This entry was posted by HQ02 Staff on September 30, 2017 at 9:39 pm
Kingdom of Heaven (director’s cut) is one of my all time favorite films. Unfairly trashed for being historically inaccurate, while never claiming to be a documentary, this film is an allegory regarding an attempt to balance both sides of the conflict while following a path of attempting to fo the right thing. I respect professional historians’ refutes with the details, but don’t think that ever was the point. The message is what matters.
There's a funny anachronism in the scene where Balian discusses fortifications with Baldwin. Balian suggest a star shaped fortress, even though star fortresses didn't exist yet!
Oh, and the master disguising himself as a servant makes no sense. Being a noble is a great ticket to mercy, as you would be worth a good ransom. Pretending to be some no-name is a good way to get killed in medieval times.
My commentary on your review:
At 1:04, nope, it is not. Text can serve as a quiet introduction to build atmosphere. The fact that many successful films have done it should be a testament to that. I respect your opinion, but I feel your reasons are asinine. If films relied on exposition it would become overdone, case in point The Last Airbender (2010). 😉
At 1:07 it was referring them as class identification, so an S at the end is not necessary.
At 2:01, maybe because it is early and he just got out. 😉
At 2:34, subjective and minor. XD
At 3:48, the priest was built up as a scumbag so I had no problem. Also, if you walked up to a grieving warrior in the middle ages and tell them their beloved is burning in hell, they likely would want to shank your ass. Remember, middle ages. 😉
At 4:44, it was the sheriff's posse. Why would he not want to bring a posse to apprehend a killer? Plus Godfrey refused to give Balian up, so what did you think would happen?
At 6:04, it was so he would remember. Actually listen to the dialogue. Afterwards he is knighted to represent Ibelin.
At 6:35, it is not like sole survivors have not been done before or have happened in real life (sarcasm). XD
At 7:23, dialogue in the film states that Balian fought in battles before prior to the film. pay attention.
At 8:33, who is Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale. LOL XD
At 9:23, well that is inheritance, and they were expecting him. It is why Godfrey went to France, to retrieve his son.
At 10:52, https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder225/57293225.jpg 😉
At 12:09, THIS IS THE CRUSADES! (kicks you into hole 300 style) 😉
At 12:25, that actually happened when the Templars attacked a Muslim caravan because Reynald hated them.
At 13:00, no one has to look up anything if they do not want to and what is the big deal with looking stuff up after films? I see it as a good thing as it digging into it further.
At 13:57, did it ever occur to you that Imad was putting on an act so he would not be killed? Apparently not. Balian fought honorably and spared Imad, so he repaid it.
At 14:15, it was a move to defend Kerak, to keep the Muslim force out, not start a full blown war. Raynald wanted to start a war.
At 15:04, the point was to show this was a loveless marriage.
At 15:43, http://memestorage.com/_nw/21/11930671.jpg
At 16:11, well, they are partners.
At 16:45, Balian and the Hospitaller are discussing faith and belief.
At 17:39, they are the Teutonic Knights.
At 18:01, idiots, more like deranged and bloodthirsty, I'd say.
At 18:18, she had no choice.
At 19:29, Balian was inspiring the people to rise up, believe in themselves, and fight. There is no other choice there.
At 20:08, the civilians are safe as the catapult fire is focused on the WALLS to break them open and not the city. Plus Balian is with his troops in that scene. Again, pay attention.
At 20:50 she was leaving her status as queen as she had lost everything and due to the impending taking of the city.
At 21:11, it is called preparing for the worst, that happens in war.
At 21:32, all the exits were likely covered anyway. Otherwise, the Muslims would not need to break down the walls. As for a wall of fire, there would not be the time/resources to put that up then.
At 22:39, it was a stalemate and that is rather how it went down in real life. Balian's first concern was the people, so he made a sacrifice.
At 22:48, because it is belief/faith, which was a point of the religious conflict.
At 23:01, he was an antagonist, what do you expect? It has been done before. 😉
At 23:06, or it was not necessary. 😉
At 23:09, it was showing that Balian was the better man and showing Guy humility.
At 23:40, the film was basically giving a look at the crusades from a contemporary look at the Crusades.
At 24:11, the amount of historians defending the film would like to say hello, LOL. XD
At, 24:36, I respectfully disagree as Scott focused on character development and plot development and each scene helps in setting it all up. This is a very character driven piece.
In conclusion, I feel you missed out on a lot of major points or missed out on what was going on, or made pointless nitpicks. BTW, this is not an attack on you or your opinion, merely a constructive critique.
If you want to know how accurate this movie is look up history buffs review of this movie it enlightening
holy shit the actor who plays salahdeen is the same guy who plays abu bakar in the umar series
21:11 "Hey, what's that on the ground? is that the script?"
Very entertaining review ! Subscribed.
I don't find opening a movie with text cheap or lazy, especially a historical epic. It quickly sets the stage and provides context in a way that would be perhaps impossible to do otherwise and from a dramatic standpoint can build anticipation for the movie to come.
Damn this was funny! Excellent review. 🙂
Comments are disabled for this post.