Editor's note: This post will be edited multiple times throughout the day as the rest of the writing staff checks in... Also, this post will be timestamped May 6th at 9:30PM. Please scroll down for new posts.
Another sneak preview. This time it's Kingdom of Heaven directed by Ridley Scott (Gladiator) and starring Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson with a few surprises by Jeremy Irons and Ed Norton.
Plot Summary
During the Crusades of the 12th Century, Balian of Ibelin (Bloom), a young blacksmith in Jerusalem, rises to protect his people from foreign invaders [IMDB]Matt's Chat
Let me get this off my chest right away before I jump in to the aspects of the film that I usually cover... As a piece of cinematic fiction, Kingdom of Heaven works really well. As a piece of historical drama, it doesn't fare as well. But what irks me the most about this film is the message it sends to the post-9/11 world: We should surrender New York. Allow me to explain...This is the story of the rise and fall of Balian (Bloom) as he surrenders Jerusalem to the Muslims in order to save the lives of his people. You see, at the start of the film, there is a fragile peace between the Jews, Muslims and Christians in the region. But a few bad Christians wanted a war and they got one they couldn't possibly win. Balian, who could have averted the whole thing by becoming king of Jerusalem, decided he and his army would not seek out the enemy, but rather stay and defend the city (strategically, this was the correct move but really he knows it is a stalemate at best). He is fighting for a chance to surrender.
So what does this have to do with 9/11? Balian had the chance to assume power and continue the fragile peace, but instead choose a different path. That path would have required the death of the guy who eventually became king, which Balian didn't want on his conscience. Bill Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden and was more interested in his golf game than getting the job done. All he had to do was say "yes" and take responsibility for bin Laden's capture. Instead, Bill decided to let someone else deal with that problem. So, on the morning of September 11th, 2001, al Qaeda rammed two jets in to the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania. What would Balian do? He'd fight to surrender New York. Thank God Balian isn't President of the United States of America.
Moving on...
The imagery was stunning, both in its beauty and savagery. The cinematography was quite stimulating and the action sequences were well done. You expect that from a director like Ridley Scott. On the whole, I think the gore factor was a bit much, but such is war.
The score was magnificent. Not a rush out to Best Buy and get it, but it was sufficiently martial for the fight scenes and pleasantly serene in all the right moments.
Casting was surprisingly superb. I was a little leery of Orlando Bloom in this role, but he pulled it off well. The rest of the cast was equally on top of their individual and collective games as well.
Overall I give the film a three out of five mushroom clouds.
Mark's Remarks
Who would have thought we would have Ridley Scott to thank for the mother of all Sci-Fi Fantasy crossovers? Legolas meets Qui-Gonn Jinn, and finds out Qui-Gon is his dad? And Doctor Bashir saves his life? Riveting.
Another aside....Orlando Bloom must be obsessed with steelworkers as heroes...In Pirates of the Carribbean, he was a swordsmith who made good, and in this film, he is a blacksmith who turns out to be the son of a Lord....And isn't it amazing how he goes from not being able to beat aged Liam Neeson to leading fearless battles with very little training? I mean, we seriously could have used a...montage!
This film cincematically was outstanding. Great sweeping camera pans across the deserts, huge epic battles, a sizzling love/power triangle, and themes of redemption and duty and honor. Ridley Scott produced a film worthy of Oscar contention for the cinematic scope and camera work.
Historically, he was highly inaccurate and one sided. While we got a fair share of Christian prejudice, we never got to see raids by Saladin's men who wanted war. We never got to see the brutality of the Islamic armies of the time. Instead, we are presented with the Islamists as principled leaders who seek peace, while every Christian with power in the movie seems to merely want to rape and kill. The only non-Islamists who aren't power hungry are the humanists, who seem to think goodness and mercy is a human creation, and God is merely a metaphor.
Total, complete, BS. Firstly, the Islamic hordes of the Crusades were just as ruthless as the EVIL Christians portrayed in this film. They committed atrocities as well. However, we see none of that. Nope, Ridley Scott, as he has intimated in interviews and with the film's closing lines, is making a metaphor for modern times. He wants the Jews to surrender Israel. He thinks America is the aggressor and is full of repression.
Few things could be further from the truth. Mr. Scott uses Belian as the metaphor for 'tolerant' humanists who are merely seeking to live to their honor with a higher form of faith than those "evil" Christians, who are blindly fundamentalist. We see dozens of examples of fundamentalist Christians, but only one example of fundamentalist Islam. I find this hard to believe.
Mr. Scott injects modern political considerations at every turn. Matt addresses this as it relates to 9/11 in his writing. I expand to the war on terror. Mr. Scott plays right into the hands of Islamofascism by making this propaganda piece on the evil Christian faith. Yes, Saladin was merciful, and a few understanding liberal humanists helped save the day for those evil Christians, who really weren't faithful anyway. Bullsnarf.
Now granted, having studied the Crusades, there was indeed a lot of profiteering, but this occurred on both sides. To say it was only Christians is like saying that only the Americans killed during WWII. This, however, is the picture Mr. Scott portrays. Some church leaders were indeed corrupt. However, not all were. In Mr. Scott's world, all religious leaders in power were evil, unless they were Islamic.
In Mr. Scott's world, goodness and mercy come from the human heart, not from God. In fact, God is seen as an unmerciful being who is uncaring and whose tenets are to be ignored or glossed over. Hatred and fear also come from the human heart.
God does seek to establish "the kingdom of heaven" in the heart. Goodness and mercy come not from placing humanity at the top of the chain, but in acknowledging something greater than us that has been merciful and generous in providing creation for us. The Kingdom is not established by humans, but by God in the heart and mind. The Kingdom is not a creation of a king, even a noble leper king. Rather, it is the desire of God for his people to be his good Creation. It is the acknowledgement by his people that they are not alone making the rules, that there is something higher to aspire to, to grow closer to.
I disagree with Mr. Scott. Goodness and mercy are gifts of God, not creations of humanity. Mr. Scott is trying to inject humanism into the whole thing, to say we need to abandon religion for the "big tent." I disagree. All three religions stress tolerance, just many times the followers don't listen. That is not the fault of the religion or the God of those religions.
I do agree that organized religion can become corrupt and overbearing. I do think many times people put too much emphasis on ceremony and superficial obedience rather than deeper study and understanding. On this, Mr. Scott hits the mark with his portrayal of some of the Templar and others.
If this movie did not have obvious political motivation, it would be a fantastic, entertaining, and rivetting film about the Crusades. However, anyone can see the clear motivation for the film, and it colors this viewer's opinion of it.
Therefore, I give it 2 and a Half Mushroom Clouds. If the clear political hatred of American foreign policy and Israel were not involved, I would give it three.
Doug's Dialogue
This story revolves around a young blacksmith, Balian (played by Orlando Bloom). Suffering from personal tragedy, he meets up with some knights during the crusades. One of these knights (Liam Neeson) reveals himself to be Balian’s father, Godfrey. He offers Balian a chance to come with him to Jerusalem for a new life as his heir. Balian initially refuses, but after killing the local priest who stole his dead wife’s necklace and had her head cut off, he rides off and joins up with the knights. During their journey, Godfrey is seriously injured. Before dying, Godfrey knights him and gives him the heir to his throne and tells him to be faithful to the King of Jerusalem and if there is no king, to be a protector for the people. The rest of the story revolves around Balian’s journey to find redemption while doing what is right for the people of his land and the people of Jerusalem.I am not sure that this story is historically accurate. However in saying that, they do portray many things accurate historically and do a good job of it. The battle scenes are what you would expect from something of that time period. The costumes appeared to be pretty authentic from other sources I have seen. Unfortunately, Christians were portrayed pretty accurately too.
This film receives high marks for the epic battles and the special effects. The story, while not an overly original story (classic man doing what is right even though the odds are against him), was told well. Liam Neeson’s portrayal of Knight Godfrey was very good (he plays knights of various orders very well). The other big names, Bloom, Jeremy Irons, and Ed Norton, also did very well. Did I mention the special effects? During the siege of Jerusalem you really felt like you were a part of that siege.
This film detracts in many areas. The battle scenes were very gory and gruesome. The film has already had critics of the historical accurateness. The actress who played Princess Sibylla (Balian’s love interest) Eva Green was not very convincing in her role. There were other characters who were not convincing in their roles either.
Overall, this film was a good one if you like the high intensity type of battles that we have seen from such films as the Matrix and Saving Private Ryan. The story is a good one and is told well. While this is not going to be a blockbuster film, it will have a nice box office draw. As far as an action movie, this will get the summer season started, but will be quickly overshadowed when the next Star Wars movie comes out. Again the special effects on this were excellent. The story, while not overly believable, was still told very well. While not an overly great film, it is still one to go see, and you need the big screen in order to get the full effect of some of the battles. I will rate this three mushroom clouds out of five.
Obligatory Star Trek References
Alexander Siddig, DS9's Dr. Julian Bashir plays Nasir.Also, some of Jerry Goldsmith's music is used in the film.
Other Reviews
Matt's article for both BNN and MVCA (same piece for both outlets). 1:00PM UPDATE: In the first three hours since it was published on BNN, my article has about 1250 hits already...amazing! 2:45PM UPDATE: I am, however, somewhat discouraged by the comments in response to the article. I suppose I should look at as 1248 or so people liked and only two or three didn't...but the reaction to it has been "interesting."Mark's Addendum
Doug is right about the storyline. I would classify this film as Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings meets Man of La Mancha/Don Quijote. The last one because this film emphasizes staying true to the values of chivalry and knight errantry, of being true to the Quest above all else. Ridley Scott uses it and takes it to mean that we should advocate surrender.
