Night at the Movies - Kingdom of Heaven

[Scrivener]

Sorry about the double thread, I didn't see the original. Wrong forum?

Kingdom of Heaven was friggin GREAT. Moreso, all of my predictions were absolutely true. The only bad wrap the movie is getting is because its reasonable even-handed portrayal of both sides. I can assure you that any nay-sayers are the same type that insisted The Passion was antisemetic. They are ignorant uneducated louts.

As much time as I have spent studying and reading about the crusades, this is as realistic and believable as I might have hoped for. Unfortunately, the drastic last-minute cuts have had an obvious negative effect on the films editing. It's quite a bit on the choppy side and feels very rushed (You're not always given enough time to figure out what's going on). If you need a comparison, it's like the original theatrical release of Fellowship of the Ring.

The only serious problem I had is that all the poltical nuances (such as the reason Godfrey would want a bastard as his heir, and why that was controversial) are not really covered for the unfamiliar. It's obvious that these were the scenes most heavily cut. Why do studios always cut the character development first, and leave the excess action?

8.5/10

Note: Kingdom of Heaven has perfect-10 potential, but the cuts really hurt the film - both in pacing and intelligibility. If you're not as privy on medieval politics as I am, there's a good chance you'll be left as lost and angry as most of the critics are. Here's hoping the extended uncut DVD remedies these problems.

[Supreme Cmdr]

Whats the gore factor on a scale of 1 to 10, with LOTR being a 5 (watchable) and Sin City being a 15?

[Marvin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scrivener:

Why do studios always cut the character development first, and leave the excess action?

---

A rhetorical question, I'm sure. The full version will eventually arrive via DVD.

[Scrivener]

If LOTR is a 5, then this is maybe a 6. It's really not that bad at all (you basically have tons of humans instead of orcs) and had it been released 20 years ago it would have been PG13, not R. The most 'graphic' scene in the movie overlooks the results of a terrible 1-sided battle. Basically, the Christians get massacred for being stupid.

There's not really much blood - not even as much as Gladiator, I think. Moreso, anything that might have been gruesome is done conveniently off-camera in typical Ridley Scott style (it really bugs me when the camera does my flinching for me). I would have liked to see some limbs come off or something but, alas, there is absolutely none of that at all.

Again, my only real complaint is that the character development gets cut out in favor of the action. As well done as the action is, it feels a little 'heavy,' especially in light that the motivations for almost all of the characters is missing. Especially the first act, which is nearly incomprehensible on account of the draconian cuts. There are so many wonderful, inspirational characters here and we learn so little about them.

I still enjoyed it on account that it was a failry authentic medieval themed movie - of which we have very, very few (The Last Valley remains my favorite, I think).

[Supreme Cmdr]

Just saw this and I REALLY liked it!!! And Scriv is 100% right in his review above.

I know about the history and politics of the crusade as well and I'm really - REALLY - glad about how even sided Ridley made this film. It was truly a feat all in itself.

I can't believe I waited this long to see it. I am definitely looking forward to the uncut DVD version.

9/10