Wow thanks for that! I really enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven in the theater but it felt a bit shallow on the characters, but if the Director’s Cut added that much more time & development I am eager to see it!
Sorry, my bad - but I still believe that Gladiator made a lot of its money based on Oscar buzz. If Kingdom of Heaven gets similar buzz, its revenue will go way up.
As far as horse and sword epics of the past few years, this was my favorite. I was actually surprised at how much history was included. They changed major things, of course (Orlando’s character, Balian, existed but was pretty much reinvented completely for the movie) but it contained waaaaay more actual history than Gladiator or even Pearl Harbor and did a good job of portraying how complex and interwoven the relationships twixt Christians and Muslims were in Outremer. Guy de Lusignan really was that stupid in his military leadership, Reynaud de Chatillon really was that bloody and rabidly anti-Muslim (even by 12th century standards- he was also married to a member of the royal family, which helps explain how he got away with as much as he did), Saladin really was brilliant and even by the accounts of 12th century Christians a very merciful and “good” man, and even many scenes such as the offering of snow water to captive Guy and the tax on the Muslims of Sicily are accurate. The acting was good, though Orlando wasn’t who I would have cast (his Troy brother Eric Bana would have been better- you can’t believe waifish Orlando as a blacksmith or a warrior), and I loved the anti-climactic ending (which, more or less, happened [the real Saladin ransomed rather than released the people but for a reasonable amount, and he was sickened by the priest’s greed, but he had the resources and the provocation [revenge for the Christian massacre of Muslims there a century before] to slaughter everybody in the city but chose not to).
Anyway, I think it was far better than Troy, Gladiator and the other recent historical epics. Most of its problems were due to choppy editing I think. (One thing that’s not imparted as much as it should be is that Balian’s journey from France to the Holy Land is supposed to have taken between 1 and 2 years, which helps explain how he learns to fight and other facts of life before he arrives.) I’d give it a solid B, with an A+ to the actor who played Saladin.
The numbers just don’t back this up at all.
Looking here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/business
You see that Gladiator made the vast majority of it’s money in the first month of release, most after opening weekend on the back of very strong word-of-mouth buzz. It was not in theaters during the awards season, and in it’s post-Oscar re-release it only added a million dollars in US theaters.
People were excited about Gladiator. There was substantial buzz for the 6 months prior to the release largely due to some very impressive trailers shown in theaters. The CGI Rome and Russell Crowe’s character sucked people in with a somewhat fresh concept. Kingdom of Heaven inspired barely a “meh” from audiences before, during and after it’s premiere. The Academy had nothing to do with it, and based on the opinions here it seems the quality of the movie didn’t either.
I’ll check out the Director’s Cut when it’s released; judging from the link that Cervaise provided, the characters are better developed (for instance, Balian apparently worked as a military engineer before returning to his village to blacksmith, which makes it a little more plausible – though I don’t know why they didn’t just show us the historical Balian, who was a lot more like the fictional Godfrey).
One major positive: the armour in this movie looked great. Not just cinematic, but right for the time and place, as far as I could tell. Liam Neeson in mail is my image of a veteran medieval knight. And I don’t find Orlando Bloom unbelievable as a warrior, even if he does look like a chick. He’s a wiry guy. Judging from archeological evidence, contemporary illustrations and surviving armour and effigies, a lot of medieval knights, especially among Mediterranean peoples, tended to compact bodies and slender limbs. In the SCA, some of the most formidable guys I’ve fought have been skinny, fast-moving rednecks.
The armor, and the customs were pretty good and fairly accurate with some exceptions here and there.
The weapons however, were a hit or miss proposition. It seemed every Arab was using a curved sword, though they were rare at the time. The majority of Arab swords would have been straight and double edged.
Likewise, European longswords (the hand and a halfs we see almost every nobleman using) would have been very rare, they wouldn’t really come to be popular until later in history. Single handers and buckler or heater shields would have been the weapons of war as well as lances, spears and polearms.
The importance of European armor was also not really portrayed in the movie, not that it ever is in any historical (or fantasy) piece. Oh, and the charges! Where the heck were the cavalry lances? Most of the knights were charging in swords drawn!
Wow, I was proven wrong twice in one thread. That must be a new record. Thanks Omniscient.
My thoughts exactly.
I thought it was utterly boring and uninspired.
It was like reading a history-book.
It’s fine if you want to learn history, but I go to see a movie to be entertained or moved, not bored to tears.
Oh, and by the way : I did see the Director’s Cut.
So maybe I will like the theatrical version better.
Not that I am every going to watch it again.
It was the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. It was horrible. IIRC we made it just past the cheesy Orlando Bloom speech scene.
Then again, I hated Gladiator with a passion. Now there’s a sleeper.
Marketing is where I would point the finger. Kingdom of Heaven was expected to be Fox’s number 1 summer hit. Cost $130 million and made a mediocre $20 million in its opening weekend (but good enough to open at no.1) and went on to earn $47 million domestically. The movie made $211 million world wide. For a movie to open number 1 and ultimately pull in numbers that made it the number 17 2005 realease world-wide, **all the while pulling in Skeleton Key total numbers domestically ** … you have to say that the Marketing Plan in the U.S. did not play beyond core audiences and that the problem was not structural to the movie itself. It is unerving to think that our views are colored by the perception of Moive good/bad winner/loser by the money it makes. That is often the case though
Smaller/side issue: Ticket sales for 2005, for all movies were down over 6 per cent the biggest nose dive since admissions dropped by 12 per cent in 1985. It was not conducive environment for HUGE Blockbusters & dragged many movies below expectations.
I’m a moviegoer who thinks 99% of all movies could be further edited, and that no “director’s cut” with scenes added back in has ever been as good as the theatrical version.
“Kingdom of Heaven,” though, was an exception. I thought the film might actually have been just a bit overedited; it bounced from pillar to post at time in a rush to get to the big payoffs. Eva Green’s characer, especially, seemed remarkably overedited - at times I could not for the life of me figure out where the hell that character was headed. (Upon some searching I find she did in fact complain about overediting of her scenes.)
I cannot help but think that another 7-10 minutes of footage would have turned the movie from a decent one into a terrific one.
FTR, inspired by this thread I rented the movie and watched it this weekend. I really enjoyed it and I totally agree with the claims that it was over-edited. Its a big story with some potentially robust characters. I’ll be interested to see the directors cut to see how much extra they flesh out.
Well, I rented the Big Long Version and it’s worth the price of the rental-a spot more gore added to the battle scenes, a bit more naked to the love scenes and the reinsertion of Sybilla’s young son as heir to Jerusalem. It also gave me a further 45 minutes in which to think “Wow, Orlando sure looks like my old boss Rosemarie!”
My friends and I really wanted to see it in the theatre, but unfortunately circumstances did not permit. A few weeks ago my sweet pea and I watched on cable and loved it. Sure the costuming drove me a bit bonkers and a few of the Templars being married gave me giggles, but all in all I loved it. After we saw it I did my usual history nerd research and gathered sooo much information we decided to see it again. This time, we’re going to rent the director’s cut.
Add my sweet pea and I to the list of those who had no clue it was Edward Norton as the king, but thought he rocked.
I think my sweet pea is the only person in this thread who loved Kingdom of Heaven but hated Gladiator. I think there was so much buzz by the time he saw it he was expecting the second coming and was mildly disappointed to say the least.