|
|
Rating:  - Kingdom of Heaven (what was missed in the cut version)
What you will expect is a whole new movie that makes sense (sic)? It should never have been cut in the first place. When Kingdom of Heaven was cut up it was disjointed with the characters leaving many questions and even less answers. It was some time later that one of my Crusader re-enactor friends had to fill me in on the Director's Cut. It was an epiphany for me and my sons to suddenly see this beautiful movie come together in one of the great wide screen spectaculars (as it was meant to be)! The fact that "Gladiator" was such the hit, "Black Hawk Down", and other of Sir Ridley Scott's many great film artistry indicates to me that some malevolent forces were at work to undermine this particular work. I hope I am wrong, but history will attest that Sir Ridley's "Gladiator's" popularity with the film industry had to upset some of the brahmans to the point of putting the kibosh on this later work (Kingdom of Heaven).
I encourage everyone of the Sir Ridley Scott following to get the "Director's Cut" and enjoy this well made and meaningful movie to it's full extent!
Rating: - I recommend the Director's Cut
I first watched Kingdom of Heaven in its theatrical release version, and could have given it a 4/5. The effects are good, filming is fabulously done, and it is pieced together well. And of course, the music is by Harry Gregson-Williams, which means that it is a soundtrack worth purchasing! However, some of the historical facts were a little off, some things omitted, others added - you know, common things that go on in historical movies. Just about all of the omissions are actual in existence - on the Director's Cut - which is much more complete. Most of the additional scenes are actual vital for historical accuracy, character development, and a more balanced view of the Muslims (the theatrical release showed actually very little of them - and Saladin was the only obviously intelligent one, although none of them are "stupid"). The viewer's understanding of Sibylla changes drastically in the Director's Cut; I know I was not the only one bewildered by her unexpected character change in the theatrical release (her character development happens in the half hour cut in between).
Honestly, unless you are watching a History Channel special on the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven is probably one of the most accurate Crusades-era films made. If you want the history, get the facts; that's what I do. But don't pass up this great film!
Rating: - Great Film - Director's Cut is Even Better!
Ridley Scott is a brilliant artist, and this feature gives a wonderful look into his filmmaking mind. From the detailed historical features, to the Ridleygrams, there is a virtual smorgasbord of interesting and informative special features. This is a perfect gift for a budding historian, filmmakers, artist, and or actor.
Rating:  - Shockingly awful
Unfortunately, you should quickly cancel your order for this one. Ridley must have been ill. One of the worst movies ever. No story. Cheesy special effects. Bad blu-ray. Just awful. Almost as bad as Speed 2.
Rating:  - Good message behind an average movie
Kingdom of Heaven confronts religious extremism as the bane of all evil. Using the Crusades as a backdrop, Christianity and Islam square off nearly 1000 years ago just as the major religions of the world do today. Battles over Jerusalem and concerns about what the city means to the world have been at the center of much human suffering for centuries. The tone of the film is greatly enhanced because its main character isn't particularly religious, and the film dissuades the viewer from taking sides, creating no demonized enemy, but rather a mesh of human beings being humans. Thus, this film is a true epic about our actual lives and histories and not about those men of virtue and bravery and evil and cowardice who exist only as abstracted myth.
Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is cast in this film. He simply does not have the charisma to carry a movie as its star. He has only one or two expressions throughout the entire film, and he is completely surrounded by great actors who make him look silly. This drags the movie down for me, because he has a lot of screen time. I love the ideas behind the film, but I don't like it when I'm watching a film and just know that I'm watching an actor try to act and fail. I have yet to see a convincing performance by Bloom and cannot understand why he is so popular. At least someone like Keanu Reeves has charm despite his inability to act consistently.
The romance is completely copied and pasted. Boring.
In the end, the film is average to me. It tells a familiar tale, but I will admit that the timeliness of the film is at least interesting.
|
|