At the Movies: 'Kingdom of Heaven'

Shortly after ‘Kingdom of Heaven' came out I wrote this review of it for my Matins. I'll put it up here about as I wrote it, and then post a separate comment regarding the attitude it shows toward both Christianity and Islam. I review it here simply as a movie and do not get involved in telling you what really happened, though the truth was a lot more interesting than the script Scott used. If you want a professional review, click here.

It has great photography, cast of hundreds of thousands (real and virtual), some good acting, and some remarkable ham in it for a movie that is supposed to be ‘Islam-friendly'. Good things: it is a serious movie about the Crusades, with a huge investment that attempts to deal with the religious motivations of both sides. It is leagues ahead of any other movie about the crusades. Best of all, it may get some people into a library or on to the Internet to read up on them.

The actor who plays Saladin, Ghassan Massoud, is the single best thing in the movie. I was fascinated by all the scenes inside his command tent with the other Muslim leaders. Weapons and armor are convincing if not always accurate (some of Saladin's officers seem to be wearing 15th/16th century Ottoman gear). The Holy Land and Jerusalem are both gorgeous and convincing - in fact look like I always imagined they would. The shot of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa in the evening during Baldwin's funeral is fantastic - almost ethereal in its beauty. The scene where Ibelin visits Calvary where Jesus was executed is also moving and ‘real', for lack of a better word.

The siege of Jerusalem by Saladin is the best siege I've seen since DW Griffith took Babylon in ‘Intolerance'. Jeremy Irons is good and soul weary, Liam Neeson ditto, although someone forgot to write a role for his character. Actually, he would have been better playing Balian who was actually a grizzled veteran when he defended Jerusalem.

So what's not to like? Orlando Bloom doesn't quite fit the role (although he is much better than some of the reviews lead you to believe). Worse, there is zero heat between him and Sybilla. This is odd because the actress is good enough to render her love for her brother more convincing in even fewer lines.

If the movie had the courage to risk offending someone, anyone, it would have some grit to it. As it is the ‘message' of the movie somehow renders the whole thing flat. Balian simply doesn't seem to be fighting for anything and resolves nothing by the film's end. The ham I mentioned is almost all on the part of terribly cartoonish villains – if they had been more realistically portrayed so that their motives made some sense, it might have been a more engaging film. Rainald de Chatillon, the villain of the movie, probably was crazy, but he had also been held captive by the Muslims for over a decade during which he learned to speak Arabic and, apparently, to hate Muslims. An artist, as opposed to a Hollywood screenwriter, could have done a lot with this. The reason Saladin had to execute Rainald was because he had attacked Arabia with a fleet, and said he would raid Mecca itself. Even a hint of this would have strengthened the movie.

Worse, in an effort to have a feel good ending that resolves some loose ends the movie runs on for about 10 wasted minutes: it should end when Saladin replaces the cross on a table with a wry look somewhere between respect and contempt.

So it adds up to a flawed movie, but one that is interesting, and for me, engaging, though nowhere near as engaging as it could have been. Everyone, however, should go out and see it if they are the least bit interested in the Crusades and they should drag all of their friends to see it so that they might get interested too.

Then they should get a good history book about the fall of Jerusalem and read them.