3.5/4  The DC is better
I didn't like this movie at first, because it was the theatrical release. I found the plot confusing and the characters under-developed. But, later I managed to get my hands on the director's cut version and I thought i should give this mo... (read full)

4/4  Underrated, Under Appreciated... see the D's Cut!
I cannot and will not speak for the original theatrical release of this film mainly because that's not the film that people should have seen. The studio cut Ridley Scott's film into ribbons took out some of the best parts in the entire fi... (read full)

3.5/4  The most underrated Hollywood movie in years...
I saw this film in the cinema twice: first in California, then in Paris. In California, on opening weekend, the audience was bored to tears and booed(!) at the ending of the film. In Paris, six months after it opened, a packed house showed... (read full)

2/4  Kingdom of Heaven Quick Review
Disappointing. Bloom does at least muscle up a little bit, rather than being a hero of no personality (LOTR). Scott's flick doesn't portray the Crusades correctly in my mind. What happened to Gladiator? This is an average movie.

5/5 Fantastic historical movie
  by Henry C. Wolford
I can watch this movie over and over again. It is wonderfully made, historically interesting, and insightful about a formulative era of the World's religions.

4/5 Kingdom of Heaven looks heavenly colorful on Blu-Ray
  by Francisco Pizarro (Puerto Rico)
I was very dissapointed the Kingdom of Heaven was overlooked at the box office. Following the success of both Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, Ridley's Scott's tale of war and religion seemed like a sure thing when it hit theaters but it flopped, which is too bad because this is a very good film.

Kingdom of Heaven is Ridley's Scott's way of telling us that things haven't changed as much they sometimes seem. A thousand years ago we used to slaughter each other -in the name of God of all things- and a millenium later we still do. Of course, the film delves deeper into the issue by depicting the inner-struggle we all go through when it comes to this subject in the form of the main character, Balian, played by Orlando Bloom; (The Lord of the Rings) a man trying to find answers about himself, who by a twist of fate is thrown right in the middle of the religious and political battle in which he had nothing to do with. Balian goes from a grieving blacksmith in France to a Baron and knight trying to protect an ideal that might have never really existed.

Kingdom of Heaven arrives on Blu-Ray in the form of a Director's Cut with added content that did not make it to theaters. Apparently, the film was substantially trimmed to keep the running time friendly. Those who have seen this film know that the film is plenty long to begin with. This edition is not a series of "missing" or deleted scenes theat were put back but the restoration of major storylines that add a lot of weight to the overall film. If anything, the Directors Cut helps us to understand the circumstances that throw Balian into the events of the film. I don't want to give away anything to those who haven't watched the added content. Let's just say that the story and relationship between Balian and his father Godfrey is much more involved than it appears on the theatrical release. As a fan of the film I enjoyed the added content but must warn: We are talking about a substantial addition that considerably to the running time. Invariably the pacing becomes much slower, especially at the beggining where Scott takes his time explaining things this time around. It might not be for everyone.

I mention this because of the major flaw of this particular release: The original version of the film is not included here and apart from a theatrical trailer, there are no special features either. This is unacceptable. One of the major advantages of Blu-Ray technology is the added space. Why not have both versions of the film? And if you are going to just put the Director's Cut in there then at least put in some content that explains the logic behind this release in the form of commentaries, documentaries and the like. In that respect this disc is severly lacking.

In the High Definition front, this version of Kingdom of Heaven is a true revelation. When I saw this film in theaters and the (many)subsequent viewings on cable and DVD, I was curious about the color palette used in the film. The entire film seemed to be covered in a bluish hue reminiscent of the opening battle scene in Gladiator. Since it was consistent at the theater, DVD and cable TV I thought it was Scott's original intent. However, watching this film on Blu is like watching it for the first time. The colors simply come alive in HD. Primary colors (which were conspicously absent previously) come alive. Off the top of my head comes to mind the fight Balian has right after the shipwreck, where his oponent's clothing now literaly glows, the yellows popping out in the desert setting. There are other areas like the greens at the beggining of the film which take place in France and Balian's new inherited home. Heck, even the crab one of Godfrey's men puts in front of Balian shows reds I hadn't noticed before. I fail to recall a more perplexing change in color quality from theater to Blu-Ray. But colors are not the only thng that benefit from this HD release. Textures come alive as well. Maybe I simply wasn't paying attention but did you notice that the King of Jerusalem's mask has a gotee? Neither did I but in this release, it is clearly visible. That is the level of detail that has been achieved on this release.

Kingdom of Heaven is a very good film and they have made a wonderful transfer to HD for it. However the lack of special features and the almost criminal omision of the theatrical version keep me from giving it full marks.

5/5 A perfect embellishment to any DVD collection.
  by Darin C. Gacuzana
I have both the theatrical release version and this significantly longer version.
I always wondered why 20th Century Fox did not simply have an intermission like the good ole days and keep Ridley Scott's masterpiece the way he created it. Theatre owners would have sold more concessions. More profit.

Eva Green fans will --absolutely-- want the longer version.

I'm happy to have both.

The story helps us to appreciate what was happening during the "Crusades," and there are ample historical perspectives from comments by historians on the bonus disc(s), which help the viewer to know what parts of the film were dramatic elements having no basis in fact, and which parts were historically accurate as much as is possible. The film helps modern viewers to better understand why things in the Middle East are the way they are now. More importantly, it also provides a model to help envision the possibilities for peace and how that might be administered.

The story has one of the best morals out there. There are many lessons and reminders to be had in watching this film, either version. The best sort of entertainment is this kind.

There are certain aspects of the story impossible to understand by watching only the theatrical release. These aspects have been mentioned as spoilers in other reviews already. Also already stated, the biggest difference between the two versions is in character development. Especially Sybella. In the Director's Cut, the capacity to understand the torment Sybella had to be feeling, on multiple levels at the same time is wholly present, while in the theatrical release- no. The story is completely tragic and yet hopeful at the same time. Resolution never fully materializes, while in our current reality, there is no resolution in the Middle East, either. The end is happy or not. You must choose. Decide. This, is another stroke of genius. The script is top flight.

Viewers are shown how individuals, societies, cultures, governments, religions- often unjustly vilify that which is foreign to them in order to justify their own selfish conquests. The downfall of humanity via untempered and misguided ego-driven wanton lusts in the pursuit of material gain is well illustrated.

The Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut is one of the finest cinematic works that I have ever seen and likely will have ever seen.
Casting is perfect, acting perfect, location- set design, costumes, screen play, the whole of it, has been crafted to complete perfection.

I rarely would say, If you are reading this and don't have it yet, you should stop procrastinating and buy it already. If you have neither version and can only have one, then by all means, get the Director's Cut. Get the version that Ridley Scott intended, not the cookie-cutter butchered edition forced onto the masses by 20th Century Fox executives.

Chivalry is forever alive in The Kingdom of Heaven.


5/5 great movie that few people have seen
  by nonny
admittedly i had absolutely no intrest in seeing this movie in the theaters. it wasn't until i was bored one night and happened to catch it on television that the movie stirred my intrest.

the theaterical version is incomplete. there are many additional details in the director's cut that are quite significant to the plot of the movie that the theatrical version simply either leaves out or glosses over. granted, the moments time wise are very brief, but things such as Sybilla having a son, or Balian's memories of his wife, add depth to the history of the characters and their motivations that you do not necessarily grasp in the theatrical version.

that having been said, if you are someone with any disillusions regarding traditional definitions of christianity and what it means to be christian, then this movie will provide a point of view that you may find intellectually stimulating.

there are so many awesome actors that were part of this film, it is unfortunate that marketers chose to headline the film with only Orlando Bloom (who plays his role appropriately, regardless of what people would say about his breadth of acting ability). Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis - all very well regarded actors who played important roles in the film. Even Alexander Siddig (from deep space 9) played his role so well i didn't recognize him.



3/5 Poor depiction of Christians, Muslims portrayed only as victims
  by Jerrold Zayac
I watched the theatrical movie and the Directors cut. I was unimpressed by the Theatrical release and with reading the reviews about how much better the Directors cut is, I wanted to see what at least visually is a good movie.

Sad to say, the director's cut is just more of the same. Hard to believe characters like-Orlando Bloom. Starting out as a poor blacksmith in France, yet as soon as he arrives in Jerusalem he is turned into a military genius with exceptional fighting skills, able to take on any foe or army and defeat them. One has read that the overtones of this movie have offended Christians and it's easy to see why. Any depictions of Priest or Bishops are made to appear cruel and heartless, the Christian Knights as War Criminals, (with one exception of a good-hearted Knight). The director's cuts show the priest in the beginning as Orlando's brother. Could a more cruel man be depicted, yet he is supposed to be a priest. He stole from his brother's dead wife's body, cut off her head, assaulted the grieving husband at his wife's grave while mocking him, and stole money from him. Nice depiction of a priest. The Bishop of Jerusalem was made with about the same tone, insolent, with changeable convictions to his faith based on whatever was safest for him at the time. At least five times mention was made of the Crusaders massacre of Muslims when they took over Jerusalem a hundred years earlier, along with numerous depictions of Christian knights unmerciliy killing innocent women, children. Any and all depictions of Saladin were made as if he were the picture of goodness and honesty. No mention that he killed hundreds of Christian knights when they were his prisoner, no mention of atrocities committed by the Muslim armies. I'm not attempting to say this should have been a tit for tat movie, but it was obviously made to make Christians look more barbaric and cruel while making the Muslims appear as victims. If Ridley Scott wanted to really be authentic, be honest in your portrayal of both sides. His constant reference to the holy land being seized by the crusaders from the Muslims negates the fact that the holy land was Byzantine territory before Muslim and before that Pagan under the Romans. History is changing, yet Ridley only reinforces one side of history.

In listening to Ridley Scott's director's commentary of the film, he mentions he received much adulation from Muslim groups about the depiction of Islam, Saladin, and the entire saga of the Crusades. I would say there is a definite reason why, he was one sided in his approach to this film.

With this said, it was a visually nice looking film. Battle scenes were great, acting good. As an amateur historian, most of main characters were real people, scenes contemporary to the times. Some artistic licenses here and there, but overall a nice looking film. Just a shame Ridley tried so hard to appease the Muslim community by degenerating Christianity.