I am yet again disappointed by bad critic and low percentage that rotten tomatoes gave to some movie. First of all this is spectacle, really epic movie and historically correct one. I dont know what is wrong with the people rating this when they gave it 39%. So, the background to the story is Balian and his life, I mean, this movie covers a time lapse of 10 years or so which means that any critic that movie lacks depth is just pure stupidity. I would like to see anyone else doing what Ridley Scott did with such epic event and how would anybody else squeeze 10 years of very significant events in to one movie. The other thing, far more important is that Scott sticks to history, he doesnt add to movie something that hadnt happened (which could make it probably more acceptable to dumb people unaware that this is history interpretation) but rather tells a story of siege of Jerusalem. So, plot was excellent, and so was casting. The only thing that perhaps lacks is fighting for the city itself, I mean, it has it all, the epic speeches before battle, heroes who you will adore and enemies who you will respect. The fight was a little bit odd sometimes, but good overall.
I suggest to anyone who is criticing this movie badly to read and learn history for this event really did happened and it was massive. Also search for Crusades at least on the internet before watching this. The director obviosly made the movie for someone with education, not morons. So learn about some characters beacuse it is expected of you to know it.