Kingdom of Heaven
May. 8th, 2005 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scottishlassOkay, so I saw the movie now. My review is quite long so I put it behind a cut
First off, here is a short summary:
A French Lord seeks out his bastard son, Balian, who works as a blacksmith. Balian has recently lost not only his newborn son but also his wife who was so grief stricken that she killed herself. The villagers as well as the village priest shun him, the priest even going as far as taunting him with the prospect of Balian's wife being in hell.
He kills the priest and follows Godfrey of Ibelin. Because of Balian, Ibelin gets wounded and they only get as far as Messina where Godfrey names Balian his rightful heir and makes him knight.
Balian arrives in Jerusalem, on his way there he makes a powerful friend, not knowing he spared the life of Saladdin's advisor. He quickly becomes both friend and enemy to the powerful royal family of Jerusalem as well as the Templars and with ingenuity tries to defend Jerusalem and even though the Kingdom of Heaven is lost in the struggle he is finding peace and solace.
THE BAD:
- The transition of Balian from the God-less blacksmith to a rightful knight was a bit too quickly. The education of a knight took 2x7 years in medieval times.
- The all too quick acceptance of Balian as Godfrey's rightful heir in the Holy Lands.
- After having me suffer through the tedium of Gladiator's inner struggle and honour-bound revenge tale, this movie was far too quickly over. Ridley Scott could have elaborated on some of the finer and IMHO stronger points of the story, the wary friendship that was based on mutual respect between Baldwin and Saladdin, the love story between Balian and Sibylla, the inner political complexities at Baldwin's court.
There is so much more I would have loved to see without taking away from the movie as it is now, so I hope Scott will include that in the DVD extended version.
"How can you be in Hell when you are in my heart!"
THE GOOD:
I LOOOOOVED the music, very period, very Arabic. The cinematography was breath-taking and grand. The cool blues, the greys, representing Europe and its rigid backwardness, the brilliance of Messina, the brilliant blue and sand tones of Outremer, it all played a part in this movie and IMHO showed the cultural differences between these lands. Backward Europe with its crude knights, power-hungry and in the face of the enemy cowardly (the Bishop of Jerusalem telling the knights to convert to Islam in order to get spared), meeting the islamic, more advanced (since then we are using their numerical system) culture that was still all about the ppl and not about fundamentalistic fervour. Baldwin's court was a good blend of both worlds, more influenced by the Arabic than medieval Europe IMHO.
Ridley Scott did a very good job. Even though we have a lot of medieval texts and scriptures about the crusades and a lot has been researched and also written about this particular time, Ridley portrayed it wth a good mix of historic authenticity and yet make belief. All in all historically an Oh-Kay film. I didn't cringe too much at the historically incorrect facts, but I liked it that they portrayed Jerusalem as a kingdom of free religion, something that since that time it never has been ever again (even now it is not the kingdom of heaven it was at that time). The one thing I didn't like was the portrayal of the Templars, not all were like Guy de Lusignon and Renard de Chatillon, but then again the Templars hadn't risen to riches during that time for nothing.
I loved the battle scenes, they were authentic as authentic you can get IMHO. What was missing was that the horses did not act as typical Knight's horses. In the end of the 11th century most horses for battle were palfreys, especially trained for battle and they were able to caper as well as do the Ballotade, which is basically hitting all approaching knights with its hind legs. But anyway ... the fights and battles were superb as well as the choreography and the shooting.
"Making a man a knight doesn't make him a better fighter!"
"YES!"
As to the acting ... Liam Neeson (I was very impressed with his deathbed voice - I really thought he was dying), David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Marton Csokas and Hassan Massoud were very good, each character is based on an authentic person from the time of the 2nd Crusade and even though Gleeson and Csokas were the baddies, esp. Gleeson (during the scene with Saladdin's sister) showed that there is still something good in him even though he really tries to negate it due to his greed. Csokas as the greedy and power-hungry Guy was brilliant.
I loved the very quiet, elegant acting of Hassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig, they portrayed their respective characters as the great warriors and humanistic ppl they were and were always mentioned in the medieval texts (In the third crusade with Richard Lionheart, he and Saladdin even became friends).
OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCES:
Jeremy Irons and Edward Norton. WOW! Very good. I was very impressed again (after so many failures) with Jeremy Irons... this is the actor I really loved in the eighties. He played it with restrained intensity. I loved it very much and I really felt with Tiberias who just like Baldwin had struggled hard to keep the very fragile peace.
"What's the worth of Jerusalem?"
"Nothing"
"ALL!"
Now, before I come to the end of my impressions with the movie, I have to mention Orlando Bloom. No fangirl SQUEE here. He played Balian with great care, no eye-brow wiggling (THANK GOD!) and after the first 15 minutes he was Balian for me and not OB Hottie Du Jour. I really had my doubts that he could pull off the lead role but he put my fears to rest. He was damn good and he CAN ACT! Especially he could hold his own in scenes with Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons and when he was alone ... he was enigmatic.
My favourite scene is and probably will be the speech about Jerusalem as well as the rise a knight scene. These should be included in any further resume of this guy.
Well Done, Orlando!
(One thing which bugs me though: When he was wounded and then afterwards examined, Balian did not grimace because of the pain, in fact he really didn't seem too affected of the wound ... does that mean Scott hinted at that he was infected with leprosy? Baldwin didn't feel pain and it was mentioned that it is a symptom of leprosy)
All in all, a very interesting and also very valid film for our day and age. In the aftermath of 9/11 this movie hopefully will make a difference. It might not do well at the US Box office, but hopefully anywhere else in the world. After all the bloodshed that is still ongoing even after almost 1000 years between Muslims and Christians and Jews, this movie is showing that there was a time and also should be a time again where respect and tolerance should reign over thirst for power and intolerance, where free religion will spawn more trust and community sense than segregation of religions and questions of theocratic supremacy.
First off, here is a short summary:
A French Lord seeks out his bastard son, Balian, who works as a blacksmith. Balian has recently lost not only his newborn son but also his wife who was so grief stricken that she killed herself. The villagers as well as the village priest shun him, the priest even going as far as taunting him with the prospect of Balian's wife being in hell.
He kills the priest and follows Godfrey of Ibelin. Because of Balian, Ibelin gets wounded and they only get as far as Messina where Godfrey names Balian his rightful heir and makes him knight.
Balian arrives in Jerusalem, on his way there he makes a powerful friend, not knowing he spared the life of Saladdin's advisor. He quickly becomes both friend and enemy to the powerful royal family of Jerusalem as well as the Templars and with ingenuity tries to defend Jerusalem and even though the Kingdom of Heaven is lost in the struggle he is finding peace and solace.
THE BAD:
- The transition of Balian from the God-less blacksmith to a rightful knight was a bit too quickly. The education of a knight took 2x7 years in medieval times.
- The all too quick acceptance of Balian as Godfrey's rightful heir in the Holy Lands.
- After having me suffer through the tedium of Gladiator's inner struggle and honour-bound revenge tale, this movie was far too quickly over. Ridley Scott could have elaborated on some of the finer and IMHO stronger points of the story, the wary friendship that was based on mutual respect between Baldwin and Saladdin, the love story between Balian and Sibylla, the inner political complexities at Baldwin's court.
There is so much more I would have loved to see without taking away from the movie as it is now, so I hope Scott will include that in the DVD extended version.
"How can you be in Hell when you are in my heart!"
THE GOOD:
I LOOOOOVED the music, very period, very Arabic. The cinematography was breath-taking and grand. The cool blues, the greys, representing Europe and its rigid backwardness, the brilliance of Messina, the brilliant blue and sand tones of Outremer, it all played a part in this movie and IMHO showed the cultural differences between these lands. Backward Europe with its crude knights, power-hungry and in the face of the enemy cowardly (the Bishop of Jerusalem telling the knights to convert to Islam in order to get spared), meeting the islamic, more advanced (since then we are using their numerical system) culture that was still all about the ppl and not about fundamentalistic fervour. Baldwin's court was a good blend of both worlds, more influenced by the Arabic than medieval Europe IMHO.
Ridley Scott did a very good job. Even though we have a lot of medieval texts and scriptures about the crusades and a lot has been researched and also written about this particular time, Ridley portrayed it wth a good mix of historic authenticity and yet make belief. All in all historically an Oh-Kay film. I didn't cringe too much at the historically incorrect facts, but I liked it that they portrayed Jerusalem as a kingdom of free religion, something that since that time it never has been ever again (even now it is not the kingdom of heaven it was at that time). The one thing I didn't like was the portrayal of the Templars, not all were like Guy de Lusignon and Renard de Chatillon, but then again the Templars hadn't risen to riches during that time for nothing.
I loved the battle scenes, they were authentic as authentic you can get IMHO. What was missing was that the horses did not act as typical Knight's horses. In the end of the 11th century most horses for battle were palfreys, especially trained for battle and they were able to caper as well as do the Ballotade, which is basically hitting all approaching knights with its hind legs. But anyway ... the fights and battles were superb as well as the choreography and the shooting.
"Making a man a knight doesn't make him a better fighter!"
"YES!"
As to the acting ... Liam Neeson (I was very impressed with his deathbed voice - I really thought he was dying), David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Marton Csokas and Hassan Massoud were very good, each character is based on an authentic person from the time of the 2nd Crusade and even though Gleeson and Csokas were the baddies, esp. Gleeson (during the scene with Saladdin's sister) showed that there is still something good in him even though he really tries to negate it due to his greed. Csokas as the greedy and power-hungry Guy was brilliant.
I loved the very quiet, elegant acting of Hassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig, they portrayed their respective characters as the great warriors and humanistic ppl they were and were always mentioned in the medieval texts (In the third crusade with Richard Lionheart, he and Saladdin even became friends).
OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCES:
Jeremy Irons and Edward Norton. WOW! Very good. I was very impressed again (after so many failures) with Jeremy Irons... this is the actor I really loved in the eighties. He played it with restrained intensity. I loved it very much and I really felt with Tiberias who just like Baldwin had struggled hard to keep the very fragile peace.
"What's the worth of Jerusalem?"
"Nothing"
"ALL!"
Now, before I come to the end of my impressions with the movie, I have to mention Orlando Bloom. No fangirl SQUEE here. He played Balian with great care, no eye-brow wiggling (THANK GOD!) and after the first 15 minutes he was Balian for me and not OB Hottie Du Jour. I really had my doubts that he could pull off the lead role but he put my fears to rest. He was damn good and he CAN ACT! Especially he could hold his own in scenes with Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons and when he was alone ... he was enigmatic.
My favourite scene is and probably will be the speech about Jerusalem as well as the rise a knight scene. These should be included in any further resume of this guy.
Well Done, Orlando!
(One thing which bugs me though: When he was wounded and then afterwards examined, Balian did not grimace because of the pain, in fact he really didn't seem too affected of the wound ... does that mean Scott hinted at that he was infected with leprosy? Baldwin didn't feel pain and it was mentioned that it is a symptom of leprosy)
All in all, a very interesting and also very valid film for our day and age. In the aftermath of 9/11 this movie hopefully will make a difference. It might not do well at the US Box office, but hopefully anywhere else in the world. After all the bloodshed that is still ongoing even after almost 1000 years between Muslims and Christians and Jews, this movie is showing that there was a time and also should be a time again where respect and tolerance should reign over thirst for power and intolerance, where free religion will spawn more trust and community sense than segregation of religions and questions of theocratic supremacy.
