Crap, I did not see a Director’s Cut version at Blockbuster. I’ll have to rent it again somewhere else.
Crap, I did not see a Director’s Cut version at Blockbuster. I’ll have to rent it again somewhere else.
Oh my…
Well damn I’m going to have to search that down and have it shipped over to me (Tokyo.)
Cool, hope it makes it to chicago eventually. Anyone know where you can track down where limited release films are scheduled to appear?
I think the problem with the theatrical release is that it just wasn’t very memorable. Is it an enjoyable film? Yeah, sure. I liked it. But very little of it stuck with me. The performances were adequate, but not outstanding. The story was adequate, but not engaging. Contrast that with the smoldering intensity of both Russel Crowe and Joachim Phoenix in Gladiator or the all around excellence of Peter Jackson and his cast and crew in the LOTR movies, and I think that Kingdom of Heaven just gets lost, like many summer blockbusters seem to. It doesn’t stand out, it’s just one among many.
You know what I really remember from the film? That if I were fighting either Bloom or Neeson, I’d poke 'em in the belly when they do the over the head sword trick. That’s really what I took from it. And that signals a failing of the movie, right there. I did really appreciate the portrayal of Sala’adin. Very sensitive, moving, and excellently done.
It appears that the director’s cut of the movie makes it a better movie than the theatrical release. I plan on renting it soon and checking it out.
I think they pick him because they can save the money they would’ve spent on sword training another actor. 
The “problem” with Kingdom of Heaven was that it had a smart script.
It wasn’t a simple tale of revenge with unambiguously good and bad guys, like Gladiator, where the “good” guys were simply the ones whose values were most American.
Really, I’m not sure why it did so poorly domestically. It was realease in early May, which can kind of be a “dead man’s land” for movie. . .the period before the big Memorial Day releases.
I and my roommates went to see it and the first thing we did when we got home was to pull up the Wikipedia entry looking for information on whether or not the movie was factually based. We enjoyed it. Hell I enjoy any movie that has Trebuchets, it’s a fetish of sorts.
I have a friend who didn’t like it for the Pro-Muslim appeal of it. She grew up Catholic and is Russian Orthodox today and apparently wanted the Muslims to be much more cruel and such in the movie.
I would NEVER have guessed that it was Edward Norton, I completely overlooked that in the IMDB credits.
I personally enjoyed the movie, and I recall lots of previews and such for it, but that’s because I watch the shows for its target demographic - CSI, Spike TV etc…
shrug
Ha! I’ve heard this from at least two other people. The funny thing is that this is probably the only attempt I’ve ever seen in a movie at using actual medieval martial arts techniques in combat. That guard is actually called, at least in one place, the “posta di Falcone” in the Italian Tradition, and Vom Tag in the German Tradition. It is indeed a legitimate, and martially sound guard to use, unlike the twirling, rolling on the ground, and ducking under sword blades you typically see in movies.
However, in the movie, it is indeed portrayed as some sort of ‘trick’ move. Certainly lying in any one guard for an extended period of time is considered bad form almost universally by medieval masters, whom suggest that you should keep switching from one guard to another.
So I was happy to see it included, but disapointed in the way it was portrayed.
I did love the fact that he gets 20 minutes of sword training and suddenly he can fight with the best of them…and organize the defense for a city…and fight on horseback.
As muti-talented as he is, why’s he wasting him time being a blacksmith(with eyebrows, no less)?
See my link.
IIRC, Gladiator had a huge box office bump from the Oscar nomination and subsequent win (deserved or not). I know many people, myself included, that didn’t make an effort to see Gladiator until the Oscar run - so I don’t think the popularity comparison between it and Kingdom of Heaven is exactly apples to apples. I also seem to remember that Gladiator had the advantage of still being in the theatres during the Oscars, which added to the buzz. Even if Kingdom of Heaven gets in the running for the gold naked guy (which doesn’t seem to be in the cards - Brokeback Mountain seems to be the safe bet), it wouldn’t get the same in-theatre Oscar bump.
Gladiator opened on May 5th, 2000.
KoH opened on May 6th, 2005.
You probably saw Gladiator when it was re-released BECAUSE it won Oscars.
This is one of those movies that I refused to dislike, no matter how much a couple of my friends railed against it. Yes, I understand that it doesn’t follow the history of the era very closely. What film ever does? It’s a movie, not a documentary. You might as well look for historical accuracy in an opera. Does it have plot holes you could sneak an invading army through? Sure. Does it have scenes that have pretty much been lifted from other films? You betcha. Has its lead actor made a conspicuously large number of sword-swinging epic movies? Beyond question. But so what?
From the very opening of Kingdom of Heaven I was grabbed as if by a steel gauntlet that never relaxed its grip on me until the final frames (yes, I have recovered, thank you very much). Being both a history major and an actor, this experience is pretty unusual for me. I’m usually too busy studying the performances or analyzing the historical (or unhistorical) slant to get so sucked in. Yet this movie did it.
Edward Norton as the King of Jerusalem was particularly striking. I had NO clue who it was behind the mask when I first saw the film, but I was bowled over by the portrayal. I kept telling myself that had I been a soldier in the service of someone like that, I would have gladly given up my life to defend him.
I was also very impressed with the portrayal of Saladin. My first reaction is that I was stunned just how much the actor resembled the image I have always had of the actual person. Secondly, I appreciated the way he was shown as a wise and just leader, forced to contend not only with the Christian invaders but also with malcontents and intertribal squabbling among his own people.
It didn’t bother me that Balian seemed to become a very good fighter in a short amount of time. If you’ll take the time to look at a map, you’ll see that the journey from anywhere in France to Messina (at the toe of Italy) takes a bit longer than 20 minutes. Particularly when you’re travelling in the winter, through the mountains, and one of the members of your party is mortally wounded. At the very least, Balian underwent several months of intense training at the hands of expert swordsmen. Is that enough to make him capable of standing up to soldiers who (presumedly) have been fighting all their lives? Perhaps not, but history is full of talented amateurs who have accomplished similar feats. I do grant that the film did not explain how Balian became a master of siege warfare in such a short time. It’s revealed in the beginning (by the fact that he can read) that he has an education, but we don’t know if that education just happened to have included engineering, tactics, and other arts of war. Maybe that is addressed in the Director’s Cut. I hope so.
Anyone find anything about a DVD release date for the directors cut?
Google was quite quiet on the subject of “Kingdom of Heaven director’s cut” and it didn’t show up on Amazon. My guess would be that if the DVD is on the conveyor to release, it is still before the marketting stage by a good bit. But I think I would be relatively certain that if they were willing to release it big screen (even for a limitted release) that they will will WILL release a DVD version.
WILL DAMN YOU!
I take that back. It would appear to be scheduled for release in Mid to Late 2006.
Muahahahah 
Was it a sleeper? I slept through it. Mr. Kal thought it was pretty good. It’s not my kind of movie but actually there were parts of it that I found interesting. The female lead (whose name escapes me) was the wrong girl for the gig. She just didn’t look right to me.
This is just weird. I watched the movie last night from Netflix and I was going to start a thread. A lot of my questions are answered by reading that article about the director’s cut. It makes much more sense now. Anyone have a cite which explains the inaccuracies in the movie? My knowledge of the time (such as it is) mostly focuses on Europe and not the crusades.
I remember seeing a few commercials for the movie when it was released and not being interested. It just didn’t look very good. Then last summer I saw it on a flight back from Spain and I really liked it. Definitely something I would have loved seeing on the “big screen”. Someone in advertising must have dropped the ball.
I would love to catch the director’s cut in a theater and will most likely buy the dvd when it’s available.
And I had no idea that was Ed Norton! He was great!