Kingdom of Heaven - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Kingdom of Heaven Reviews

Page 1 of 909
July 18, 2016
A little slow in places, Overlong but Orlando Blooms performance is brilliant and with some good battle scenes it makes it worth the watch.
July 2, 2016
May writing this review take away some of the sting that comes with knowing I just wasted 3 hours of my life on a film thats it's unoriginality was only outshone by its budget.
June 23, 2016
The directors cut MUST be seen. 20th century fox should be ashamed they made Scott cut and butcher the film the way he did. Please watch the directors cut. For anyone to say its a masterpiece is an understatement.
½ June 16, 2016
Very boring and very historically inaccurate. Does nothing but perpetuate misconceptions about the crusades
½ June 4, 2016
What I was expecting to be an epic fight-fest turned out to be an interesting character-driven film with some interesting moral discussion.
May 31, 2016
The theatrical version of this film is ok, but the Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut is actually a masterpiece.
½ May 28, 2016
I don't think that Orlando Bloom is enough of a strong powered player to take on a leading role like what he did in this one. Even the title is misleading! The battle sequences are cool, I'll give it that, but, some of the actors looked like they were mailing in their performances.
½ May 26, 2016
Get the Special Director's Cut that's an hour longer if you can. Never have I seen a film so much improved over the original release.
½ May 26, 2016
A bit wet and a rehash of history in places but I liked this portrayal of the conquests of Saladdin. Felt entertaining throughout with some good war scenes, particularly the final battle in Jerusalem.
½ May 16, 2016
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.
May 7, 2016
Ridley Scott's Crusades based epic, thi sstars a rather-bland Orlando Bloom in the lead role as a blacksmith who finds himself thrust into the midst of war when he follows his newly-discovered Knightly father to the Holy Land.

And, for some reason, along the way seeminglly discovers how to lead men, irrigation techniques, skill with sword, foreign languages and how to withstand sieges.

There's no denying that it *looks* the part and is based around real historical facts; just seems to take a meandering route to get anywhere, which means the sting is taken out of it by the time it gets to the point!
May 1, 2016
The review is for the Roadshow Directors Cut. This movie has replaced my current top 10 list and has moved itself firmly into the top 5. A true masterpiece!
April 24, 2016
The Crusades began in the late 11th Century as the Christian Armies of Europe, responding to Pope Ubran II`s cries to go to war on behalf of all Christendom, against the Muslim armies in the Holy Land near Jerusalem. These battles lasted over two hundred years, and are considered some of the bloodiest of the Middle Ages.

Ridley Scott Delivers a truly epic historical drama about a blacksmith Balian (Orlando Bloom) turned crusader, and how even a man from simple beginnings can change the world. The brutality of the times is duly delivered throughout the film, and well acted throughout with a fairly dynamic cast of supporting actors. Most notably Liam Neeson as the Knight Godfrey, Edward Norton as the masked King Baldwin, and David Thewlis, the unnamed monk who supports Balian throughout his battles. What he really achieves, and to my surprise is a lack of bias towards both the Christian and Muslim sides of this battle. Both sides retained their own ideologies, but never once does Scott make one side seem to be without principle or merit. Despite what people may feel currently, when I look back on this film, I think it fairly portrays the honour and cruelty of religious ideology on both sides.

One of the best achievements of this movie is the lack, or at least reduced use of CGI throughout the film. Every Battle looks realistic, and avoids the pitfalls of subsequent movies like 'Lord of the Rings,' and 'Troy' (of which Bloom also stars). Ever face on the battle field is a different one, and it looks exactly like it should. 1500 dressed in armor, and each with their own weapon, fighting it out for their respective King and Religion. The towers that were used in the siege of Jerusalem were really built using technology from that period of time, and it certainly adds a sense of realism to the movie.

Of course it's not without a few minor flaws. I'm usually thrown off by the use of the British accent during historical dramas. I understand the necessity of it, as it connect the viewer to the period, but considering the majority of the Knights during the crusades were of mixed decent (French and Germanic mostly), it can seem a bit out of place (especially when using names like Raynald de Chatillion and such). It's a bit like using an American accent to read Shakespeare. It throws the whole thing off. Additionally, there are several differences between the theatrical version, and the director's cut (being 194 minutes) is noted by the Director as being the 'definitive cut,' so it's recommended to avoid the shorter 2 hour version as it misses an entire act.

Undoubtedly one of the most detailed and well portrayed epic films of it's time, Kingdom of Heaven is a beautiful rendition of a brutal time.

4/5
½ April 2, 2016
Great depth is provided in the Director's Cut.
March 23, 2016
sorry to say but the theatrical version is inferior to the directors cut. beautiful army scenes and large angry emotions with political machinations.
½ March 21, 2016
Good movie (directors cut), but the ending was disappointing.
½ March 6, 2016
Unfortunately this movie is underestimated. Can't explain that phenomenon.
½ February 28, 2016
In Jerusalem you can erase your sins. In a land of the French king's law, their is another king of God that forgives such unlawful acts. The path to Heaven,
February 24, 2016
This is where in all honesty, I would take that green blob and shove it up their ass. 39% for such a powerful immensely captivating, and even artistic movie? why? How would your apparently demented mind come up with a whole article on why the movie is bad? no plot? wtf? What the hell do you want? what??? go eat a pickle. This was awesome.
Page 1 of 909