[.ca] Kingdom Of Heaven (2-Disc Widescreen)

From Amazon.com:
It's hard to believe Ridley Scott's handsome epic won't become the cinematic touchstone of the Crusades for years to come. Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the sum of its parts, delivering a vital, mostly engrossing tale following Balian (Orlando Bloom), a lonely French blacksmith who discovers he's a noble heir and takes his father's (Liam Neeson) place in the center of the universe circa 1184: Jerusalem. Here, grand battles and backdoor politics are key as Scott and first-time screenwriter William Monahan fashion an excellent storyline to tackle the centuries-long conflict. Two forward-thinking kings, Baldwin (Edward Norton in an uncredited yet substantial role) and Saladin (Ghassan Massoud), hold an uneasy truce between Christians (who hold the city) and Muslims while factions champ at the bit for blood. There are good and evildoers on both sides, with the Knights Templar taking the brunt of the blame; Balian plans to find his soul while protecting Baldwin and the people. The look of the film, as nearly everything is from Scott, is impressive: his CGI-infused battle scenes rival the LOTR series and, with cinematographer John Mathieson, create postcard beauty with snowy French forests and the vast desert (filmed in Morocco and Spain). An excellent supporting cast, including Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, and David Thewlis, also help make the head and heart of the film work. Many critics pointed out that Bloom doesn't have the gravitas of Russell Crowe in the lead (then again, who does?), but it's the underdeveloped character and not the actor that hurts the film and impacts its power. Balian isn't given much more to do than be sullen and give an occasional big speech, alongside his perplexing abilities for warfare tactics and his wandering moral compass (whose sole purpose seems to be to put a love scene in the movie). Note: all the major characters except Neeson's are based on fact, but many are heavily fictionalized. --Doug Thomas

Kingdom of Heaven is a decent epic:
The film isn't incredibly memorable; it won't go into the annals of filmdom like `Lawrence of Arabia,' `Lord of the Rings' or `Gladiator.' To me this film can be viewed on a rainy day. `Kingdom of Heaven' has the action, excitement, and interest. The story, the cinematography, and the acting are fine as well but I think the film misses its attempt to have an emotional core. It's primary focus is on the politics of the situation between the Christians and Muslims and the kings of both sides. But all films require an emotional core around the central characters to work well, or it's just pages out of a fictional textbook. Part of the problem is the writing. The writers mention the tragic loss of the lead character's wife, and there is a very touching scene on the Mount, but then the matter is subsequently dropped. The writers mention the need of the lead character to redeem himself, and it is barely mentioned again until the very end. This redemption does have a nice payoff at the end, but by the time that happens you've forgotten all about it. There is also a minor plot element regarding a romance between two characters, but that too is almost forgotten until the end (where there isn't the best payoff). The other problem is Orlando Bloom. He simply lacks the passion to be a lead character. He is fine in the broody, silent, reflective moments, but he does not project any sort of passion when required. He can't portray anger, or grief, or inspiration, or joy very well. It's something he should clearly work on, it's going to keep him back from truly being a great actor. The film does have redeeming moments, such as the siege of Jerusalem and the humor only brothers-in-arms could create, much less appreciate. The cinematography, set design and costumes are beautiful, and the action is believable and exciting yet not gory. Ridley Scott's `Kingdom of Heaven' is a good epic and for those who likes this genre will enjoy it.

Awesome:
This is a super-passionate, super-intense, super well-done film. I wanted to see it in the theaters, and I'm really glad I installed my surround sound on the HD Plasma TV before I got this disc. Awesome!

Great but not perfect, and I'm not sure exactly why.:
Quickly: a good epic, more historically accurate then I guessed, a bit preachy when you think about modern relavence. Summary: Blacksmith who's wife commits suicide is recruited by his father to join the Crusades and purge his and his wife's sins in Jerusalem by defending the city from Muslims. Father and son bonding followed by father dieing and making the boy a knight and giving him the task of saving the people of Jerusalem. A Lepper king keeps the peace but doesn't last long. An evil ambitious knight gets the trone, and starts a war. Jerusalem is seiged and it's up to the lone Knight (the son) to save her. That's basically it, but it's a Ridley Scott movie so there is of course 100 other things going on and many sub-plots. The Good: the battle scenes were amazing. Very brutal and very real looking. 99% of the characters were deep enough to be believe and well acted. The story was definately epic and took in a long time period. The story wasn't that contrived, you didn't sit there at the begining of the movie and guess what the ending was. It didn't have the fairytale ending I expected, though it was still a little 'nice', but a far cry from most Hollywood happy endings. The Saladin character was done perfectly, I actually liked him way more then any of the 'good' guys. The seige at the end even if a bit 'hollywood' was great to watch and made me really want to play Warhammer. The DVD special features were pretty good, there was a good mix and the 2nd A & E documentary was excellent. The Bad: There were times when the pacing just didn't keep up. You would jump from a great battle to a lul that lasted too long. According to the special features this was done so that the audience wouldn't get exhausted by action, I think that may have been preferable. The first A & E documentary was horrible. It was supposed to tell you what was fact and what was fiction but only really existed to promote the movie. The hollywooding up of the Siege was annoying. It was a great scene but why was EVERYTHING on fire. Every arrow shot, every rock hurled, everything had to be on fire and blow up when it hit something. They took the one good knight thing a bit far. This is also typicall hollywood, where the one hero does it all, everything! Ever discussion, every fight, every battle, he had to be there as the voice of reason or the heroic saviour. The Ugly: This didn't bother me but I know it bothered at least one person I watched this with: the battles and some other seens were rather gory. I found it added to the realism, but it is a bit much for a weak stomach. The historical editing. You know most of this was taken from history, which supprised me, but what I hated is that they took years of time and compressed them to what felt like a couple weeks in the movie. This ruined certain characters. For example Reignald (sp) was to have spent 15 years in a Muslim prision, that was his driving reason for breaking the truce. In the movie he was mad long before being imprisioned and it felt like he was only in there for a week or so. This isn't the only instance. Overall: This was pretty good. I should have loved it, based on the time period and the story, but for some reason it was just okay. Well actually it's better then okay, but I just wasn't great. I can't even put a finger on exactly what was wrong, or what they could have done to fix it. It's worht seeing, and then definately watch the 2nd A & E documentary and find out just how much of the movie WAS based on fact (that was very suprising). I suggest a rent though, though I can see some people buying just to watch certain battles over again and again. Final note: the one thing that I think bothered me about this is the parallel to modern times. It just feels like Ridley was making some social commentary (We should have learned from the past) that left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it's the perfect time for a movie like this to come out, maybe not. But that could be what I didn't like.

great movie,poor casting choice in lead role (4.5/5):
Kingdom of Heaven is another Ridley Scott epic,set during the time of the Crusades in the 12th century,a time of war between the Christians and the Muslims.Orlando Bloom plays Balian,a humble blacksmith who ends up traveling to Jeruselum and(inadvertently) becomes defender of the city and its people.I really enjoyed this film.Scott shows again why he is so sought after as a director.the film contains epic battle scenes,is beautifully photographed and very well paced.there only a few minor problems with the film.one is the fact that a humble blacksmith with little if any training would become a skilled warrior in the very limited time shown in the film.also the fact that this same man would then become leader of a nation.that seems a bit beyond the realm of plausibility.and the casting of Orlando bloom is really weak.He is not someone who would inspire confidence,mainly because he is too young and lacks the maturity for the role.the rest of the film is well done,very entertaining.again,it may not be historically accurate,but so what.you want historical accuracy,watch the History channel.if you want an entertaining piece of cinema,watch this movie.normally a movie this well made would rate a perfect 5* but due to the poor casting of Orlando Bloom,Kingdom of Heaven gets a 4.5/5

What is Jerusalem worth? nothing, EVEEEERYYYYYTHHHHHIIIIINGGGGG.:
Kingdom of Heaven in 2005 will be what Gladiator was in 2000. Ridley Scott has delivered a worthy follow up to his Oscar winner, which is also based on medieval times, with a central heroic character, and supporting casts of characters based on history. The sets are as spectacular, instead of just Rome and the Collesuem, we have the Middle East and Jerusalem. The costumes are beautiful, from intricately remade Knights armour, to the desert garb of the Muslim warriors. The soundtrack is a mixture of sounds with middle eastern influences, but somehow pales in comparison with Gladiator and lacks a central theme. Much is said about how the film portrays religion, given the sensitive subject of the Crusades, but I feel that Ridley has achieved a wonderful balance between how Christianity and Islam are portrayed. Both are given fair airtime on their ideologies, and the film tries to preach (pardon the pun) about tolerance, yet highlights the dangers of fanatical followers of both religions, of misguidance from men in search of worldly power. Which Christianity took a beating - where senseless battles are waged in the name of Christ, where insensitivity breed contempt. Preists are cast in negative light and given lines like "convert to Islam, repent later" when all around seems lost. It is emphasized in the show that what matters is in your head and in your heart - that noble actions speak louder than mere empty and repetitive "praise the Lord" chants, as if that will protect you during Judgement Day. Orlando Bloom plays Balian, a blacksmith who became a fugitive, but inherited land and army from his father, Godfrey, played by Liam Neeson. The film can be broadly categorized into 3 acts - the first in which Balian searches for his identity and new life in Jerusalem, the second in which the focus is on religion and politics of the time, and the last, the spectacular siege and war. Bloom puts up a commendable performance, so to his detractors out there, you're in for a big surprise. Edward Norton had the difficult task of acting through a mask as leper King Baldwin, and I applaud Ridley's decision of casting real Muslim actors to learn from them. Fans of Eva Green might be disappointed that the relationship between Balian and Queen Sibylla was played down to focus on the battles, but I feel it's a fair trade off. Firstly, some of you might not like the quick-cut-MTV style editing in Gladiator's fight scenes, especially the close ups. This is repeated here though, in a blood splattering manner. The pan-out and general landscape sweeps are mindblowing, and will leave you wanting more. Think about the battles that you see Lord of The Rings Two Towers and Return of the King - the siege on Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith - Kingdom of Heaven delivers the equivalent, probably even better (without the fantasy elements). This is one medieval war movie whose battles will stick in your mind for some time. All things said and done I found this movie to be very entertaining. It's visually stunning, reasonably well acted with a decent script and some nice characters. What it lacks in coherence and story it makes up for with a strong and quick pace (for the genre) and some truly impressive action scenes. Wolfgang Petersson and Oliver Stone should watch this before they even think of making another historic epic. Because Ridley Scott has learned the important lesson so well put in "Gladiator": the people want to be entertained The Muslim characters in the movie consists of Saladin (Ghassan Massoud)and , Muslim Grandee (Nasser Memazia who want Jerusalem for other uses such as for the nation of Islam. I should say the Muslim characters in this film get a large bulk of screen time. Furthermore, their characters are treated with respect and almost admiration. In fact Scott tells us their back story as well and we see display of Muslim religion in the movie such as Muslim praying in mosques and in the city of Jerusalem. This reminds me of the Palestian/Israeli conflict of sorts where you have both sides that believe in God but are battling for the control of one city, despite the fact that they both profess to believing in God. Some questions to ponder are these other people with religious ideals worse than we say they are, or are they merely some religious fanatics misusing the name of God for power? Couple that the moral questions that almost every character goes through and the questioning and denouncement and spiritual awakening of God and my you got yourself a thought provoking film