Kingdom of Heaven - Ridley Scott's best?
Posted Sep 19, 2013, 2:55 AM UTC
512
[deleted]
1
I loved the first half, and I could see that part maaaybe maybe being up to the standards you are holding it to. But the end battle was very generic and therefor a bit boring. Well not really boring, but my jaw wasn't dropping at any point.
(Sorry this answer isn't the most in depth its been to long since my last viewing to really go into more detail but this was the impression I remember having (ive seen the film 3 times))
1
There are other films in his oeuvre which perhaps tackle a single aspect better than Kingdom of Heaven does, but IMO what is important is Kingdom of Heaven manages to blend everything together so that the sum is greater than its individual parts. The big ideas, the visuals, the music, the rich cast of characters.
I also disagree about the end battle being bland. I don't recall any other movie's siege sequence being as well executed. It was definitely late to the party, so maybe the post-LOTR hangover made people glaze over it at the time. But make no mistake its a brutally terrific scene (and R-rated!)
1
lol, this is a joke right? Gladiator was much, MUCH better than kingdom of heaven. I wouldn't even put the two in the same category. If Gladiator is a 7 on my list of 1 to 10, Kingdom of heaven is like a .01. That's how bad it was in comparison. However, I wouldn't even say that Gladiator was Ridley Scott's best film...nevermind I definitely would. But Blade Runner is a close second, and black hawk down is up there as well.
1
No this is not a joke. You are right about Gladiator not being in the same league, it is far inferior. And just to be sure, I'm talking about the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven.
1
oh shit, didn't realize it was the directors cut, better run out and pay the extra $10 to see orlando bloom run around in chain mail. Kingdom of Heaven had its moments, it's hard to really remember what they were. The acting was pretty lame, as far as I remember. So you can scrounge together a million extras, and dress them up like it was halloween, hats off Ridley, but it don't mean shit to me unless theres a story to go with it. And kingdom of heaven was a sad excuse for a story. 'one man's fight for survival in the desert- but wait he's gotta bang this girl, and lead the men the victory before the FINAL BATTLE' . not like I havent seen that movie a million times before. Fuckin formulaic hollywood script designed to make money. which is exactly what it did, and is exactly why ridley scott made it. You're a tool for thinking otherwise.
1
The criticisms regarding story you bring up are the very exact things the extra 45mins of the directors cut fixes. Even at over 3hrs, there is almost too much story. If you describe the story as 'one man's fight for survival in the desert-', then you have missed the entire agnostic (if perhaps anachronistic) discourse about religion and the futility of the violence over the Holy Lands. It was about the possiblity of finding penance in Jerusalem for even the most grievous of crimes (oh wait, if you didn't see the DC then you never knew that Balian's wife commited suicde, was beheaded before burial by his half brother, who was murdered by Balian in revenge, prompting him to go after Godfrey who had succession troubles of his own...oh wait you missed out on that too in the theatrical cut.). Story is not one of the weak points of the film.
Ridley Scott made what is arguably a masterpiece, it was Fox who butchered it into its theatrical form to try and sell it as a summer action blockbuster, which it never was, and didnt work as such.
PS: Btw, whats with the personal attacks? Its a bloody opinion.
1
right, I realize that the kingdom of heaven is about the fight for the holy land. But religion was hardly a topic in the story, only superficially. What it ended up being was a muslim vs christian story, which is boring because it ignores the real complexities of the crusades. But everything about the film was so under-developed, with exception to the trials and tribulations of orlando blooms character, that it's not even a worthy film. At least gladiator knew what it was (a story of retribution at the very least) and it makes sense that way. But the kingdom of heaven is like, well theres this guy, and theres like this prince who has leprosy who dies and then theres bad christians, and good muslims, and sheesh, what a mess. but I agree that there is too much story. and I didn't mean to personally attack you, my bad.
1
Alien must surely be his best. Blade Runner? Thelma and Louise? Black hawk down? Kingdom of Heaven would be in the top 5 but its not his best. IMHO, of course.
1
That is the question. Something about KOH DC clicked with me this time that I can comfortably place it among Blade Runner, Alien, and Thelma and Louise. Whether its at the absolute top of the heap (which I usually consider to be Blade Runner Final Cut), I'm not sure yet...but I'm considering it.
In any case, its a travesty that the DC never made it to theaters. This is a movie that demanded to be watched on the biggest screen you can find, much like Lawrence of Arabia.
1
[deleted]
Black Hawk Down was a movie about a situation. With no real message in it (or intent to carry a message for that matter). It was riveting to watch and executed brilliantly, but its ambition does not place it into the highest echelons of Scott's resume.