Kingdom of Heaven

Theatrical cut: 3/5 The movie chugs along pleasantly throughout its running time, but is nothing earth-shattering. So Alexander remains the best historical picture of recent months, although Kingdom is certainly worth seeing on the big screen. Director’s cut: 5/5 Historically more accurate (but not completely), more ambitious in terms of message and the characters suddenly have absolutely convincing motivation. It is almost incredible that by adding just that one storyline involving Sibylla’s son fundamentally changes the motivation, actions and overall impression given by all of the main protagonists and therefore of the entire movie. And, rather paradoxically, despite its considerably longer running time, it becomes far more hard-hitting than the theatrical cut, so much so that it is the best historical epic of the past few decades. (08/05/2005)

The director's cut is something incredible! I didn't think I'd ever like Orlando Bloom... And lo and behold, his Balian was good! Big kudos to all the filmmakers - from the director to the music composer to the set designers, costume designers and the guys who provided towels and cold water on set. Kingdom of Heaven IS on the same level as Gladiator. Actually, no, it's even better! Nobody makes historical films like Ridley Scott. Awesome, awesome, awesome. (14/01/2008)

Another historical film that needs to be seen at least twice in order to understand the plot and expressive depth that it possesses (similar to Alexander). Not every viewer will be able to reconcile with the fact that Kingdom of Heaven is not a typical historical film with everything that comes with it, but that it expresses something more through historical events, battles, love, and characters, than just what happens on the screen. This is even more pronounced than in Alexander. Kingdom of Heaven is an ode to world peace and finding the meaning of life. It is narrated, acted, and directed in a captivating way (the director's cut). Ridley Scott grabbed the reins and made a smart film that not everyone will see through. (19/05/2005)

A disappointment that I want to forget very quickly. I was expecting quite a lot, but all I got was a dusty, tired story with a model instead of an actor in the lead role that put me vehemently to sleep from the middle. I could have managed an hour and a half, but 144 minutes of political and moral talk and a final spectacular battle for 130 million, I could only barely stand that. I was even sorry for the other brilliant actors who wasted their times here. (10/08/2022)

In the cinema version, the editor's hand was all too evident, Balian's rise up the ladder of social prestige is too hasty. As if the change from an insignificant blacksmith's nobody to a man who becomes the king's favourite, and to whom all Jerusalem bows down in the end and listens to his word in its moments of need, could be so simple. Unfortunately, the almost one hour longer director's cut that I just got my hands on didn't do much to improve my impression in this regard. Even so, the added scenes make the film feel more whole and much more emotional, especially with the added storyline of the illness and death of Sibylla's son and heir to the throne, which is quite crucial to the development of the plot. Also very nice is the added scene with the burning bush, full of symbolism of the nature of warfare in the Middle East. But there are also some scenes that don’t make much sense for the development of the plot. Bottom line: Scott's magnum opus isn't a riveting film, but it is insightful and thoughtful, with an ambition to make a point, and that's appreciated. And the final peace deal between Balian and Saladin, Christian and Muslim, must be a literal caress for every peacenik on this earth :o) (15/12/2006)