screentime. As Saladin, Massoud is that good, thoroughly inhabiting the well-written role from his looks of concern for the health of the King to his picking up a toppled cross near the end, there were many small flourishes that made his character memorable, he came across as a tower of experience and strength, an opponent you'd fear all the more because you respect him. If Kingdom of Heaven had focused on the Leper King, Sybilla and Saladin instead of Balian it would have been a much more interesting film, possibly even a great one. Those were three well acted well written and somewhat unique characters, but they are put in service of a hackneyed, pointless and weakly acted character of Balian.
So yes, it all ends up feeling like a lot of great talent and effort wasted use in search of a misguided goal, not unlike the Crusades themselves.
I can't end this review without commenting on the ending, so don't read this part if you haven't seen the film. Balian is given a choice near the end. Norton's King asks Balian to agree to having the main villain Crusader arrested and executed, with Balian marrying his wife Sybilla who is also the sister of the king. This would bring peace with Saladin and save lives. But Balian says no, he's too moral for that and won't do it. Instead he opts for a path that results in the slaughter of thousands of low ranking soldiers, many of whom were likely peasants pressed into service against their will. It's such an immoral decision by Balian that I found it hard to have any sympathy for him, he destroyed the chance at peace and condemned many people to death. He should have listened to the more experienced and wiser King, who came across as a far more moral and intelligent figure than Balian.
B
After that review you might have expected a lower grade, but this movie was like many later Kubrick movies to me in that while it didn't work as it should have, it had some memorable moments that I'll remember a long time and that is one of the main reasons I go to movies. For a second there, I thought you copied my review and added some little comment under it, hehe. Needless to say that I agree completely. My review sounds like a worse grade as well, but it's not that the movie is bad, it's that it is so frustratingly disappointing.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:01 am |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
Actually I didn't even read yours, or any of the others. I wrote this in MS Word then pasted it onto the reply box. I waver between giving it a B- and a B, not sure, but in that range.
After reading the above reviews, other than yours I most agree with Ripper's, except I liked Green more than she did (goth princess lol).
Last edited by A. G. on Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:03 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
I thought Green was wasted. She is a good actress, but she hasn't been given much to do.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:05 am |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
I did copy your making the grade big though, I saw that and thought why not.
I hope this movie eventually is released with an extended version, it gave the impression of being hacked to pieces in the editing room.
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:04 pm |
|
 |
dolcevita
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table
|
Archie Gates wrote: The first 20 or more minutes are so recycled that I practically expected a Greenpeace stamp of approval to show up in the corner of the screen.
Well, i have some questions. If the introduction that saved the film were the three side characters, what exactly in their stories was so convincing? Or was it more their performances? After you mentioned them, you kind of went into how great their characters were, but not what their characters were doing in the narrative. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm asking because I don't know.
The ending seems interesting, mostly because Blacksmiths were never offered the hands of royalty, and he was probably closer (upon starting) in staus to those who were killed by his decision than those who weren't. I like your Kubrick comment. Its something I tend to feel as well (in Kubrick, as I haven't seen KoH). That he bit off alot, something that could be equal to a whole fruit, but lost it in the chewing process somewhere. Interesting.
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:00 pm |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
dolcevita wrote: Archie Gates wrote: The first 20 or more minutes are so recycled that I practically expected a Greenpeace stamp of approval to show up in the corner of the screen. Well, i have some questions. If the introduction that saved the film were the three side characters, what exactly in their stories was so convincing? Or was it more their performances? After you mentioned them, you kind of went into how great their characters were, but not what their characters were doing in the narrative. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm asking because I don't know. The ending seems interesting, mostly because Blacksmiths were never offered the hands of royalty, and he was probably closer (upon starting) in staus to those who were killed by his decision than those who weren't. I like your Kubrick comment. Its something I tend to feel as well (in Kubrick, as I haven't seen KoH). That he bit off alot, something that could be equal to a whole fruit, but lost it in the chewing process somewhere. Interesting.
They didn't save the movie really, it didn't fully work even with them, but they made it worth watching. Like I said the movie had many fascinating "moments" and those are hard to describe in words in a review. Imagine trying to review Full Metal Jacket, it's the same thing, it has a lot of little interesting asides and supporting performances but they are more of the "you had to be there" kind of thing.
Green's Sybilla had a romance with Bloom's character which like Lecter was cut off too short, just when it was getting interesting. Saladin mostly stood around plotting and waiting but the actor had a real sense of confidence and authority. And as I described, Norton's King's main moment to shine was when he rode out to meet Saladin and punish a subordinate. I was very impressed by how the supporting actors (and the other aspects too, like art direction and costumes) were done with such attention to detail. Sad to see it wasted like that.
And yes it was mostly the acting but also I had the impression that there was a well written script that had been reworked to hollywoodize it, that's the only explanation I can give for how some scenes seem literate and thought out and some seem boring and pointless. Especially Norton and the guy who played Saladin but also Green. I didn't go on about their actions because they weren't given enough to do. it wasn't really about so much what they did, it's that they inhabited their roles so well, they were able to make me suspend disbelief for a while and believe they were their characters.
After I saw the movie, I looked it up and the real Balian was 53 when this all happened, and was a couple decades older than Sybilla. He also wasn't a blacksmith, he was brought up as a knight. If Liam Neeson had played Balian and they had cut out the whole silly blacksmith aspect, that might have worked. It's a shame to see Neeson in all these supporting mentor roles when he's so talented.
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:18 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
Archie Gates wrote: ...It's a shame to see Neeson in all these supporting mentor roles when he's so talented.
Yeah, but he was great in Kinsey, but nobody went to see it...
|
Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
bradley witherberry wrote: Archie Gates wrote: ...It's a shame to see Neeson in all these supporting mentor roles when he's so talented. Yeah, but he was great in Kinsey, but nobody went to see it...
That's because he isn't great in that way and the public understands this. He's not a Ralph Fiennes type great actor, he's actually the closest thing IMO that we have today to another Sean Connery.
|
Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:20 am |
|
 |
matatonio
Teh Mexican
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm Posts: 26066 Location: In good ol' Mexico
|
well damn, this movie is pure shit!
Except for the battles, everything pretty much sucked!
D
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:17 pm |
|
 |
andaroo1
Lord of filth
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm Posts: 9566
|
According to Aint it Cool, the new edit of Kingdom of Heaven is like the Special Edition of The Abyss. Taking a bad/mediocre movie and making it brilliant.
We'll see...
|
Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:39 pm |
|
 |
xiayun
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm Posts: 25109 Location: San Mateo, CA
|
Yeah, the extended edition is getting rave reviews. I heard the story is much richer and it feels like a completely different movie.
_________________Recent watched movies: American Hustle - B+ Inside Llewyn Davis - B Before Midnight - A 12 Years a Slave - A- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A- My thoughts on box office
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:22 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
I read about the differences and if all of them are true and well-executed, then I can definitely see this being a much better flick.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:09 am |
|
 |
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8642 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
yeah i watched the directors cut and its a much different movie and it feels like an epic now.
_________________The Dark Prince 
|
Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:31 pm |
|
 |
Johnny Dollar
The Lubitsch Touch
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 11019
|
I thought the theatrical version was more than fine, but, yeah, the director's cut is an improvement and a pretty excellent piece of epic filmmaking.
_________________ k
|
Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
 |
Jim Halpert
Stanley Cup
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:52 pm Posts: 6981 Location: Hockey Town
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
still havnt seen the directors cut, probably wont ever either. This movie was pretty bad and i only liked the final battle scene and i didnt even like how they ended the battle
D+
|
Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:07 pm |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
The original cut is unwatchable upon viewing the director's cut, and I liked it when I first saw it.
|
Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:07 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
I desperately want to see the Director's Cut. Seriously, in recent memory I can't think of another film that could benefit as much as this one from fleshing some characters and issues out a bit more.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:56 pm |
|
 |
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8642 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
The Director's cut has been called one of the best improvement of a film through a director's cut since the Abyss and Blade runner.
To anyone who liked or thought the original was decent, will find the new director's cut to be a great film.
It was such an improvement I was shocked. It was a film that disappointed me so much when it first came out and it then surprised me.
It was not the greatest thing but it surprised me because I never expected it.
_________________The Dark Prince 
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:12 am |
|
 |
billybobwashere
He didn't look busy?!
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm Posts: 4308
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
better than Troy, but not good enough to be in that upper-tier of sword-and-sandals flicks.
B
i do wanna see that director's cut, especially if it's as good as Manny says it is.
_________________ Retroviral VideosA film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:58 am |
|
 |
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8642 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
I gave it a C+/B- before and now it is a borderline B+/A-.
_________________The Dark Prince 
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:12 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Finally saw the Director's Cut and while it's definately a better film now, it really really lacks a strong leading character. Bloom has one facial expression the whole fucking movie and he's speech at the end was laughable. And Csokas/Gleeson are probably the most one-sided villains ever.
What really makes this movie a joy to watch is that it's extremely beautiful. Especially on Blu-Ray.
|
Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:27 am |
|
 |
Mandeep
The Dark Knight
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:22 pm Posts: 740
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
plus the blue ray is super cheap at Best buy
_________________ ACH! Unsere Unterseeboot sind stiehlen mit eine dog und baby und Art Garfunkel!
|
Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:25 pm |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
Watched the Director's Cut again yesterday and this movie is amazing. This would have been an easy all-time contender if it wouldn't have Bloom as lead. He is just bad bad bad. He looks the whole movie like he's dead inside, such a joyless, boring performance. There's not a bit of life in Bloom's Balian. I will never ever understand why he had to be the lead of this. This is probably the one casting choice in film history I hate the most.
|
Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:26 am |
|
 |
lilmac
Veteran
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:07 am Posts: 3225
|
 Re: Kingdom of Heaven
After Justice League I decided to see other well-received directors cut. This is one of them. The original KoH was forgettable. I really enjoyed Ridley Scott's special edition.
_________________ I believe in God as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
I was blind, but now I see.
|
Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:00 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|