El reino de los cielos

Los productores, encabezados por Ridley Scott, deberían estar temblando porque El reino de los cielos es sólo ligeramente más atractiva para el gran público que el fracaso comercial Alejandro Magno. La trama en sí está impulsada más por los personajes secundarios que por el principal, quien sólo sale a relucir en la parte final. Y los personajes secundarios no son lo suficientemente desarrollados como para sacar a la película de las aguas de la reconstrucción histórica de acontecimientos históricos. Esta reconstrucción está llena de interesantes ideas de diálogo que carecen de un contexto más profundo con la imagen que en sí es hermosa. Las imágenes tienen atmósfera y poesía en cada una de las localizaciones, y son una de las cosas que hacen de la película una clase por encima de lo que fue Alejandro Magno. Lo mismo puede decirse de la sorprendente corrección política y del mensaje antibélico sentimental, es decir, comprensible para el público de masas. También doy cuatro estrellas a la banda sonora de Harry Gregson-Williams, a la batalla final en las murallas, decentemente llevada, y a los ojos de Sibila. ¿Hay algún hombre en el mundo que pueda resistirse a ella? (26.04.2005)

In the cinema version, the editor's hand was all too evident, Balian's rise up the ladder of social prestige is too hasty. As if the change from an insignificant blacksmith's nobody to a man who becomes the king's favourite, and to whom all Jerusalem bows down in the end and listens to his word in its moments of need, could be so simple. Unfortunately, the almost one hour longer director's cut that I just got my hands on didn't do much to improve my impression in this regard. Even so, the added scenes make the film feel more whole and much more emotional, especially with the added storyline of the illness and death of Sibylla's son and heir to the throne, which is quite crucial to the development of the plot. Also very nice is the added scene with the burning bush, full of symbolism of the nature of warfare in the Middle East. But there are also some scenes that don’t make much sense for the development of the plot. Bottom line: Scott's magnum opus isn't a riveting film, but it is insightful and thoughtful, with an ambition to make a point, and that's appreciated. And the final peace deal between Balian and Saladin, Christian and Muslim, must be a literal caress for every peacenik on this earth :o) (15.12.2006)

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is said to have launched a major comeback of historical-mythological epics in the year 2000. And it is said that Kingdom of Heaven by the same director is a kind of last chance of this genre, which shone after less than five years, collected a lot of awards and is gradually clearing the way for a more lucrative Hollywood item. If that's the case, then Scott composed another go for the spiritless and empty Gladiator at just the right time. Kingdom of Heaven is not a flawless work, it is a typical "more successful Hollywood spectacle," characterized by partial courage in relaxing the form in favor of the content and a noticeable phobia of doing so as a result. From the very first seconds, it is clear that the scenery and artificiality of Gladiator did not stem from Scott's momentary weakness, but rather that the English legend could not imprint a certain specificity on historical places and persons... everything is artificial, clearly sketched, functioning according to the mechanical rules of the average screenplay. The people are only black and white, all places radiate the halo of a costly expedition, but they lack the hallmark of authenticity and suggestion. But while the backdrop of Rome was covered with great nothingness, the backdrops of the 12th century have at least something worth exploring. At the heart of the film is Orlando Bloom, who has finally managed to play someone other than a soulful elf prince. True, his panic purity remains, but the young idealist Balian has a human, flawed aspect. The fact that it remains only on the plane of a sketch, on which Scott piles up garish paste clichés, is another matter. Fortunately, the young star is backed from all sides by excellent actors, of whom I must particularly mention the charismatic Marshal Tiberias played by Jeremy Irons. Kingdom of Heaven has little to do with history - it is a film that is more or less current and uses the backdrop of the Crusades and the Middle Ages only as a means of sending a message of tolerance between Christians and Muslims. It is a moralistic message, in a way presented tamely, but above all fun and, at certain moments, very impressive (the battle between the Christians and Muslims in the ruins of the holy city walls). Questions of faith, honor and sacrifice are heard in typically cautious packaging, but it's good that they get their place... If I think of the excellent soundtrack and relatively well-conceived battle scenes (the fact that Scott confuses the early Middle Ages with fantasy is something I prefer to leave out), this is one of the best representatives of a "historical" film, beating both Troy and Gladiator. Kingdom of Heaven isn't a great film, but it's a film about something that's appreciated. (06.05.2005)

Theatrical cut: 3/5 The movie chugs along pleasantly throughout its running time, but is nothing earth-shattering. So Alexander remains the best historical picture of recent months, although Kingdom is certainly worth seeing on the big screen. Director’s cut: 5/5 Historically more accurate (but not completely), more ambitious in terms of message and the characters suddenly have absolutely convincing motivation. It is almost incredible that by adding just that one storyline involving Sibylla’s son fundamentally changes the motivation, actions and overall impression given by all of the main protagonists and therefore of the entire movie. And, rather paradoxically, despite its considerably longer running time, it becomes far more hard-hitting than the theatrical cut, so much so that it is the best historical epic of the past few decades. (08.05.2005)

Ridley goes on a crusade without fear, but he came late. At a time when the end of heroic epics was being openly discussed, he embarked on a path destined for failure. A politically directed and brilliantly crafted path, but unfortunately, very risky. His direction, the stunning camera work, and, last but not least, Gregson-Williams' chilling music take your breath away. And when the sword is bravely lifted by the deeply underestimated Orlando, I can only nod approvingly and follow him to Jerusalem. (17.02.2006)

Another historical film that needs to be seen at least twice in order to understand the plot and expressive depth that it possesses (similar to Alexander). Not every viewer will be able to reconcile with the fact that Kingdom of Heaven is not a typical historical film with everything that comes with it, but that it expresses something more through historical events, battles, love, and characters, than just what happens on the screen. This is even more pronounced than in Alexander. Kingdom of Heaven is an ode to world peace and finding the meaning of life. It is narrated, acted, and directed in a captivating way (the director's cut). Ridley Scott grabbed the reins and made a smart film that not everyone will see through. (19.05.2005)

The director's cut is something incredible! I didn't think I'd ever like Orlando Bloom... And lo and behold, his Balian was good! Big kudos to all the filmmakers - from the director to the music composer to the set designers, costume designers and the guys who provided towels and cold water on set. Kingdom of Heaven IS on the same level as Gladiator. Actually, no, it's even better! Nobody makes historical films like Ridley Scott. Awesome, awesome, awesome. (14.01.2008)

A disappointment that I want to forget very quickly. I was expecting quite a lot, but all I got was a dusty, tired story with a model instead of an actor in the lead role that put me vehemently to sleep from the middle. I could have managed an hour and a half, but 144 minutes of political and moral talk and a final spectacular battle for 130 million, I could only barely stand that. I was even sorry for the other brilliant actors who wasted their times here. (10.08.2022)

When I saw the movie for the first time years ago, it definitely made a bigger impression on me than during this second screening. But I guess it's because Ridley simply won't be my favorite director. Or rather, I don't adore every one of his films. However, this is still an excellent example of how one conflict can be passed on through centuries to future generations. (25.02.2016)