The blacksmith Balian mourns his wife, and then he suddenly meets his father, who is traveling at the head of a detachment of crusaders to Jerusalem. Balian decides to join his father, but he soon dies. He knights Balian and instructs him to listen to King Baldwin.
Unexpectedly one of the strongest films in which religion is a central theme. At the heart of this conflict is the city of Jerusalem, which is equally important to Muslims and Christians alike. Everyone on this earth has their own shrines, and at first all religions try to get along with each other, but the French nobility and their crusaders provoke conflict. This movie has a very interesting plot. It is interesting to follow global events, and equally interesting to watch the adventures of the protagonist, who becomes one of the key figures of the conflict. Stronger than this is only dialogue, which consists of a philosophy close to me, if religion is excluded.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is also a very epic film, all the battles that are here are amazing. You get them, they get them. In addition to the battles, there is a lot to see here, especially considering that the battles themselves are not many – this is a film of strong dialogue and bright speeches. I would say that Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most beautiful films, which is not sustained in some unusual and vivid style. These are purely classic medieval adventures about religious terraces. Nothing more is needed: no bright filters, no special trouble with unusual transitions. Only costumes, scenery and high-quality shooting, capturing all the most delicious details.
The catch of this film is in the characters. There are at least two stereotypical villains without much motivation and a sane image. Two French scum with no chance of being understood or justified. Even if you make such bastards without gray morals, you should at least make them not funny, not too disgusting, but there is no excuse for these two. The conflict with them also spoils the plot around the middle of the film, making it a little boring for half an hour or more. Fortunately, the directorial version of the film lasts 3 hours, and this drawdown in the plot is greatly compensated by the above advantages. But I also really like all the other characters, I like Balian, Baldwin, Saladin is also good, secondary characters please no less, but I liked Eva Green’s character a little less, although it causes positive emotions. I really like how they show respect for each other in conversations, their attitude to the interlocutor shows the strength of their personality, and it charges for strength of spirit and nobility.
In general, “Kingdom of Heaven” gets a deserved place in the list of favorite films.
9 out of 10
This film, alas, almost touched my soul.
Of course, there were moments that attracted attention. I will not go into historical details about which I am not sufficiently aware. I think, as in most translations, the film was made only based on real events. One could say that Balian was not a blacksmith and had no relationship with Sybila, but it can be gleaned from authoritative sources. I will only talk about the picture, about what I took for myself from the director's version of this work.
During his first half hour, I became convinced that Orlando Bloom was textbook sweet and at the same time unexpressive as the central character of this epic canvas. As good as he was in the role of Legolas, the same faint echo of an iron knight with a burning heart he appeared here. He constantly talked about honor and nobility, but I did not feel a leader in him, and some cracked, sunset mood in which he was almost all screen time, as if spread around him in waves.
Otherwise, the casting is good. Unfortunately, such interesting figures as Liam Neeson and Michael Sheen did not have time to shine in full force, because in the same first half hour were withdrawn from the game, and Edward Norton did not guess behind the layers of clothing and a deaf mask. However, I appreciated Jeremy Irons, and the small role of David Thewlis with his touching farewell, and Ghassan Massoud as Saladin – perhaps the most charismatic and vivid image presented. Eva Greene always throws me into a difficult emotional state, because she has the appearance of a hereditary witch and from her you inevitably expect poisoning, witchcraft and other damn things. In the exotic oriental frame it looked, however, not bad and even convincing. And, by the way, one poisoning took place. However, between her and Bloom, I didn't feel the chemistry. I did not feel disharmony, just accepted as a conditional given the novel of their characters.
The most attractive image for me was the leper king, who, despite his youth and terrible illness, kept peace in Jerusalem. I was fascinated by the dubbing, it was such a soulful voice, and the words about the beauty of the king in his youth stirred the imagination. Touched me and the fate of the son Sybila, as far as I know, fell out of the rental version. It's just a little bit of a story, a little bit of a private life, but that's what captured me in the middle of military and political battles. The third figure whose fate struck me was, oddly enough, Saladin’s sister, who flashed for a few moments. It was these three characters, the three victims of rock, that I especially remember.
The war scenes were shot well. As far as I can tell. However, they somehow incorrectly and out of place reminded me of the scene of the siege of Minas Tirita, and from this the film, as if historical, unpleasantly interfered in my mind with the fantasy genre.
The narrative, I think, is not logical. The fate of Balian develops, in fact, according to the fabulous canons. Suddenly a noble father finds him, suddenly he is knighted, suddenly a noble lady falls in love with him, suddenly he finds the favor of the king ... and inevitably a skeptical attitude to this story is born as an oil of dizzying ascent. Well, that's a pompous ending, of course. The Moor has done his job, the Moor can go. All for honor!
I was very stressed by the fierce blue filter that accompanied the beginning of the story. I do not like monochrome casting, and I was not clear what this filter adds, what value it has for the plot.
In the end, I can’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the film. There was a lot going on in him, but I never had a solid impression. We saw Saladin taking Jerusalem. Jerusalem, which itself remained in the shadows, Jerusalem, about which it is said "nothing and all." Something important, eternal was missing, to my taste, this picture. Maybe... Kingdom of Heaven?
The Kingdom of Heaven is not an accurate historical reconstruction, but it does perfectly convey Ridley Scott’s idea under the events of the Crusades. Throughout history, we are shown the choice of the protagonist, which may not always seem right and righteous, but ultimately leads Ballean to the right choice in life.
Although the story with Guy DeLuzignan is not historical, it is needed solely as a scenery in which Ballean will become a real hero.
Characters and castes:
The actors are very bright, and the characters are written very well. Literally, several scenes explain what this man does and why, what place he occupies in history. I think the film is more about humanism than it is about religion. Ballean is not a very religious man, but he is willing to do anything to save the people of Jerusalem.
Ballan de Ibelin shows us what the real kingdom of honor and the realm of conscience is. This is not fame and wealth, but a choice that has slept thousands of people and calmed the soul.
Best Actor Orlando Bloom and Best Historical Film by Ridley Scott. IMHO
In my opinion, this film is one of the best among all historical. Yes, he has his historical and some logical mistakes, but against the background of other crafts in the form of the “King” or “Last duel” of the same Ridley Scott, he looks just a masterpiece.
Let's praise the movie first.
1) If you do not take into account the real historical background, the film looks quite good as an independent work. The plot is quite interesting and in some places will attract you to the screen.
2) Suits and surroundings. Although with some mistakes, but the armor and clothes are made relatively reliably (for movies). They perfectly complement the overall picture and well immerse in the current events.
(3) Operator work here is at a height. I would even say that long and broad plans help you understand the wide scope of what is happening.
(4) The images of the main characters are remembered for a long time and can make you reconsider the movie. The actors are well-chosen for their roles and cope perfectly with reincarnation. By the way, under the mask was Edwart Norton, if you know what I mean.
Let’s talk a little bit about it.
1) The first point is a very twitchy love line that is not properly motivated. Unfortunately, this is the problem of many films, but this film was not spared.
2) Taking one fencing lesson, Balian confidently went on the assault of the Holy Land. Yeah, fighting scenes are weird. In some places, large-scale battles save big plans, but sword fights look a little absurd, especially in the context of the film.
As the Western Church moves toward a split, Orlando Bloom reveals her new face in his character. The main character is the shepherd of modern times. He doesn't believe in shrines, he doesn't believe in temples, he doesn't believe in priesthood. This is a bold red line. If you look at it from this point of view, it becomes clear that the rest of the picture is absolutely nothing. You will not even be surprised by the excellent knowledge of military affairs and the presence of military training in the village forge.
Throughout the film, we will see only one brief moment when the hero Orlando Bloom, kneeling, tries to offer a prayer to God, but he will be interrupted. What can you say about your enemies?
The main character speaks of conscience, but shows only cruelty, pride and self-confidence. He is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people to understand himself, but even the Saracens are more honest than he is.
In my opinion, this is an excellent illustration of the reasons for the strengthening of the Eastern Church and the emergence of Orthodoxy as a way out of the darkness into which the Western Church has gone.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is probably the best film about the great battles and life of the Crusaders. But the best is not because it is perfect, but because there are very few such films. Ridley Scott tried very hard and made a large-scale movie with magnificent (or rather with magnificent) battles. Unfortunately, the film has a sufficient number of disadvantages, which is why it has not become a benchmark of historical cinema.
The plot begins between the Second and Third Crusades, in 1184 in France. Blacksmith Balian de'Ibelin (Orlando Bloom) suddenly finds his father and, since everything in his life is not very good, decides with his father to go to the Holy Land in order to atone for sins and become a different person.
And he really becomes a different person. A great warrior, a great landowner, a dream princess and a pretender to the crown. Where does it all come from?
The main disadvantage of this film is that the plot is served ragged. A little here, a little there. Because of this, “touch” the story does not work. It is clear that it is very difficult to lay such a large-scale story in a little more than two hours, therefore, it is necessary to accelerate the plot and cut out important battles. The final battle is my honor. Great special effects and scenery. But again, everything is torn and follows one after another, without giving respite. In half an hour they showed the long days of the siege of Jerusalem.
A huge plus of the film is that it was not rolled into a love drama. I was very worried that the remaining hour of the film would be spent on a love story during short battles. Honestly, laustories are not really needed here, well, only if in order to show Sibyll (Eva Green), but add a pinch of rivalry between Guy De Lusignan (Marton Chocash) and the main character.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is a good movie, with beautiful special effects and a mesmerizing atmosphere of the Crusades. Although the film is historical, many events in the biography of real-life characters are fictional, as well as the characters of these very characters are invented, well, the Knights Templar are represented by scumbags, but Saladin plus was a really cool man. But, in any case, this is a large-scale movie that you need to watch. I'm sure you won't regret it.
When reality is more improbable than cinema, or how Ridley Scott had to edit a story
The expression “like in the movies” from time immemorial has become a symbol of not too conscientious fiction. At least in the embellishment of reality in the cinema, nothing bad was seen 100 or even 50 years ago. Appearing on the verge of the cruel twentieth century as entertainment, cinema quickly became the most important social outlet of the era of world wars and revolutions, of which the first half of the century was so rich. From the screen was expected just fairy tales – beautiful and certainly with a good ending, having already grieved and hopelessness in the ongoing history. But closer to the new millennium, the demand for the “vitality” of cinema became increasingly obvious. And already from the 90s, when they rushed to proclaim the “end of history” and life in the well-fed West, which won the “cold war”, temporarily bored, films with a shocking lack of happy ending, naturalism debunking everything and everything are a joint.
Claiming to be the king of the historical film, Ridley Scott faces an even more difficult task in Kingdom of Heaven. Any apparent deviation from the seemingly “truth of life” to the average viewer will immediately cause a flurry of criticism for varnishing history, turning it into a lubok.
This, probably, in the "Kingdom of Heaven" is the main of the many "editions" Scott’s historical canvas, as it is conveyed by surviving medieval chronicles and chronicles, including testimonies of participants in the Crusades. Namely, the transformation of Baron Dibbelin, an honest small and average commander, who at a critical moment turned out to be the hope - (although quite illusory) of a doomed Jerusalem to salvation from Saladin, who won a triumphant victory under Hittin (one of the battles that create world history, like Gaugamels, Cannes, Catalauna fields, Waterloo or Stalingrad) - into a hero of epic proportions, almost changing the course of history.
In fact, the course of that war and the whole history of the Crusades was changed by another person, to whom Scott tries to give secondary importance (between he, as a star of the first magnitude, which wherever he looks at the sky, will inevitably attract the eye) - namely, the personality of the Sultan of Syria and Egypt Salah ad-Din Yusuf, the Europeans called Saladin, an outstanding commander and statesman, at the turn of the era leading the struggle of the peoples of the Middle East against the Western European crusaders and won the respect and admiration of the latter.
The second such case history does not know - when the glorification of a historical character enemy chroniclers contribute more than their own court chroniclers. The image of Saladin could be taken as a typical case of historical mythology, were it not for the amazing unanimity with which the courage, nobility, tolerance and mercy of the sultan are confirmed, as if competing with each other, primarily by European chroniclers who had every reason to hate Saladin as the most dangerous enemy, who initiated the expulsion of the crusader armies from the Holy Land.
Put Scott into the film at least the episode described by the chroniclers, when Baron Dibbelin, released by Saladin to Jerusalem on parole and there forced by the defenders of the city to lead them, torn between duty and this word, went back to the Sultan's headquarters and there entrusted his fate to Saladin, leaving him with a choice: let him go or take his life, at the same time saving him from mental torment - this episode, no matter how much criticism he provoked, would put everything else in the background in the picture. Even with the remaining and then most likely unsaid already completely fantastic ending of this meeting: Saladin was silent for a few minutes – “they became minutes of spiritual greatness of Saladin”, will write about him the most critical biographer of the sultan – the modern Israeli historian Peter Lukimson – and then exhaled, which saves Balian from the word given to him and more, orders to accompany his people brave Christian to Jerusalem, so that on the way he did not become a victim of the enraged soldiers of the Muslim army. Such a story would be something out of the ordinary even in modern military practice - for the Middle Ages, it was so unthinkable that it is not surprising that this unprecedented nobility had a crushing effect on contemporaries who were stunned to fix these seemingly incredible facts both then and now, centuries later, in the arches of chronicles.
Of course, then the film about the blacksmith-knight would be, no matter what it is called and no one invited to the main role, already a film about Saladin. And yet neither Western tolerant cinema nor multicultural audience has grown up to this, especially in the era of a growing new round of inter-civilizational clinch. Therefore, probably, the not very well-known Syrian actor (G. Massoud) was assigned to play Saladin, and his time is criminally short, compared with the grandeur and scale of this person.
Well, in order to support the popular (and regularly supported, I must admit, by themselves) stereotype of fierce Muslim barbarians, which even Ridley Scott, whom I valued more before this picture, introduced a scene that did not take place in reality, the public humiliation of the captured Guy de Lusignan (M. Chokas), shown, however, deservedly unsympathetic character. In fact, the last king of Jerusalem, in a short captivity, was surrounded by Saladin with honors as an equal, and was released on parole not to fight against him, which the most Christian monarch violated when the rooster did not coop and for the first time, obviously, having decided that the word given to Saracen meant little to his notorious knightly honor, of which, however, by that time little remained.
The fact that Saladin (out of his own pocket!) paid a ransom for thousands of poor Christians released from Jerusalem under the agreement is also sideways and not reflected in any way - instead, a sentimental, although no one mentions anywhere in the sources scene with the raising of the fallen cross (the crosses Saladin just removed from mosques converted in the church, but with people, regardless of their religion, treated so that the current Eurohumanists can envy).
Acting work in the film is not really outstanding. Orlando Bloom, for whom, as can be concluded by local reviews, every second of the beautiful half of the audience watched this film, may be interesting from their point of view, but his work here does not seem super-successful. Well, maybe a solid four. E. Norton in the role of a leper noble king at all desire can not reveal here his considerable talent. “Tooths” D. Irons (Tiberian) and L. Neeson (Godfrey dibbelin) are somehow lost in the stormy crowd. Convincing B. Gleeson as the scoundrel René de Chatillon.
And so Ridley Scott once again showed that he, like, say, Roland Emmerich - trendsetter in the field of disaster films, is the same number one of today's cinema in the genre of large-scale and spectacular historical cinema.
At all costs – so far one of the best pictures shot on the subject of the Crusades, though it could be removed, especially Ridley Scott, much better.
7 out of 10
The film that ended the era of historical blockbusters
Both in Russia and in the West, this tape is usually identified with one of the causes of death of historical blockbusters. Say, Sir Ridley Scott himself popularized this genre with his “Gladiator” and himself buried it “Kingdom of Heaven”. As a rule, the main argument in this dispute is the box office figures of the tape, and everyone somehow forgets about the picture itself. I want to fix this problem.
I will say right away that you should only watch the director's version. For the piece by piece theatrical version, which was rolled in 2005, is a rather ugly “Frankenstein monster”, where the characters are cropped off motivation and development.
So what's the movie about? The film is partly based on real historical events of the time before the Third Crusade. The prototype of the protagonist, played by Orlando Bloom, is Balian II Ibelin, who surrendered Jerusalem to Saladin on the terms of honorary surrender. However, in the plot he is not a nobleman, and falls on the Holy Land character Bloom in the rank of bastard of the deceased count. It is through him that the viewer is introduced to events quite sad for the history of the Crusades.
Also in the film involved other characters with real historical prototypes, played by brilliant actors. Here are the gorgeous Eva Green (who, contrary to usual, unfortunately, does not undress), and Jeremy Irons, and David Thewlis. However, my favorite is Edward Norton, who played I won’t tell you who (try to guess for yourself).
The most important thing in the tape is the atmosphere. To the real story, of course, it has a very conditional relation, but if you read something on the topic as a child, well, or at least “Ivanhoe”, you will undoubtedly come. The entourage of the tape resembles the image that is built at the first acquaintance with the era of the Crusaders. Synthesis of cultures, military monastic orders, knights and pilgrims.
However, do not think that the movie is like a fairy tale. Still, the central theme of the picture is the defeat of the crusader army at the horns of Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, various “toughness”, court intrigues and betrayals are also abundant.
In fact, it is very disappointing that the failure in the rental of historical epics forced Hollywood to abandon the genre. Now the ball is ruled by sequels, triquels, spin-offs, etc. Therefore, the probability of something original and risky is extremely small. And that's sad.
This is a great movie and I recommend it to everyone.
As you can see, in the twenty-first century, director Ridley Scott was drawn from fiction to medieval and ancient battles. After ' Kingdom of Heaven' the director will also shoot 'Exodus: Kings and Gods' Although I can not call myself a connoisseur of Scott’s work, after watching 'Kingdom', it became obvious to me that the director seems to hesitate to show all his thoughts in his films, so his films cause a mixed reaction.
The gunman Belian, whose conscience is tarnished by more than one murder, goes on a crusade to pray for his sins and win honor there, in the distant and hot Jerusalem. In the film there are enough battles and battles involving such a historical figure as Sultan Salah ad-Din. The clang of swords and explosions of siege towers in their entertainment can argue even with the recent ' Lord of the Rings', from where he migrated to the main role Orlando Bloom. It is noteworthy that here also starred Eva Green in the role of the Eastern Queen. An image of a similar origin she will later have to embody in another film. What is really striking is the huge number of costumes, realistic scenery and extras. This is the famous Ridley Scott! Who better than him could be trusted.
And the film, however, did not collect the right box office to cover the budget. What could the audience not like about it? It seems to me that it is a matter of some freedom. 2005, and in the historical film have already managed to show the African Negroid race in the European Middle Ages. As soon as his face lit up in the frame for a second, there is no trust, and all subsequent events are perceived as some kind of theater. Large-scale, spectacular, but only theater. Some of the viewers may also have taken on too sane arguments about religion from the Crusader leaders. The Middle Ages are not the Renaissance. And another important element that was the scourge of American cinema in the 2000s: the sense of love coming out of nowhere. As beautiful as it may look, easy love is an even more improbable sight than an African in the ranks of European troops. Alas. Finally, Ridley Scott did not have time or did not want to fully reveal his cards, and therefore part of the thoughts of the protagonist remained inside him. At least this feeling becomes very intrusive after watching.
'Kingdom of Heaven' is, of course, a good film that tells about nobility and courage, but it was worth a little bit to strengthen realism, a little bit to add a bit of historicism and a little more to develop the director's plan. Such a project does not and cannot be continued, but I still want to believe that it will remain in the memory of at least those who appreciate the work of old Scott.
7 out of 10
Recalling how at one time he successfully revived the historical epic, Sir Ridley Scott after a couple of films decided in 2005 to return to the familiar peplum genre with a potential hit, shot with the beloved director of the Hollywood sweep ' Kingdom of Heaven' (Kingdom of Heaven, 2005).
Actually, the film is shot according to the main patterns of the successful Hollywood mainstream - the protogonist Bellian works in the forge, he is also the star of the main fantasy franchises of the dream factory of the beginning of zeros ' Pirates of the Caribbean' and' Lord of the Rings & #39; The handsome boy Orlando Bloom was accompanied by such actors as Liam Neeson (in his favorite role as a strong and brutal sage, he even in ' The Chronicles of Narnia' managed to portray him despite the fact that the actor only required dubbing), David Thewlis, Marton Chokash (a vile fat antagonist), the respected Jeremy Irons, the charismatic Brendan Gleeson and Edward Norton, unrecognizable behind the iron mask, as a leprosy king. Of course, the role of the love interest of the main character is played not by anyone, but by Bond’s girlfriend sexual Eva Green, who later, due to her bright appearance as a bitch, will specialize in the image of a fatal woman. And, in fact, the princess turned out to be appropriate - bright, sexy, controlling men as she wants, but so passionate that this passion gives the film a certain emotional charge. In fact, it is probably Eva Green and Liam Neeson were the most striking characters in the film. As for Bloom, the serious difference between Bellian and the same Will Turner is not noticeable - another typical hero of an expensive Hollywood blockbuster.
And the scale of the tape is immediately visible. $130 million was clearly well spent. Excellent camera work, powerful visual range with beautiful forest and sandy-desert landscapes from different angles, including bird span, as well as powerful. Battle scenes, of course, not particularly brilliant logic from a tactical point of view, but impressive the viewer, just came to look at expensive American cinema.
The film has an uncomplicated plot, similar to the fairy tale of a simple blacksmith who suddenly broke out in people, turned out to be a baron with his own lands and began to sleep with the king’s sister, but the main plot focuses on the very battle for Jerusalem that Muslims are so desperate to conquer.
By the way, the confrontation between Catholic crusaders and Muslims in the context of the current wars, constantly unleashed by the United States and NATO, looks especially interesting. Scott demonstrates that the Crusaders, in fact, were fanatics no less than the current militants ' Al-Qaeda', about which three years later Scott will speak in '. Despite the religious differences that become the main driving force of the conflict in the film. Local fanatical knights are quite rude about the representatives of Islam and the very possibility of peaceful coexistence, Scott himself, through the lips of the hero Neeson and positive characters who are with him, says that there is no difference between fanatic Catholics who forcibly impose their faith in the foreign lands and radical Islamists. And the noble knights who go to the Middle East to bring light to the wild society are the same terrorists, only ancient.
Against the background of these religious conflicts, which are developing in the ancient Middle East, a very clear and curious parallel is traced with the current problems of global terrorism and periodically flaring religious conflicts, which are multiplying because of the so beloved Western freedom of speech, which at times borders on insulting the feelings of believers.
Ridley Scott, shooting a movie on such a curious and surprisingly relevant topic, manages to express his point of view, but competently veiled, spectacular and large-scale. To be honest, the box office failure of the tape remained a mystery to me, because before us is not a stupid historical blockbuster, which usually earn at the box office is not weak.
8 out of 10
- What is Jerusalem to you? - Nothing. And the whole world.
I thought for a long time what type of review to choose and still chose a positive one and here is why.
I'm going to start with a strange thing that I can't get out of my head. It is not really believed that in France of the XII century, a noble crusader, returning home from the Holy Land, wants to take his obviously illegitimate son, who was most likely born of a commoner (and this at that time was all around).
In general, the film has everything: a beautiful play of actors, an interesting plot, and most importantly - a complete immersion in the gloomy, dark and terrible atmosphere of the Middle Ages (although I would like more of medieval Europe, but alas). It shows all the horrors of death: disfigured corpses, and a sea of blood, which in this film is very convenient, and greedy kings, and on top of all this - characteristic music, gloomy background.
All the actors played great. From Orlando Bloom, after his not the most successful (in my opinion) roles in ' Lord of the Rings' and ' Pirates of the Caribbean' (and in ' Three' he was not on top), I simply did not expect this.
Beautifully recreated landscapes and costumes (not for nothing they sewed as much as 14 thousand pieces) of medieval wars.
The picture clearly contains a philosophy. War is much more terrible than it seems to ordinary people, it brings only grief, not the happiness of victory. However, accepting war and risking one’s life to save others is the best man can do.
The film doesn’t fit with the story, but when you watch it, it appears, like Gladiator 39, another realistic version of the story that you believe in and don’t even think it was different. The ending, of course, does not look logical, but it does not spoil the impression, because of the above (you will understand when you see).
7 out of 10
The story of how the blacksmith on the queen almost married
Director Ridley Scott, breathtaking peplum, a colossal budget – what else would it take to succeed? And yet the film failed. And in the financial sense – barely repulsed investments, and in the cultural – despite the inflated rating of Kinopoisk, it is unlikely to take a place among the masterpieces of world cinema.
Let’s try to figure out how it happened.
Failure one: historicity. This “historical” film has nothing to do with history. He deliberately distorts it, given that the real events surrounding the capture of Jerusalem are more or less well known. Balian was not a "simple blacksmith", in a few months miraculously mastered all the skills of combat and tactics. Queen Sibylla did not escape with him to live in a blacksmith, but reunited with her husband Guy de Lusignan, ransoming him from captivity. The residents of Jerusalem were released for ransom only after Balian threatened to destroy Muslim shrines. Well, and so on. The question is, why would you turn this lie back? To make the character more romantic?
Failure two: script. Despite the fact that the script allegedly occupied twice as many pages as the standard, the plot turned out to be slurred and flat. You don't believe stories. Dialogue is banal. The plot twists are primitive and unjustified. Why did Guy jump on Balian from the start? What is the reason for this anger? A shipwreck, a fight over a horse and the subsequent contest of heroes in nobility - is this a fairy tale for children? Are we watching a children's movie? Balian's speech before the siege, the anthem of tolerance and meaninglessness - who wrote the speechwriters of the White House? Defending the city by a bunch of civilian rags against Salahaddin's 200,000-strong army. Two hundred thousand fighters in a huge failure in the wall could not get in, so retreated? All the priests in the movie are scum or jerks. For a movie with that title and theme, it’s too much. Perhaps during the editing, important pieces were lost that revealed the heroes, introduced them, explained their motivation. But from the resulting film it is completely unclear.
Failure three: actors. Well, which Orlando Bloom is a blacksmith or a knight? He should be advertising toilet water. Feminine and languid Prince Charming. In films of this genre, you expect courageous heroes. Such as Russell Crowe from Gladiator, Mel Gibson from Braveheart, Kirk Douglas from Spartacus in 1960. The rest of the actors seem to be in their place, but the same problem: boring dialogue, weak disclosure of motivation, it is often difficult to understand who is in front of us.
The result was a film that fell into the gap between two genres: between a fairy tale and a historical epic drama. Children will not be very interested, but also adults. Unassuming, unmemorable, passing. That for a film with a budget of $135 million is a disaster.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is an artistic and historical story by Ridley Scott about the confrontation of two religions during the Crusades and wars for Jerusalem and its shrines. It seems to me that this film does not pretend to be authentic, but rather is still an artwork based on those times. So somehow find fault with this or that fact or nuance in the film, personally I do not want.
The plot here in principle does not lame, although it looks somewhat boring, protracted and predictable in some places. Two and a half hours is quite a test for the viewer. It is worth noting that all this is due to the fact that the story unfolds gradually, and the main character - a young gunsmith Balian (Orlando Bloom) does not immediately become what he should become for important and main events of the story. In addition to Orland Bloom, my beloved Eva Green is also in the film. However, she also fit well into her role, although I did not notice anything special for myself again. Apparently just tired of the roles of Eva and she seems to me everywhere the same, strange, but damn charming young lady. This is a 2005 movie and that’s the most interesting part. Maybe she then revealed herself as an image of a charismatic actress for subsequent roles in “300 Spartans”, “Penny Dredful”, etc. Who knows? Maybe so.
Returning to the plot, it is worth noting that it is generally bad and uninteresting to call. Personally, I had enough attention and interest to watch the movie to the end, despite the denouement of events and dialogue. In particular, this contributed well enough and beautifully worked out elements of the battle. I personally liked the siege of Jerusalem in terms of, again, colorfulness and epicity. In my opinion, for this reason it is worth watching this movie. Something even like the Battle of Helm Padi in The Lord of the Rings: Two Fortresses.
Special attention should be paid to what I noticed in the secondary roles of Nikolai Coster-Waldau (as Village Sheriff) from the beloved sitcom Game of Thrones. Brendan Gleason (as Reynald de Chatillon) is known for such films as “Lie low in Bruges”, “Golgotha”, “Once in Ireland”. It was funny enough to see them in the 2005 movie as if they were a time machine. It was like Jamie Lanister in one of the episodes.
In fact, in addition to the general outlines of the film and the epic battles of the confrontation between the Catholic and Muslim worlds of those times, I would like to note that there is another side of the coin in the film, and specifically the plot outline of the images of honor and valor of some characters. I’m not going to tell you all about the main character. Despite his difficult path, the main character remains - a brave, brave, conscientious, not proud, devoted to his heart - a person. Balian primarily serves the “kingdom of conscience”, and not the notorious “kingdom of heaven”, which in our world is only “the kingdom of man”. Many will not be surprised or fascinated by this. Another beautiful story. But I think showing these characters is important. The mockery of the false piety of some characters is also present here. In particular, the bishop, who tried to offer to escape from the city of Jerusalem, thereby putting people to death for the sake of his life. Eventually, out of fear for his fake life, he even offered Balien aloud to convert to Islam and surrender the city to Saladin. In general, in addition to the valor and courage of warriors, knights and ordinary people. In this film there are cowards, scoundrels, madmen and fools. Which is very good for the very essence of a beautiful instructive story. By the way, Saladin and his right hand - also based on some situations - are respected. There is already an element of the fact that despite such a fundamental opposition of religions and peoples of that time, there is a place in this in all duty, honor, and human nobility and mercy.
Eventually. The film is generally not bad. Because of the battles and battles shown by the director - spectacular and interesting. At the beginning of the story is a little protracted and primitive. In the end, more interesting and instructive. I would recommend watching.
P.S. For episodes of battle and battle. For the plot where the main character follows his duty and acts according to conscience. To a beautiful story. I'll put 8.
8 out of 10
All on clean and unclean
Divided by clothing:
Here is the Achaean, this is the Trojan,
He is a saint, and this one is a slur.
What do we expect from the “historical” epic?
For starters, probably, in general terms, the correspondence to the historical era, well, if the authors took the hard work to get acquainted with at least a couple of sources, so in general shine. And here it turns out that everything is not as monstrous as they write in other reviews - here you and the reign of Baldwin IV and the siege of Kerak, the catastrophe at Hattin and the capture of Jerusalem. Plus, a lot of entertaining ' historical anecdotes' — Sister Saladin, the story of the water cup, the dedication of the inhabitants of Jerusalem into knights, and much more. Yes, of course, enough and all sorts of stupidities, a la Renault - Master Templars, black knights, suddenly become barons of bastards ... but for that and feature film.
Second, interesting characters and here everything is sadder... If the villains and their motivation in principle more or less got, and Renault de Chatillon, even black paint slightly not housed (for this ghoul in reality was even more monstrous than in the film..), the hero of Bloom looks just a cardboard buccaneer who wanted to be loved. Norton and Neeson, of course, played wonderfully, but on secondary characters you can not go far.
And third, and most importantly, pathos, overcoming and fierce battles. And here's the stitches. Well, there's the siege of Kerak - a small episode, and let him ... now in the battle of the Horns of Hattin we will show where went 140 million budget, here we will see almost total extermination of the color of the knighthood of the Crusaders, as stood on the death of the Templars and Hospitallers. Well...we saw... There remains the last hope - the assault on Jerusalem, but even here, to put it mildly, trouble. The director could not convey the bitterness of both sides, nor the determination of the defenders to stand to the end, even Bloom’s inspiring speech was so despondent that in reality the beleaguered would simply drop their hands. The Muslims came not just to take another city (which would have fallen without a siege, cut off from the fortresses on the coast), but to wrest from the hands of the infidels one of the three pearls of Islam - the Al-Aqsa mosque. And Christians defended not only and not so much their lives, but the greatest shrine, for the acquisition of which hundreds of thousands of crusaders paid with blood. And instead we got a liquid gruel about tolerance, equality and almost fraternizing with Muslims.
No, of course, there are wonderfully shot moments in the film: kissing the king’s hand, a knight talking about ransom, but they can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Conscience has two meanings: 1. "Consciousness" or 2. "Conscience."
I also like the words of the main character, the episode where Saladin asks him for the sake of a greater good to do a little bit of harm to another, and the latter refuses him, saying: "...a Kingdom of Conscience, or Nothing."
This is the main message: The character clearly comprehended the fundamental essence of the Christian commandments: live according to conscience.
Although, of course, Balian (the name of the main character) does not prevent mowing the ranks of the Saracens and other traitors of the Crusaders throughout the picture. What is surprising here is that conscience is an individual thing. Or not?
Does he have the ability not to kill them? If we carefully follow the chain of sequences that leads him on this bloody path, we see a complete inevitability. He seems to have a choice, but he just seems to. The illusion of choice. Destined to strictly follow his conscience, the character is doomed to this path, that’s all.
What makes him so blind to his conscience? Why does he not consider other options that, in a pragmatic sense, are much more profitable and even expedient? For example, to kill your competitor, the same pretender to the throne, but more legitimate, to kill this notorious scoundrel, who is about to start a war with Saladin, the shaky peace with which the current monarch of Jerusalem (a Crusader appointee) established. It seems obvious, but no, sorry.
Here, many would consider this not only an unreasonable choice, but even a mistake, unconscious! But what exactly drives Balian? What is hidden under this conscience.
He chooses his cross because he wants to atone for his sins. Balian seeks the Holy Land, where he has heard that God himself forgives sins. The Holy Land is the place where God’s foot walked. Holy Jerusalem, the heart of Balian comes here. Other life, goals, plans and aspirations, all this faded into the darkness of his grief. The only thing he thinks impartially about is God.
It is curious what a surge of "passionarity" has caused Christianity in this man! Balian is a medieval European. He is born, matures and matures in an atmosphere of Christian dogma. There is no other picture of the world in his humble mind. Absolutely faithful, perfect instrument in the hands of God.
Honest and sincere, his conscience is one with his Picture of the World, his understanding of his place, his attitude to everything in this “picture” and his congruent actions in the aftermath.
What picture of the world do you own now? And what is your conscience?
Whatever it is, you can’t help but hear it. It's just that sometimes the mind cleverly clouds our eyes, blinds us. Sometimes, even knowing that it is wrong, we do it under hypnosis or dope anyway. But that can't last forever. At some point, this unconsciousness (what else to call it) finally wakes us up with its consequences.
Balian's desire to throw off this veil of unconsciousness from others is manifested in an episode of battle with hired killers, when he shouts one of them:" That's why you came to the Holy Land, to chop? As if to appeal to their conscience, think again.
Definitely Balian bears the image of Christ himself, successfully embodied in his faithful follower as it were.
Breaking the veil of “ignorance” leads to the inevitability of following this very Conscience.
Was there a choice? . .
Balian loved his wife, he believed that her immortal soul, having committed sin, would face certain difficulties in the “other world”, and only he, only his love, can still help her. It doesn't make any sense anymore. He easily passed the infantile period of concern for his person. All that drives him is love for his neighbor. Just one thing, but he is absolutely honest. That is, this is not a high-level Christian path, but how many idealists like it do we meet in principle?
Conscience is nothing but the voice of Love itself, its “good news”, succinctly encrypted in a concrete and understandable sense – “No, do not do this” or “I must!” How else? That's the conscience.
Dostoevsky said an interesting thing:
The egoists are capricious and cowardly before duty: in them there is an eternal cowardly disgust to bind themselves to any duty.
As has been said above, Balian has successfully emerged from the age of selfish infantilism, and he has no difficulty whatsoever in binding himself to duty. Moreover, its whole meaning rests only on this duty. Take him away and what he becomes, an empty shell.
And his duty does not give him time to think, to doubt. Any choice further is obvious to him. He is too aware of what is happening to continue to act out of conscience.
His actions are decisive and swift. For those like him, fate, God, gods... It is this determination that is gratifying to their eyes, and certainly to ours. And now, with full awareness, we can conclude that this film is an unconditional masterpiece.
10 out of 10
If you ask me which historical films I will put on the most honorable place in the genre, then I can not name the only best, since I have seen many films of this genre, and even if I name three films beloved by everyone and everyone (" Troy, Gladiator and Braveheart), it does not mean that only these three whales of the genre deserve the highest score and laurels of masterpieces of their genre. And one of those films that I will always put on the same level with the three universally recognized superhits will be exactly the film that will be discussed later, and this despite the fact that the film was understood by me completely and showered with laurels only after the third viewing – the last fact says that the film is clearly “not for fools”: not everyone can understand from beginning to end, even among fans of the peplum genre, and perhaps even the restriction to 18 years would be low – not because of the presence of scenes of violence in the film (for this part, you will not see anything beyond wild and bloody here – there is not “300 Spartans”. Zack Snyder, and not the series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand"), but because of the extremely confusing plot, which, as it turns out, will not be easy to understand and remember - so much twisted story, filled with incredible events, will be a gift, as for aesthetes and lovers of the medieval situation, who know a lot about the expensive scenery of ancient buildings from huts to palaces, as well as fortresses and ancient military equipment, so for intellectuals, if it does not taste all the old information. Schoolchildren are unlikely to learn everything that is presented here in the most virtuoso way in the best traditions of one of the most recognized directors of America Ridley Scott , five years earlier, famous for the peplum "Gladiator", more accessible to perception for everyone and everyone who received the highest ratings and was showered with laurels for every minute of timing - in the "Kingdom of Heaven" young people with not fully developed thinking will see only a cool special effect blockbuster that is able to compete with its visual scale, and read the whole genre of horror.
The film begins with the funeral of a woman who committed suicide, because of which her relatives do not have the right to bury her as an ordinary person, and the head is cut off from the dead body. This takes place in southern France, after which the widowed blacksmith Balian comes to the Baron Gottfried (the character of Liam Neeson) and tells him that he is his father because his mother was a slave and she had to give herself to the Baron, but the Baron assures that he did not force her. He calls his son to Jerusalem, but he refuses to go. However, when his brother begins to insult his late wife in conversation, Balian brutally deals with him, tears off his chest a cross, and is forced to flee to Jerusalem, catching up with his new father and his detachment on the way. From the village where Balian lived, a detachment arrives, sent to capture Balian, because he killed not just a man, but a priest, and this leads to a fight between the two detachments, as a result of which the travelers to Jerusalem win, but Gottfried is seriously wounded, and this can lead to death. As a result, he still dies, and before death gives his son an instruction, saying about himself at the last confession that he is guilty of all sins except one, but does not have time to name this sin. And his son has already made an enemy in the face of the future king of Israel. Going further by sea, Balian suffers a shipwreck, and survives alone, being thrown on land, namely, in Syria, to the lands of the Muslims who meet him hostilely, and Balian has to fight with a nobleman and defeat him, and then taking with him the servant of the defeated and asking him (not even forcing, namely asking) to take him to Jerusalem. There Balian gives the slave his horse, found in the lands of Muslims, and then goes on his way. He visits the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, after which the servants of Gottfried escort him to his estate. He gets acquainted with the sister of the king Sybilla and with King Baldwin IV himself, struck by leprosy. Balian sees how poor the city is, and begins to do everything for the prosperity of Jerusalem: we will be shown in detail the pulling of the well and the subsequent supply of water from it. Balian and Sibylla begin to secretly date. Soon the war begins: the Saracen caravan was looted by the Templars, and the Muslims attack. The crusaders are ready to fight back. Meanwhile, the king of Israel dies, and Balian has the opportunity to take the throne and marry Sibylla, but even if he dreamed of it all his adult life, Balian refuses, because becoming king, he will have to kill a certain person, but this is contrary to his principles, although Guy is the first person in Israel who deserves to die.
Young people in their 20s may be offended if they do not understand the whole twisted plot of the film, to say the famous phrase that is usually told to young children: “Grow up, understand”, but in this case it is not an insult or humiliation. Here is about the same case as with the equally highly intelligent film creations of the famous genius of cinema Christopher Nolan: his “Inception” is inaccessible to perception for an immature mind, but older people understand the beauty and genius of the tapes of this giant of cinema. Ridley Scott has always been famous as a master of entertaining cinema, but in the case of Kingdom of Heaven, he clearly stepped over his usual level of filmmaking, which even a schoolboy will understand and admire not only special effects. Truly happy that even at such a respectable age, this talented director continues to pamper the audience with his creations - and even if in the genre of fantastic horror, namely, developing the universe of "Aliens", he may have made a mistake, because of which the new film of the series was criticized by the famous author of devastating reviews, then in the genre of peplum, as was and remains one of the best ("Exodus). Kings and Gods in the cinema also gave a lot of impressions. Strength and health to this man. The film is a masterpiece.
The commander Saladin and the blacksmith Balian, recovering from depression, spill the words:
- What is Jerusalem to you?
- Nothing. That's it.
And the thought is not God knows how deep: they say, on the one hand, from the side of strategy and tactics, Jerusalem is worth nothing, and all these shrines are even evil, considering how much blood has been shed for them, and I am a rational person, not especially religious; on the other hand, as a symbol of shrine, important for religious people, and as a pearl of military glory, Jerusalem is priceless, there is nothing more precious than it. But this thought, though not the deepest, warms the heart of any man who has ever after a siege entered fortresses useless from the point of view of ratio.
And I remember this short dialogue forever, although the film is mediocre. Just a few words, and played spectacularly, matchless.
Saladina is played by Oriental actor Ghassan Massoud, who in his short screen time outplays everyone, except perhaps Neeson.
The mask of Edward Norton evokes sad thoughts that the English-speaking audience will at least hear it, while the audience watching the film in dubbing, the actor is separated by a sound mask.
Nicholas Coster-Waldau was preparing for Game of Thrones in this film.
Ministers of the cult, says the director, are immoral swindlers and hypocrites, and if there is a good one, it is because he is not religious, although he is a believer. In general, clericalism is evil, and give us the kingdom of conscience and rationality. Something similar Scott will try to say in the movie “Alien: Covenant” through complex symbolism.
Fights on swords and other deadly doodles of the Middle Ages are mostly helpless montage gluing, which was done on the knee, and not with hands, but with the left heel of the right foot. Nothing remotely resembles the aesthetic of the best Troy fights. Large-scale battles of armies are also not impressive, except that at the end and then a little.
The three-hour directorial version of the muddled film is the same as Scott's other film, 2007's Gangster. A lot of unnecessary shots, unnecessary scenes, tiresome jerky jump-jump back and forth on a bunch of characters and episodes.
- What is Jerusalem to you?
- Nothing. That's it.
And for Ridley Scott, Jerusalem of those times is a symbol of hell, therefore the story of Balian (Orlando Bloom) rolls along the rut of the Gospel story about the descent of Christ into hell, the battle with death and the liberation of prisoners from hell. And Orlando Bloom’s character is a secular humanist who had to ascribe faith in God only to avoid slipping into outright anti-historicalism. Scott resents religious bigotry, and these people kill each other for their dogma. Funny and disgusting is the stupidity of the fanatics, to whom you say that if you go on a military campaign without water supplies, the army will be defeated, and they answer with some quite enchanting nonsense: Our banner is the cross and we cannot be defeated. A similar dialogue is repeated in the Muslim headquarters, but rationality prevails. An aristocrat tells Saladin, “God determines the outcome of the battle.” To which Saladin rightly remarks: "And the outcome of the battle is determined by the number of soldiers and the availability of water." He asked, “How many battles did God win for Muslims before I came to power?” And ironically, he corrects himself: “Until God brought me to power.”
This rational general-philosopher inspires more respect in his few minutes of screen time than those who begin to irritate the highly spiritual Balian and even the beautiful Sibylla of Jerusalem by the end of the film. It inspires more respect, although it is the head of a terrible monster: a state that sends people to die in war.
And after viewing, Lev Nikolaich is remembered, who brilliantly analyzed the military bloodshed-crimes of this monster in the philosophical chapters of War and Peace.
5 out of 10
A movie I've heard a lot about. First of all, because of comparisons with the same "Gladiator" Ridley Scott. “Gladiator” is truly beautiful and is one of my favorite films, but “Kingdom of Heaven” I managed to watch only recently and, I must say, I was quite disappointed in this tape.
The first thing that really upset me was the story. Alas, the first half of the film seems so boring, slow and uninteresting that you want to turn off this movie and do something more useful than watching the serious expressions of people who said some important words in some conversations. From this tedious and insane slow development of the plot, in which essentially nothing interesting happens, it becomes offensive and it seems that this time Scott disappointed.
However, I would like to note that somewhere in the middle of the film, when more interesting events finally begin to unfold, interest in the film still manifests itself, although not strong.
As for the special effects, the costumes (which, as far as I hear, have been made about fifteen thousand) and the scenery, Scott is, as always, on top. The battle scenes are fascinating with their beauty and scale. And the final main battle really makes you constantly monitor what is happening on the screen.
If we sum up briefly, then before us the tape, which, of course, can be called beautiful and spectacular, but with the plot it frankly lames and these three-odd hours (which, in my opinion, could be safely reduced by almost half) are very tired, which, of course, should not be done.
I am particularly biased towards historical films, I watch them especially carefully. Therefore, initially treated the film extremely skeptical ... but almost all my fears quickly passed and enjoyed watching the film!
The atmosphere of the medieval East is perfectly conveyed, after the conquest of the Holy Land by the Crusaders, they adopted from the Arabs quite a lot of atypical customs ... for example, regular trips to saunas, there was a primitive sewerage, in everyday life they began to dress like Arabs. It is a good transfer of the atmosphere achieved by excellent general plans of cities and fortresses, great musical accompaniment and so I liked this film!
Baliana Ibelina, performed by Orlando Bloom, came out convincingly, but initially, I thought that Bloom would become a weak link in the film, good that I was wrong. Yes, there were some deviations from history, for example, Balian Ibelin knew his father and was the full heir to his title, and the name of father Ibelin was completely different. He was also in favor of war against the Muslims, although he was much more cautious and calculating than the other lords of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, was a high-ranking and respected lord, so in many ways that is why Sultan Salah al-Din even began to negotiate with him.
Also, it is worth noting that historically, Salah ad-Din (Hasan Masood), nevertheless, destroyed Christian shrines, but later he allowed Christians to visit the shrines in Jersusalim. Overall, I think the film went to the right place and showed it as a more reserved ruler.
The love line of Ibelin and Princess Sibylla (Eva Greene) has no official confirmation, however, their relationship in the film is absolutely not annoying, in the film there is no particularly persistent emphasis on the development of their relationship so it does not distract from the development of the plot.
The Battle of Hattin, in which the Kingdom of Jerusalem lost almost its entire army, was not shown, only its consequences. It is worth noting that Guy de Lusignan (Marton Chokas) understood the threat of a battle in open battle with the Saracens, but under pressure from other lords agreed to nominate an army.
Renaud de Chatillon (Brendan Gleeson) unfortunately showed us him as an old and angry man, but in his youth he was a strong and noble warrior and leader who defeated even Saladin ... Nevertheless, the later period of his life was transmitted quite reliably, he became a war-thirsty fanatic, arrogant, bloodthirsty and reckless, often using his high title, but it was obvious that sooner or later his title would not help him.
While it was very important to me that the historicity was preserved, those small deviations from the story did not spoil the film! I did not see any particular denigration of either religion, it was shown that there were both fanatics and reasonable people ready for dialogue on both sides.
The final battle scene was great! A long and difficult battle for both sides, the battle scene was made very qualitatively and interestingly, there was no extra “mud” and at the same time, the battle did not seem like a “pillow fight”. The battle scene can be safely put on a par with “Two fortresses and the return of the king from the Lord of the rings”.
I would definitely recommend this movie!
Continuing to experiment with different genres and trends, Sir Ridley Scott decided to work again in the genre of historical blockbuster. Having revived in 2000 with his cult painting Gladiator, the fashion for the peplum genre, the eminent author went on a beaten track, but changed his geographical direction. Instead of ancient Rome, it guides us to the sacred land of Jerusalem. However, this time the picture was expected a very cold reception. Critics approached the new creation of the master with great claims. But different versions of the film play an important role here. The theater caused a contradictory reaction, but the director's version forced picky journalists to rethink what they saw. Although in my opinion there is nothing fundamentally new in the author's version.
The film is based on the real historical events preceding the Third Crusade, but in a very free interpretation. For the director, it is important not so much to tell the audience the truth as to convey the basic morality and semantic message. The main event of the film was the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187 and the prerequisites for it. Thus, before us is an epic historical drama, where there is a place for large-scale, bloody battles, family conflicts, love relationships, and most importantly religious and cultural clashes.
Through the prism of the confrontation between Christians and Muslims, the director tries to show that no matter what religious movement you belong to, race and nationality do not matter, because all people are equal. It was also important to show the inappropriate use of violence. But that's the problem. All this is deliberately pathetic and excessive. Dialogues are full of moralizing speeches. These fake notes spoil the overall viewing experience.
But the scenes of the siege and defense of Jerusalem are made with epic scope and ingenuity. But unfortunately, all these large-scale battles occur only in the final part. The rest of the time is boring. It is also obvious that it is too serious. But the work of artists and decorators deserves the highest praise. Whether it is oriental outfits or siege guns, all the attributes recreate the atmosphere of those ancient times. Which version is better to watch, theater or director? I won’t recommend it, but I’ll say that the directorship is almost an hour longer, but it doesn’t add much to the story.
The cast was not very successful. The main role was played by Orlando Bloom. It shows almost no emotions and looks too cardboard. Not a very successful hit. Eva Green reflects a deeper range of emotions and is greatly transformed in the course of events. In addition, the film involves a noble number of first-class actors, someone better, someone worse, but in any case, each demonstrates a high level of acting.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a very ambiguous statement of the eminent director. Being an epic, large-scale, spectacular and dramatically rich historical drama, the picture suffers from excessive pathos and moralizing. The tape carries a deep meaning, but lame in the presentation of material.
Historical drama. A magnificent picture of the once greatest director Ridley Scott. Yeah, that's right, don't add. In those days, he was able to make a great movie, one "Gladiator" that is worth it. But that's not the point. I don’t know where to start, it’s probably one of my favorite historical films I’ve ever seen. I don’t remember at what age I watched it, but all the emotions that came to me back then came back to me today, when I decided to review it, but I already looked thoughtfully, and you know what – it’s still great, even though it’s been 12 years since its release. Let me describe the most memorable moments of this picture:
1. The story itself is really interesting. Although the script was based on real historical events, the creators still disposed of them freely. But to their credit, there was not much backsliding. Basically, the story focuses on the knight Balian, the hero of Orlando Bloom, who gets to Jerusalem in the most alarming period of history - the war with Saladin is approaching, which can lead to tragic consequences.
2. Excellent camera work - what this picture can not take away, is the moment. You just have to see it. The operator each time chooses exactly the crustacean from which the viewer will be interested to contemplate.
3. Just great musical accompaniment. Church motifs, music during the battle, tense moments and so on – in all cases, the melody that corresponds to the right moment sounds. Thank you for that to composer Harry Gregson-Williams.
4. Staging battle scenes with the involvement of a huge number of extras. Yes, there were times when extras were used to film a major battle. As the name suggests, in the picture without battles can not do. And, if I remember correctly, in Gladiator, so many people were not attracted. These scenes look great.
5. The lion’s share of the scenes was filmed in nature, without the use of special effects – it is worthy of respect, because now it is almost not done. Now it is much cheaper to shoot actors on the “green”, and the background and the rest then finish on the computer. And even in those moments when all the same special effects were applied, it is almost imperceptible, which again deserves special praise.
6. Princess Sibylla’s beautiful appearance is a must see.
Since there is just an excellent selection of actors, both the first plan and the second, so I simply have no right not to mention them in my opinion:
1. Balian II Ibelin performed by Orlando Bloom is a blacksmith who became a knight by chance. Before the events of the picture, he managed to survive a terrible tragedy, so he went to Jerusalem, and there ... The man is an honest and rather skillful warrior who learned this science quite quickly, the good of circumstances helped. There is one thing in the picture that surprised me for the first time. The fact is that at a certain point Balian is offered something that simply cannot be refused - and he, unexpectedly for me, did exactly that (refused). I was just in shock and saying on TV, 'What? Are you crazy? Agree fool! and other words, but it was useless. Now I understand in part the motives behind his decision – he’s just an idealist to the bone (which is close to my heart), but even now, after all these years, I’m still indignant at his action. Orlando is well suited to this role.
2. Princess Sibylla of Jerusalem, played by Eva Green, was the first picture where I saw this brilliant actress. Already here you can see her talent, which in the future will conquer millions of viewers around the world, including your humble servant. She was younger then than she is now, although she still looks great, unlike Charlize Theron. You have to look into her eyes to see if she's very dangerous, but not this time. Here she plays a completely uncharacteristic role - the role of an ordinary married woman who has problems known to everyone. Brilliant, just brilliant. I love her.
3. Gottfried Ibelinsky performed by Liam Neeson is a crusader, noble knight, father of Balian. Unfortunately, he is very little in the picture, but his image still managed to reveal. Seems like an ordinary knight, but only up to a point. Again, Liana was here for the first time. Liam did a great job.
4. Tiberius played by Jeremy Irons is the main military commander of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, an honest and just knight, the right hand of the sick king. Plays a very important role in the whole main story, though his action in the end — I personally did not like, although it is also understandable. Jeremy is playing great.
5. Guy de Lusignan played by Marton Chokas is a Templar commander, an extremely unpleasant person, and he is an antagonist, but not just an ordinary villain. He's evil because he's evil - that's not here. He is because he has very radical views. His fate is obvious, he got what he deserved. Marton at first sight causes hatred, and the desire to warm him with something heavy.
6. King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem in the performance ... but I will not say that, let it be a surprise. I was surprised to hear the name of the actor. A wise ruler, struck by a terrible ailment. I really felt sorry for him. He didn't deserve it.
7. Renaud de Chatillon performed by Brendon Gleeson is a nobleman, assistant to Guy de Lusignan, a fanatic who hates Muslims. The most vicious man in the Holy Land. Although the actor is very charismatic.
8. Saladin, played by Ghassan Massoud, is a leader of Muslims, a noble man and simply a great man. It was he who took Jerusalem and united under his banner all the Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa. No wonder it was remembered for centuries. Here he appears in exactly this way. Thank you to the Syrian actor for embodying this famous man. He looked damn charismatic and convincing.
9. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Heraclius, played by John Finch, is an interesting character, because it is through him that the main plan of all the Crusades is revealed - it is just money, land, power - yes, exactly that. And it also conveys what most of the so-called priests and fanatics were — just moral freaks.
In the end, I tried to describe everything objectively. How it turned out is up to you, and from me the picture receives the highest praise.
10 out of 10
You won’t see any sharp turns or a heartbreaking ending.
But that's not what the director was after. We are shown the story of a blacksmith who listened to the words of Baldwin the Fourth: “The king may demand obedience, father of obedience, but remember: whoever is the sovereign, the lord, you are alone in charge of your soul.” Therefore, our hero is a very right person, acting according to conscience. This is where it takes him and is shown in the film.
It is impossible to scold for this, but this is a few such presentations will taste. Even fans of Guy Ritchie...
The extended version, by the way, does not push the limits much. Almost all clippings contain empty dialogues. So don’t waste three hours, watch the two-hour version. That will be enough.
Characters
Here is a huge minus: all are broken into bad and good, there is no average. Either he is good or he is good and good. The rest are just gray... decorations...
Because of this, we always know who to trust and who not. The intrigue is lost when you know that he specifically does not stab in the back.
The main character is very correct. Too good. However, due to this, he stands out among the other characters.
We can single out Baldwin fourth. He will be distinguished only by the fact that he wisely rules the kingdom, although many knights disagree with him. And with an iron mask...
René de Chatellon. He's not in the movie. Through it, the sentiments of Christians are perfectly conveyed. Their opinion of the Saracens. It contains the desire of the Crusaders to start a war, from which the wise king of Jerusalem is holding back. Perhaps the only one you will remember besides the main character and Baldwin’s mask.
As a result, there are too few colorful characters, because of which the tape pales before other similar characters.
Music
I noticed that during battles almost always plays the same soundtrack. It's a little annoying.
Result
The movie will kill a couple of hours, but the second time you will not watch it.
You will not be disappointed if you do not expect anything special from him.
Don’t watch it unless you like the Middle Ages.
7 out of 10
“Kill them all, the Lord will know his own!”
Arnold Amalric
It was 2005, Ridley Scott made exceptionally good films, I was graduating from school, Vasily Utkin could sit with his foot on his leg, and at the peak of popularity there was a computer game: Stronghold Crusader, which largely determined the success of the film, at least in the heads of my peers.
Continuing the almanac of historical cinema started a week earlier, it is worth noting that at that time I was far from knowing about the large-scale medieval two-hundred-year-old gop stop, carefully covered by the Vatican, under the pretext of piousness. Therefore, the film was considered purely positive, because the battle scenes and special effects are at an extremely good level! Well, old Scott never had a problem with that. Years have passed, and today, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is perceived a little differently.
We are told a story with a claim to real historical events, telling about the siege of Jerusalem by the medieval Saddam Hussein – Salah ad-Din in 1187. Defended by a hereditary French nobleman, Balian II. Basically, the film tells its story. True, in their own interpretation of the scriptwriters, in which only names and names remained from historical events.
Leaving all the momentary miraculous transformations of the protagonist, from a sociopath-bastard to a beautiful, noble and strong knight, at the mercy of limited screen time, even in the three-hour directorial version, Balian is still sweet as strawberry jam, a hero without fear and reproach, positive from head to toe, and even in the performance of Orlando Bloom - too much, for serious cinema. Besides, in an absolutely incomprehensible way he combines honor, nobility, a competent strategist and defender of the weak and oppressed with opposite qualities. Given that 80% of screen time revolves around the main character, these things cause, at least, bewilderment. This is very striking, from which the overall impression of the film, a little limp.
The Kingdom of Heaven is one of Ridley Scott’s best works. Of course, in many ways played a role almost perfect cast. It is impossible not to mention a good visual component. All this is multiplied by the correct historical message: Almost all the crusaders, with rare exceptions, the most natural rabble of all varieties and species of European biogarbage of the XI-XIII centuries, which the papacy actually kicked out to rob the Arabs, instead of a similar bacchanalia between each other, in Europe, which, without endless strife, was bent in plague, illiteracy and other unsanitary conditions.
Quite edible film from a visual point of view, and the heterogeneity of the narrative. There is something to see and enjoy, in the director’s version, of course.
7 out of 10
The first time I watched Kingdom of Heaven on DVD, I liked it. I really liked it. Subsequently, I reviewed the picture several times and each time the film lost more and more in my eyes, immediately the shortcomings, absurdities, conventions and script holes that closed the effect of the first viewing became visible. The picture had almost no script: just some set of phrases and dialogues, as if added at the last moment for a bundle of action scenes.
Of course, in the film there are stunning in the beauty and scope of the battle. Ridley Scott, having trained to shoot local and large-scale battles in Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, put the whole experience together and gave us some of the best battles ever shown in epics. In addition, the film is extremely beautiful: each frame pleases the eye with its juicy colors, magnificent camera work, beautiful scenery and costumes. Some will say that's why we watch epics. I will not agree: in each picture there must be a more or less logical and coherent script, which was completely absent in the theatrical version.
In 2006, the world saw the director’s version of the picture. Ridley, in his introductory remarks before the film, says it's a more correct, more organic version. It is impossible to disagree with this statement.
When the final credits crawled across the screen, the question involuntarily arose - why? Why did the studio bosses simply lack the courage and courage to release this version in theaters? Are they scared of the length of the movie (3 hours and 14 minutes)? Probably, yes. But wait, what does it matter how long a picture lasts if it’s interesting to watch? Perhaps this question remained unanswered. Not allowing the editorial director, the studio began to cut the picture. They cut through the living, absolutely not thinking about how it will affect the final result. Entire storylines went under the knife, or they were completely wildly altered. The director's version of Kingdom of Heaven isn't an extended version that has a few scenes added. This is a completely different movie.
A huge number of new scenes were added to the picture or existing ones were significantly expanded. Everything fell into place: the narrative is organic and not torn. Each character received a more detailed development. Even small scenes can say a lot about a character.
But most of all, from the director's version, Sybill won, magnificently played by Eva Green.
Separately, I want to say about the music of Harry Gregson-Williams, which is an independent full-fledged work that can be enjoyed in itself. She is perfect and plays a full role in the film, filling it with soul.
Already having a successful work in this genre, Ridley Scott did not make a film similar to Gladiator. Here, in contrast to “Gladiator”, the value of the main character in the plot is much less. Orlando Bloom is not Russell Crowe. Although at the moment, Balian is perhaps his best acting work.
Scott made a movie that dealt with many questions about religion, honor, loyalty, forgiveness, glory, redemption, but at the same time, the film does not become a film about these things. “Kingdom of Heaven” raises questions and gives a rich food for thought to the viewer. Ridley made a film about the search for a personal paradise and the impossibility of achieving it.
Many were quick to claim that “Gladiator” and “The Fall of the Black Hawk” were the last bursts of creativity of the once great director. No, that's not at all true. The directorial version of Kingdom of Heaven once again confirms that Ridley is one of the best film storytellers of our time. And what we saw in theaters was not Scott's film, it was a failed version of a Hollywood studio chasing a profit that was never made.
And now, after watching the director's version, I want to thank Sir Ridley Scott that he still brought it to the end, and showed the audience the film in exactly the form in which he thought. Thank you, you don’t watch movies like this every day.
I have never understood why people want to get into the Promised Land – meaning Irushalayim-Jerusalem for a simple cauldron of peoples, religions and ambitions.
There is empty, hot, parko, no water, sandstorms and all the charms of nomadic life.
I also understand Salah ad-Din, the ruler of all the eastern lands, according to the simple Saladin, he lives nearby and observes faith, but why did the crusader knights come back from distant lands?
To carry the right faith, worship shrines, atone for all sins, to rise, to earn money, accompanying pilgrims and caravans - such an impression that this navel of the earth - all roads lead to it and all nations fight for it to death - after all, it is not terrible to die in the holy land, but it is honorable - for there is a gate to the kingdom of heaven.
It is against this historical background that the action develops and counteracts or interacts with the harsh heroes of the Middle Ages.
Black Orlando Bloom I almost do not know, but here he successfully together with his father fit into the image of a righteous knight-protector - fought well, galloped and fit into the walls.
Sometimes Orlando in the city resembled Danil Kozlovsky.
But what struck me with Ridley Scott was the battle scenes, their scope and size.
How many fighting machines and devices for the siege and against it.
Gravitational throwing machines trebuchet, wall-beating machines, some baskets and watering rooms on the walls, huge devices for storming the walls in which there were wars, horses, camels and all this moves, shoots at the same time, burns, and between them people are fighting and other teams perform and this is not a house, but an ancient war with the reading of prayers.
The field after the fight is a hell-mountain of corpses, a bunch of severed heads, flocks of birds - I can't imagine what smell there was.
And immediately remembers our Viking and his battle scenes, and time not far in advance has gone in chronology.
I was impressed with the action - probably all multiplied.
I also liked the royal Sibylla of Jerusalem and her bright eastern outfits.
This woman was and cut her hair and helped, as she could and on foot inconspicuous retreated – not in the example of our Irinka.
Spectacular film a little gray-blue tones, may not have a special depth of penetration, but what is the scale and atmosphere to the music of different peoples is the same Jerusalem-eternal city after Rome, which still stands and will stand on the holy land, guarding the gates and blessed is the one who saw this miracle.
To the madness of the brave we sing a song and their diplomacy that has saved many lives.
Everything in the film is completely underwhelmed.
The incomprehensible character of Bloom unexpectedly turns out to be the son of a famous crusader and moves to Jerusalem. In the course of the case, he transforms from a blacksmith into a fierce shirt and each confrontation earns political points, the sum of which ultimately helps him in troubles of any complexity. In addition to this, he finds the Kingdom of Heaven not in the state that was painted for him: depravity and fall in the holy city clearly hint at an imminent catastrophe. But the hero, of course, remains with his complex convictions and does not succumb to the provocations of burned knights and a seductive ruler.
From battle scenes eyes quickly get tired, rapid continues the trends of Gladiator.
There are a lot of loud words.
The nobility of the hero is unprecedented, everyone is delighted with the young knight - and girls, and defeated enemies, and undefeated enemies, and many knighted villagers.
It is strange that the decisions of the state level are ultimately decided by a character who has no global thinking and who is initially passive in everything that does not concern the opportunity to show individual valor. In my opinion, the desire to merge Jerusalem as a city that is not close to it in convictions is visible in the hero from the very beginning. In this regard, much closer salted fighters who go to fight with the Saracens for their pleasure.
You will regret that you have not committed a small evil in the name of a great good.
You can write a long review, you can write a short one, but the main thing is to catch the essence. “Kingdom of Heaven” is not a film about the Promised City, not about the Kingdom of Jerusalem, it is a film about the human soul, because there we have a kingdom that cannot be taken away by the apt expression of the protagonist. “Kingdom of Heaven” is the one about which I do not want to talk a lot ... no, of course, you can focus on magnificent and high-quality battles, excellent acting (even Bloom, who is fashionable to scold), historical inconsistencies, the differences in theatrical and directorial versions, etc. This is all right, but I’d like to talk about something else.
I would like to talk about the excellent conveyed atmosphere of the Middle Ages, Yes, yes, you are literally immersed in the era, because there are so many themes here: the greed of war and glory (Guy de Lusignan) religion and the hypocrisy of people and fear for their own lives (including the priests, the bishop of Jerusalem in the film is the best example of this). And all this revolves around the story of a simple man Balian, who by fate became a baron and commander of the defense of Jerusalem. A man who has always sought peace in his soul and has finally found it. A man who was afraid to do "a little evil for the greater good." A man who refused to become king and marry the woman he loved because he had to step over himself. That is why he seems to be a living person, not a knight without fear and reproach, as the main characters in such films sometimes are. Isn't that what matters? After all, we have enough cardboard heroes, and people with their weaknesses and desires are few.
That is why I single out this film for myself, one of the best, in my opinion, on historical themes and the best film about the Middle Ages. This is one of my favorite movies.
P.S. Salah al-Din came out simply amazing, for some time Muslims were shown worthy opponents to the Crusaders and just the same people.
10 out of 10
“Fight fearlessly, protect the weak and make no mistakes.”
The siege of Jerusalem in 1187 is not without reason distinguished as a separate stage of the Crusades: after the first campaign, it was the first truly crushing strategic defeat of the Crusaders by the troops of Salah ad-Din (or simply Saladin). The French, who had long held Jerusalem, were forced to hand over the palm to the British, who, in turn, “played back” not in the best way, just as, later, surrendering Jerusalem. But that was later.
And at that time, his very significant contribution was made by the main character of this picture - Balian Ibelin or, as he was called in the Old French dialect, Barcian II. In the film, this is a half-blood blacksmith, born of the love of a peasant woman and a knight, who possessed the character and moral way of a knight, as he is described in folklore, and therefore easily joined the common cause, distinguished himself in the Holy Land from the best point of view and returned to his homeland as a hero. To help him in this will be not only personal fortitude and tempered character in the medieval village, but also his own father, friends acquired in battles and on arrival in Jerusalem, as well as his own reputation, acquired by him in the course of literally breaking through to the fortress in the Holy Land.
The story of the protagonist is permeated with personal drama, reflected both in his past and in relationships with other people with whom the hero Orlando Bloom meets constantly, whether he is a priest in the village, a leper king, his own father or Queen Sybill. In principle, Ridley Scott set his task to show us the adventure of an ordinary person close to the viewer, and, in fact, he coped with this task “excellently”.
But... everything is not so smooth and beautiful if you look at the facts, in other words, look at the events as they actually happened, albeit superficially, because even there are inaccuracies. Here are some of them.
First of all, Balian wasn't a bastard at all, as the whole movie is trying to convince us. He was the legitimate son of Barcian I of the Ibelin family and went to the Crusade not to atone for the sins of his suicide wife, but simply on duty. In short, he was knighted not just before Jerusalem, but before he was sent there.
Second, it is not known if Sibyll and Baldwin were actually related, but there certainly could be no romance between the Queen and Balian. No, they were just familiar: before the siege of Jerusalem, to which we shall return, the Queen's requests influenced Balian in part. But Balian's wife was alive at the time.
Third, the siege of Jerusalem. This is a complete failure of events. Balian did not refuse to go on a campaign with the Templars or enter into open disputes with de Lasignan, he went with them and avoided captivity and death due to his fighting skills, and even then he was intercepted by Saladin and swore to him to stay in Jerusalem only for a day. He decided to defend him not because of altruistic motives for the sake of women and children, but because he was literally persuaded by the whole city to stay, including Father Heraclius and, yes, Sibylla. As for Heraclius, he is shown here ... a coward-opportunist, ready to accept Islam and repent in order to stay alive. One can treat priests, the church, and religion in general any way one likes, but denying the facts is ugly: Heraclius, on the contrary, convinced Balian of the need to defend Jerusalem, because their common faith demanded it. Moreover, Heraclius took upon himself the release of Balian from his oath. Approximately on the same stumbling block, Balian persuaded Salah ad-Din to release all the inhabitants of Jerusalem unharmed: Muslim shrines in the city were under threat, so Saladin let such a huge number of people go out of fear of sacrilege, not because of a benevolent disposition towards the main character.
Why was it so serious that it seemed to distort the real history?
First, in order to arouse interest in it, oddly enough: everything else in the film is shown very plausible and beautiful: boiling oil is not just poured from the wall, rolling the boiler to the edge, but drained in special gutters so that the ground is not removed stray arrow or bolt, show competent attacks of the Saracens on the fortified positions of the crusaders, and most importantly: rarely in what film you see the true essence of the medieval battle. This means that the battle of two armies is not a pathos competition in the art of fencing, when fighters spontaneously break into pairs and begin to fight in a samurai manner, but, on the contrary, when a person is piled on, rolled into the mud, chopped with all improvised objects with different amplitudes and on a still living body a couple of times can walk their feet – this is not shown everywhere. So for this, you can say “thank you” to the director and put a fat plus to the film.
Secondly, through the relations in the society in which the main character has been since the beginning of the film, the essence of both medieval and modern society is shown: the arrogance of the aristocracy, the cowardice and adaptability of church ministers, the difficult choice faced by a native of proletarians in a chivalrous society, etc. One phrase “From you, Father, I learned a lot about religion” already makes you think.
Third, the director wanted to show another important moral aspect of the film, namely, that Balian Ibelin lives in each of us. This can be seen in how the protagonist easily masters the knightly code and all the algorithms of behavior associated with it, and in how he knights servants and commoners, and in his relations even with enemies. In short, the red thread of the film is the secularization of the image of the knight and its maximum approach to the seemingly plebeian.
“Kingdom of Heaven” can rightly be considered the strong work of Ridley Scott. Yes, he is not everywhere reliable, but the play of the actors, the authenticity of the scenery, props and other paraphernalia in general and the excellent soundtrack of Mr. Gregson-Williams more than iron out this drawback.
I highly recommend it.
Back in 2006. I can’t remember what day I was sitting at my old computer, rummaging through Wikipedia, trying to learn everything about the Crusades. On the page The Third Crusade I found one interesting fact: the film Ridley Scott & #39;Kingdom of Heaven'. After that, I decided to immediately suppress my curiosity and watched this movie.
The plot of the film seems to be only a prehistory to the events of the Third Crusade, but this backstory has undergone cosmetic and not only changes and edits. Learning about this film is not recommended. Especially now almost every historical picture is a fiction against the background of real events. That is, the local story is an absolute lie, and the global story is the truth. But this does not put these pictures in the dirt, not at all. The viewer is given the opportunity to see the other side of the coin, the existence of which they did not even know. And that's good. But back to the movie. The plot tells the story of the formation of a young Balian from an ordinary blacksmith, whom everyone hates, into a true knight, whom everyone will eventually love. He loses his old love and finds a new one. He faces many problems and overcomes them.
I liked everything in the film, but there are no flaws. All in order:
As I wrote earlier, I really liked the plot, although it has very little in common with the real story. Names, local events, and global conflict. This is something that has to do with history. Everything else is the most frank fiction.
I wanted to focus on the actors and their performances in this film. Most of the actors tried to play, it was obvious. Everything is in its place, there are no unnecessary characters. No, there is one. The main character of the film Balian performed by Orlando Bloom I thought nothing, even dry. It is not clear why he did not try at all in this film and the whole timekeeping went with a serious mine. Maybe they paid little or he had a conflict with the crew. Whatever. It is important that he, being the main character, turned out to be the most uninteresting, boring, log character. Shame. If it were different. . .
The atmosphere of the film deserves a separate fat plus. Cold medieval France, warmer shores of Messina and finally the fiercely intolerable Syrian deserts. All this is shown so qualitatively that when viewing, it seems as if you are there and the story occurs as if from a third person. Applause.
Battle scenes and camera work turned out to be a peculiar highlight of this picture. It was a pleasure to have the cruelty, the blood, because that is what should always be present when you are going to make a historical film about the Middle Ages. This film has everything your heart desires: local and global battles, sieges and storming cities. It's fascinating, it's like your eyes are happy.
The music for this film was written by Harry Grexon-Williams and it turned out to be very good. What is the composition called 'Ibelin', under which this review is written? It's getting a little creepy.
The director of the film is Ridley Scott and after this film, I decided to immediately see his other creations. After a while, I discovered a funny fact: Every five years he makes historical films, including ' Gladiator' 2000, ' Kingdom of Heaven' 2005 and ' Robin Hood' 2010. This list may also include the recent 'Exodus:Kings and Gods', but it 2014 of the year of issue, which somewhat violates the already begun trend. Each picture leaves behind something that you do not want to forget for a long time. ' Gladiator' began an entire era in the genre 'Peplum'; 'Kingdom of Heaven' was a great film, but failed at the box office; 'Robin Hood' somewhat lost positions and again failed at the box office; But 'Exodus' I did not understand at all, a very strange film, but a furor on the world still made, albeit short-term.
What can I write in the end? I personally fell in love with this film and consider it the best film of all time. A joke, of course. It's just a very strong and great movie in every sense, despite the AB. I’ve watched it about 500 times and I’m not tired of it. This is what I understand: love at first sight. It's a shame that I failed at the box office.
PS. The director's version seemed too long, I watched it once and forgot.
PSS. No Orland Bloom will underestimate the rating of the film.