I remember seeing this movie when it came out on DVD originally and shutting it off it was so boring. I was probably 14 or 15. I've been wanting to rewatch it and have heard the DC is vastly superior, but part of me wants to watch the original first just for comparison's sake.
Is it worth the watch, or is it as bad as Rotten Tomatoes says, and I should just forget it and go straight to the Director's Cut?
[deleted]
The director's cut is the way to go. It's more than length: the theatrical version was disowned by one of the actors. Entire sub-plots are missing from the theatrical version. The violence was sanitized. Character motivations disappear. My friend, who has a history degree, hated the theatrical version but the director's cut is his favorite movie. It's night and day. The director's cut even appeared on one or two top ten lists by critics at the end of the year. Nobody watches the theatrical version except out of nostalgia, like the theatrical versions of Blade Runner or Legend.
sharePersonally I thought the the extra material made it even windier and sillier (and more actively anti-historical), and the subplots far too often just introduced new plot-holes without solving the ones in the TC.
share"Anti-historical"? You must be thinking of Braveheart or Gladiator. My friend had primary source texts and he showed me how closely the movie matches up with the real story. They changed a couple of details but the broad strokes are correct, as are the armor, banners, etc. Even some of the more important interactions, such as the final conversation with Saladin, was documented and appears in the film almost exactly as it happened. I think you are nit-picking. Kingdom of Heaven -- in either cut -- is an outstanding historical epic.
shareActually it is your friend who is doing a kind of reverse nit-pick: he has picked the bits of real history out of this film and claimed - or you are claiming on his behalf - that this makes it true to history, ignoring the fact that these bits are being used to give credibility to a series of big fat lies about the real people involved, about the Crusades, and about the Middle Ages and the medieval world in general.
They changed a couple of details but the broad strokes are correct
...as are the armor, banners, etc.
syntinem.. the extrended Directors cut makes this from an average movie to a very very good movie
Not sure where your basis is from
the extrended Directors cut makes this from an average movie to a very very good movie
Watch the director's cut or don't watch it at all.
shareWatch neither and instead get some good books or more accurate documentaries about the crusades. This movie is PC revisionist *beep* that's being sold as a "historical epic". Seriously, learn some facts and history about the crusades and you'll learn to actually despise this movie and its blatant whitewashing and PC revisionism.
shareCome on man. you are way too harsh. Everyone, including William Monahan, the writer, knows that it is historical FICTION. They weren't trying to have a historically faithful retelling of the crusades. Just an exciting fictional story based around some historical events and people.
Whitewashing is part of hollywood but wasn't really that bad in this film compared to most current epics. For the most part it had Europeans playing Europeans, and middle easterners playing middle easterners. I didn't see many white people playing middle eastern characters.
Also didn't see how this was all that pc....I hate PC culture...believe me! I'm an active anti feminist and anti SJW and I don't really see how this is that PC. Please explain because I understand that this movie had Bailin making speeches you can say are about "religious tolerance" which is a common concept these days. However to assume that no person held and voiced such beliefs about freedom of religion in any era is just false and baseless...especially when commenting on a historical fiction.
Everyone, including William Monahan, the writer, knows that it is historical FICTION. They weren't trying to have a historically faithful retelling of the crusades. Just an exciting fictional story based around some historical events and people.
For the most part it had Europeans playing Europeans, and middle easterners playing middle easterners. I didn't see many white people playing middle eastern characters.
In some cases he even insists that the fiction shown in the film (e.g. the notion that Baldwin V had leprosy and that Sibylla killed him) is truer than what you will read in history books because their research uncovered facts leading to the conclusions they dramatised. Which is pure bunk.Yes. I've come across this in other cases with writers of historical fiction/films. I'm not sure whether it's a case of:
Hi Syntinen,
I'd just like to suggest you calm your argument down a little. Kingdom of Heaven is a textbook "Historical fiction" film. It takes real events, puts in a fictional character who interacts with real characters and buffs it up with a convincing story around it while also imbuing it with historical authenticity. Historical fiction is written and filmed for entertainment with a dramatical focus on real events, not to be an accurate representation of these events.
To lambast the film for its minute historical inaccuracies is superfluous as it is not trying to get the historical details completely right. King Baldwin was a leper, whose death brought about the collapse of order in the Holy Land and the recapture of Jerusalem by Saladin's forces. The defence of the city was led by Balian, a Frank. This is more historical accuracy than numerous Historical Fictional books out there that are meticulously researched.
Speaking as a wide reader of Bernard Cornwall, I think that it is important to take a film like Kingdom of Heaven for what it is: an INTERPRETATION. Bernard Cornwall's Stonehenge, a book with a magnificent story I might add, almost certainly has no relevance whatsoever to the origin of Stonehenge, yet he implements aspects of the known evidence from the site, such as the Welsh green stones, to craft an entertaining story around its construction. If someone was to nit-pick that novel, the whole effect created by the narrativewould be ruined but would also be pointless for the reason that it never set out to explain the site's origins in the first place. The same is here of Kingdom of Heaven.
The film is entertainment with some research added to make it feel authentic, not informative. To pick out the casting of Alexander Siddig as a problem because he was Sudanese I think is insulting to the quality of the actor, especially as I think he did a fantastic job of the role, but also superfluous as again he was chosen over an American with face paint and a terrible accent attempt for authenticity.
I really think your nit-picking is delving far too deeply into an issue that is inherent in the films position as historical fiction.
Yours sincerely
I hate when people have this snobby pretentious attitude. Like only they know history and everyone else is dumb. First, you weren't there first hand so you don't really KNOW. Second, this movie never said "a complete true story 100%" its an epic fiction action movie based on some historical "facts."
shareNot really true. As well as being an action movie it's also a moral fairy tale and a piece of anti-Christian, post-imperialist-guilt propaganda. It repeatedly draws parallels between the action and screen and Muslim-Western conflict in the Middle East today.
Scott admitted (he could hardly do otherwise) that he had fictionalised the background of Balian of Ibelin; but he insisted - just listen to his DVD commentary - that otherwise the story shown in the movie (including bits that he himself had invented) was true to history. Indeed he insists, absurdly, that at one point the story shown in the movie is more accurate than 'the history books'!
The Director's Cut is a vastly superior version of the movie. It is more coherent, characters are fleshed out, and some subplots are added that improve it. If you enjoy it, go back and watch the theatrical version and compare that way.
DAMN
Definitely the Director's Cut (which I just finished). There is a lot more depth to the story-line, and it's more engaging. A lot of the same problems remain. It's still pretty slow, and Bloom's stale performance doesn't improve, but you also get a lot more characterization outside of the lead.
That's what's great about Ridley Scott; when he does a director's cut he goes all in.
The DC isn't a significantly better movie, but it is more full and coherent than the shorter version.
shareDirector's cut. Far superior in all areas.
-- What would Joan say? --