• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven is an overwhelming spectacle

SJRB

Gold Member
I just finished watching the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven and holy shit what a ride, I need to rant about this one. I never saw this movie before and aside from the Crusades and Jerusalem had no idea what it was about. Clocking in at a length of 3 hours 20 minutes this movie is an experience.

It starts off in the most cliché way possible with the outcast hero getting betrayed by his brother who is so comically evil it's hilarious. It takes about five minutes before the movie pulls the classic hero path of "guess what you're the son of royalty, let's go on an adventure to claim what's yours", and the first maybe hour or so is him basically falling upwards in a huge way. As fate would have it his dad is a hugely influential crusader, loved and respected by literally everyone so naturally everyone immediately loves and respects the protagonist. Also the protagonist is amazing at everything, is an incredible swordsman and a genius engineer. All this feels like a typical early 2000-era movie and honestly aside from the stellar cast and insane visuals it's not really a strong start.

But the movie actually makes quite a pivot once the main character reaches Jerusalem and it suddenly switches off the kind of swashbuckling adventure vibes and goes full serious mode. Suddenly it is all about politics, intrigue, love, loyalty and betrayal. He meets the King of Jerusalem (hypnotizing performance from Edward Norton who even behind a mask delivers amazing work) who asks him for loyalty but he refuses.
There's the jealousy among knights, the rapid deterioration of the King's health and the looming threat of Saladin's Muslim forces, eagerly awaiting to take back Jerusalem from the Christians. Both the King and Saladin would prefer peace instead of war, but both have people in their council who would do anything to instigate a war. This whole part of history is insane. I've been reading up about it the last few weeks and it is unbelievable, the things that happened back then.

There's also plenty of downtime. The protagonist gets allotted the land of his father where the movie spends probably 45 minutes of him teaching agriculture and water engineering works. Seriously, it's like 45 minutes of them digging wells, building aqueducts, growing crops. It's crazy.

Anyway, the whole movie you're just along for the ride, not sure where it is going but at some point you realize there's going to be a battle. And by god, what a battle. The Battle for Jerusalem. I've never seen such a huge battlefield in a movie in my life. The amount of people involved in these shots is insane. It is literally 45 minutes of full-on siege warfare on an insane scale. Plus an amazing payoff in the epilogue showing the pointlessness of it all. And endless cycle of bloodshed over a piece of land. Very poignant.

Just like every man thinks about the Roman Empire on a daily basis, I'm sure almost every man thinks about the Crusades in some way or form on a regular basis. Go watch this movie asap. Some things feel archaic, like the cliché antagonist's over-the-top hatred for the protagonist, but the visuals, the scale, the spectacle are overwhelming.

Banger cast: Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Marton Csokas, David Thewlis, Martin Sheen.

07F53C80FE37B4DB1925BC04985CCCB89758E50F


A5F072CCB7396EF7E80D24BC56DCFEB3615C825D


hjGKh4G.gif
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Yes the director's cut is a legit great movie. The original cuts so much that it might be a different movie.

And it's also objectively....bad?

Director's Cut is the only way to go.

Some things feel archaic, like the cliché antagonist's over-the-top hatred for the protagonist, but the visuals, the scale, the spectacle are overwhelming.

I dug the scene where Bloom gives him a chance for redemption.
 
Last edited:

T.v

Member
The DC is one of my all time favorites. Bloom gets a lot of shit for his performance, but I'd say he fits the part perfectly. He's supposed to be a guy surrounded by greats and he does that well.
 

FeralEcho

Member
King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem is one of my all-time favourite kings in history and Edward Norton did him justice with his portrayal in the movie.Amazing actor and performance.

King Baldwin was an unbelievably wise king for his age especially when you take in the fact that his own body was a hindrance to him due to his disease. He would've done so many incredible things had he lived longer.
 

mclaren777

Member
I recently wanted the VFX breakdown for Napoleon and I was greatly disappointed by the heavy use of CGI. The GIF you posted of the horsemen encircling their opponents is the kind of moviemaking we may never see again. :(

 

SJRB

Gold Member
The DC is one of my all time favorites. Bloom gets a lot of shit for his performance, but I'd say he fits the part perfectly. He's supposed to be a guy surrounded by greats and he does that well.

He tries his best but I don't think Orlando Bloom is an actor with the range or on-screen presence required for such a massive movie, especially when standing next to legendary actors like Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons or Eva Green. His character's extreme stoicism also doesn't help, but there are a lot of moments (when he delivers a speech to rile up the men for example) where I felt it lacked the on-screen presence and power necessary.

I would honestly say his casting is the movie's biggest flaw.
 
Last edited:

DaciaJC

Gold Member
It's a decent movie as far as general entertainment goes, but an authentic depiction of the Crusades it is not. Ridley Scott filters the setting and characters through a modernistic lens and paints certain personalities in a very one-sided manner.

 

Tams

Member
I've only ever seen Dodgy Dave's Special Version from the market, so I think it's time I watched the proper version.
 

T.v

Member
He tries his best but I don't think Orlando Bloom is an actor with the range or on-screen presence required for such a massive movie, especially when standing next to legendary actors like Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons or Eva Green. His character's extreme stoicism also doesn't help, but there are a lot of moments (when he delivers a speech to rile up the men for example) where I felt it lacked the on-screen presence and power necessary.

I would honestly say his casting is the movie's biggest flaw.
Oh you're right. He pales in comparison to some, if not most of the actors around him and it might be a cheap way of justifying his performance to say it fits, but I do think it does in this case. I have a hard time imagining his role differently in any case.
 

HoodWinked

Member
It's funny, Ridley mockingly portrays the crusaders as fanatic and wreckless but it backfires because it just makes you want to join up in arms when someone shouts "deus vult, god wills it".

 

jufonuk

not tag worthy
Yes the director's cut is a legit great movie. The original cuts so much that it might be a different movie.
I watched the original first. Didn’t rate it. The directors cut is amazing.

Wonder if Prometheus has a directors cut that makes it watchable ?
 

Burger

Member
I recently wanted the VFX breakdown for Napoleon and I was greatly disappointed by the heavy use of CGI. The GIF you posted of the horsemen encircling their opponents is the kind of moviemaking we may never see again. :(



What?

The 2 Gifs in the OP showing multitudes of horses ARE VFX! Created by MPC using internal crowd tools.
 
Wasn't this the first movie to use the MASSIVE crowd software after LOTR? Or maybe it was I, Robot. Anyway the armies look incredible.
Maybe it will get a 4k restoration for the 20th anniversary.
 

Mattdaddy

Gold Member
Yes the director's cut is a legit great movie. The original cuts so much that it might be a different movie.

Same dude. I remember seeing the original in theaters and being really disappointed. This was coming hot off the heels of Gladiator which I loved... then I saw this and thought it was mediocre at best.

Then eventually I gave it another watch with the Directors Cut and holy shit its one of my favorite movies ever.

Its got to be one of the more robust directors cut out there.
 
Last edited:

Burger

Member
Wasn't this the first movie to use the MASSIVE crowd software after LOTR? Or maybe it was I, Robot. Anyway the armies look incredible.
Maybe it will get a 4k restoration for the 20th anniversary.
Internal tool, ALICE:

"Once the mo-cap was in place, it needed to be processed to integrate into MPC’s proprietary crowd simulation tool – ALICE. The major difference to the work to be created for Kingdom of Heaven was the necessity for quadrupeds, and subsequently the need for mounted riders on horseback. The challenge facing the R and D team was to find a way for the AI of one agent (the horse) to directly drive the AI of another agent (the rider.) This way, in the final renders, it appears – as in real life – as though the rider inherits motion from the horse."
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Absolutely amazing movie and the director's version is even better.

Yes, i loved the movie when it first came out. pretty much all the best scenes are in it including the insane seige battles. the Director's cut is definitely better but i was mesmerized by edward norton and saladin's actors performances. orlando bloom sucks in that role but honestly they didnt give him much to work with.

the only thing id change is that they made the french complete bastards. donald gleeson and the other guy were cartoonishly evil. i get that christians did some horrible shit back in the day but a little more nuance wouldve made them a bit more likeable.

and yes, when richard lionheart came looking for orlando bloom, i was like yes! kingdom of heaven 2! lets fucking go! Thats how much i loved this movie lol
 

calistan

Member
I just got the blu-ray because of this thread, and holy shit was this ever a proper epic. I can't believe I hadn't heard of it before. I think I was in a non-movie-watching phase when this came out. It's Gladiator x10.

The one thing I didn't like is the frequent use of stuttery slow-mo. What's that all about? I always associate that with cheap TV shows like the A-Team - stunt on camera 1, replay on camera 2, then again at 10 frames per second. It looks shit, but Ridley Scott uses it throughout this film. The battle scenes where he didn't slow it down for emphasis are so much better.
 
Top Bottom