I liked the movie in the theatrical release but this cut explains so much more it also brings up question like the priest being an angel and not real or so I read
The director was ordered to cut an hour from the movie because movie theaters wanted to have extra showings each day. This movie is better than Gladiator.
@@chernobyl68 I'm not saying he should have been actually credited, that's his choice, just that 17 years later his contribution shouldn't be overlooked just because of the anonymity.
@@LadyIarConnacht Norton's performance was brilliant without ever seeing his own face ." Assemble The Army ! " The history about The Leper King Baldwin IV is intriguing he defeated Saladin twice in battle once when he was 16 and his army heavily out numbered at the Battle of Montgisard . Reynald de Chatillon fought for King Baldwin and in real life was beheaded by Saladin himself for refusing to convert to Islam
The real history behind this story is fascinating. Saladin already had the city under siege when Balian came to him, asking permission to enter so that he could gather his family and escape with them. Saladin agreed. Inside, the people begged Balian to take up the defense of the city. Balian returned to Saladin and asked permission to defend the city, and Saladin allowed it.
Saladin didn't just allow Balian to defend the city, he even sent his personal guard to escort Balian's family to safety so they would be out of the city and away from the fighting.
@@dieweissehand We have multiple primary accounts from both the Crusader side AND the Saracen side confirming this, among them Salah-Al-Din's chief chronicler and brother, Nur-Ad-Din.
Shan, this film’s events took place in between the second and the third crusades. The second last scene shows King Richard the Lionheart on his way to the holy land to conduct the famous third crusade by joining up with other rulers of Europe.
This is more like ending of the first crusade. Second crusade events was not shown. And Richard the lion heart heading towards Jerusalem is the beginning of third
It was Ok, but nothing exceptional. And sadly quite wrong in its depiction of this historical period. Which wouldn't be a big deal if people didn't take it for reality. ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=the+real+crusades+history+kingdom+heaven
@@FF-bj4nq "Maximilian and Marie De Bourgogne" or simply "Maximilian", is a 2017 German-Austrian three-part historical miniseries. Also "Zrodzeni do Szabli / Born to the Sabre" That said, hardly any historical movies are exceptional in regard of being historical accurate. Of course they still can be entertaining.
It isn't historical. One of the reasons it is so hated is it's WILD liberties taken with history. It is good fun to watch, if a bit slow, but the issue Scott gets with all these movies is the "historical" marketing, just like with his latest movie about the "Last Duel", presented as history when the script is based on a "historicaly-inspired novel". Were it presented as fiction, those movies wouldn't have half the cabal of haters they get. In my language, they are classified as "epoch costume movies".
For some historical details, lets get just the more important ones: . Balian was legitimate and a noble. He was very much very high status and close to the King of Jerusalem. This is how and why he was able to lead the defence of Jerusalem, which he did in real life. . There was no love relationship between Balian and Sibila. But Sibila and her brother did exist more or less like in the movie. The story of the lepper king is true. The son of Sibila was King of Jerusalem for a short time before he died. Very unlikely he was killed by his own mother. But Sibila and Guy did rise to power after. Real life Sibila seems like she truly loved Guy. And very unfortunately....she very much did all she could to steer Guy into power at her side. He might have been a good lover but it seems he was not the best strategist ever. . Reynald was an historical character but very unlikely he was crazy. He was in fact a very competent military leader. He did some pretty daring expeditions / campaigns. Its more or less clear that in real life he acted under the King of Jerusalem. But the dynamics of war were somewhat different. . The situation between Jerusalem and the muslims was way more complex. No, they were not wishing for peace and none had these unrealistic ideas that they could create a paradise. It was kind of a cold war situation but one where they would fight battles here and there on occasion. Each side would attack the other kind of testing their relative power. The lepper king had indeed won a major victory in his early youth and had a fearsome reputation. The muslims were a bit weary of going all out against him since they knew he could win battles. . The war kind of had a big turning point at the Battle of Hattin as depicted in the movie. Guy does not look like he was a very competent leader. He very much lead his forces into a trap and was obliterated. Then it was up to Balian to defend Jerusalem, buy time till other reinforcements could organize in surrounding areas. The city was lost like the movie depicts and there was indeed a truce which allowed a lot of people to leave. But the war did not end. And Balian lived his entire life around there, involved with several political conflicts.
I’d like to add that Balin was there at Hattin an was one of the few that managed to lead a successful breakout The real Raynald was on King Baldwins side an opposed Guy being king
@@ComradeCommissarYuri Fine addictions. Yes, Balian was notorious at Hattin. And absolutely, Reynald was not a rogue crazy guy. He was very much a man of his time and by all accounts a good competent leader.
Watching this film after 15 - 20 years makes you realise what an all star cast they had, an insane amount of recognisable actors even in minor roles too
I recall hearing a story involving Saladin and Richard I. Saladin observed from a distance Richard being unhorsed and fighting, and he was very impressed. So, he sent out riders to give Richard a fresh horse so that he could continue watching Richard fight. (I think he gave Richard three (eventually dead) horses until he called a retreat and ended the battle for the day.)
Richard I had horses killed beneath him, but was only ever unhorsed by one person - William Marshal, aka "The Best Knight That Ever Lived" (so named by contemporary historian Stephen Langton).
The Score for this movie was written by Harry Gregson-Williams, but Ridley Scott chose to track music from other Films into certain scenes, including a Cue each from "The Crow" by Graeme Revell and "Blade 2" by Marco Beltrami (the 'What is Jerusalem worth?'-Moment). Most notably, the music playing during the 'Rise a Knight'-Scene before the final Battle is originally from "The 13th Warrior" by Jerry Goldsmith. I chose to believe that this was partly Scott paying Tribute to Goldsmith (whom he worked with twice) who passed away a year before "Kingdom of Heaven" came out.
During the king's funeral, he also reused the opera music from his 2001 movie, Hannibal (Vide Cor Meum). It's a really beautiful piece: ruclips.net/video/RFB3PbD4-Lk/видео.html
The movie is not depicting any actual crusade, but rather in between the second and third. The ending with Richard the Lionheart riding through is the start of the third one.
I didn't expect much from this movie, but was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. It had great heroes and great villains and a story that kept you engaged. The costumes were also outstanding.
yeah. you can imagine that grave digger or prisoner in the beginning had story like he didn't cut the wives head off and embarked on repentance road of his own and in the end found himself in Jerusalem knighted before the most important battle of that time.
I love Alexander Siddig in this. He was always one of my favorites on Deep Space Nine and he plays such a cool, collected character here. And Jeremy Irons is such an awesome hardass in this film, too. I played a paladin on WoW named Tiberias for many years. They're all so goddamn good.
One thing this movie does well imho is that it makes you feel like you're moving to different places. Hard to explain, but it just feels "vast" in some way.
I saw the theatrical cut when it was in theaters, and thought that it was "okay". Not terrible, but nothing that I was going to buy on disc, or anything that I'd care to watch again. Years later, I saw that there was a Director's Cut, and that it was like 45 (!) minutes longer. That made me curious enough to give the movie a second go, so I watched the Director's Cut. It's now still one of my personal favorite movies of all-time. To give those who are unaware, just one example: Sibylla's son, the one who had leprosy, he's not even in the theatrical cut. And I don't mean he's just not shown on camera, I mean that his character doesn't even exist. That's just one of *many* examples of exactly how much was cut and altered for the theatrical release.
It's so funny how drastically better the director's cut is. I fell asleep watching this movie in theaters, one of like 3 movies I've ever fallen asleep in (the others being A Perfect Storm when I was a kid and when my friend made me see Rise of Skywalker a second time) but the director's cut is in my top 10 favorite films. Just exquisite, the set design, music, ambience, all beautiful.
Saladin was one of the great warrior kings of history. As all men, he had shortcomings, and probably committed war crimes by modern definitions, but he was eminently honorable, and devoutly pious. He died with only 1 piece of gold, and 40 pieces of silver to his name, having given the rest of his earthly wealth away to help the poor.
@D Anemon I hear you, but can only agree up to a point. We would have to get into a discussion of whether it's immoral to kill someone who plans to kill you.
One point: 'Man on Fire' wasn't a Ridley Scott film. That was directed by Tony Scott, his brother (R.I.P.) who also directed the first 'Top Gun', 'Spy Game' and many more fine films.
One of the men that's with Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson is actor David Thewlis, he's an amazing actor, he starred in one of my favorite films a Mike Leigh British film called Naked, it is definitely worth a watch. A lot of people nowadays recognize him as Professor Lupine, the werewolf in the Harry Potter movies.
The original scenes were shot at the Castillo de Loarre in Northern Spain. The entire movie is filmed in the most beautiful locations ... Segovia, Ávila, Palma del Río, and Seville's Casa de Pilatos and Alcázar. I love this movie. Completely agree that it was a shame that this wasn't the theatrical release.
Good for you for watching this movie AND watching the Directors Cut. If the Directors cut was what made it to the theaters, this film would have easily been nominated and won Oscars just like Gladiator did. Oh well. The theatrical version is good but so so also. This version is absolutely epic.
Worked at AMC in San Diego when this came out. I loved it. The biggest thing people i knew or who watched it complained about was Orlando Bloom being too "young and cute" to lead the film. I think this had to do with LoTR and typecasting. Watching it now, he fits perfectly.
The production quality is absolutely insane. Hollywood just simply isn't making movies like this anymore, I mean the big production movies are CGI superhero fights instead of practical costumes, real sets, practical effects. I will say that even though it flopped and apparently no one liked it, I thought that Ridley Scott's film 'The Duel' was phenomenal as well. But again I mean good lord the amount of talent and work that was put into Kingdom of Heaven is humbling.
Great reaction to a great film. It gets some flak from historians for taking liberties, but it's definitely one of the most stunning and vivid depictions of medieval conflict during that period. And what a cast of brilliant actors. Even Orlando Bloom stands out and delivers one of his finest performances. Much like Oliver Stone's Alexander, it was brutally chopped by the studio and didn't get the recognition it deserved but was later redeemed by a Director's Cut.
I was fortunate enough to see the Director's Cut first - I absolutely adore this movie, one of my favorites! Cannot believe it didn't receive more honors and recognition than it did.
You said you wanted to see a making of for this film. There is an extraordinary one called The Path To Redemption, which is contained within the 4-disc DVD collection of the film. It is a 6-part feature length documentary and covers all of the making of the film, from script development to siege battle, and also includes an examination of the historical origins of the story. That documentary is exquisite. One of the greatest making-of films I’ve seen. As to your question about how you get over the death of a child….you don’t. Ever.
One of the most underrated films. Despite the large historical inaccuracies in some places, it conveys the spirit of the era, events and atmosphere very well.
23:29 - "Prolonged, close contact with someone with untreated leprosy over many months is needed to catch the disease. You cannot get leprosy from a casual contact with a person who has Hansen's disease like: Shaking hands or hugging."
Fun fact - Marton Csokas (Guy) and David Thewlis (the friendly knight) and Michael Sheen (the priest brother) were all in another medieval movie with a SciFi bent that you should def watch. Timeline was made 2 years before this one in 2003. Great film.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son. But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say “but I was told by others to do thus” or that “virtue was not convenient at the time". This will not suffice." Such a powerful message. Kingdom of Heaven DC is such an underrated film. One of my faves.
So glad you watched the Director's Cut. It's been awhile since I've seen both versions but I do remember the theatric release cut much of Sybilla's storyline with her dealing with her son's leprosy leaving me feeling a bit confused over her seemingly descent to madness.
The relationship between Balian and his half-brother is also missing, IIRC, which makes the early narrative of the film ... confusing, to say the least. I know the film is fictionalized, but the theatrical cut is also unnecessarily muddled by the cuts. I think even the final confrontation between Balian and Guy is missing from the theatrical. A baffling decision!
@@beansfriend7033 I'm pretty sure the final confrontation between Balian and Guy is missing as well. It's been ages since I spun up my DVD copy (and I'm sure it's just a theatrical version). It didn't have the history about Sybilla's son in it, nor that final sword battle between Balian and Guy. I'll have to seek out this 3 hour version and give it a watch.
I'm glad you decided to watch the directors cut, it makes the movie make more sense, for example in the theatrical version when Reynald says to Guy in the jail cell "Is the boy in heaven?" i always assumed he was talking about Orlando Bloom but when you watch the directors cut you realize he's talking about the boy king.
They did a retrospective for Ridley Scott in Paris when Napoleon came out, when I tell I literally JUMPED to get a ticket when they announced they were projecting the director's cut for Kingdom of Heaven on the big screen. Chills X10000
The last battle is what Game of Thrones The Long Night should have tried to do but in a grander scale and longer. Incredible that Sir Ridley Scott in 2005 (really 2003-2004 when it was filmed) gave the Game of Thrones production teams a blueprint for an epic scale battle during the night in a seige type setting inside walls/castle yet they still fumbled the ball.....
If long movies don't scare you, check out Hamlet (1996), directed by and starring as Hamlet himself, Kenneth Branagh. I believe it is the full play script, filmed scene for scene, and it clocks it at just over 4 hours. :) The cast reads like a who's who of mostly British theater veteran actors, but there are some other highly known actors as well, and there are great performances all around. I just love it to bits!
Yeah, it's amazing, and it is every single line of the play. It gets some flack for not being in a truly medieval setting, but being in a late rennaissance period actually makes it more contemporary with Shakespeare, so I never understood that critique.
And then follow that up some time soon after with the 1990 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead starring the (very young) Tim Roth and Gary Oldman, and prominently featuring Richard Dreyfuss. It even doubles up on this film's King Richard, Iain Glen, playing Hamlet. Every scene of the movie that is a scene from the play is played perfectly straight to the dialogue of the play, but everything written around it is brilliantly existential and absurd tragic-comedy and wholly original to the play's writer Tom Stoppard.
The director's cut is definitely an improvement from the theatrical cut, which was cut because of Tom Rothman and his executive interference. There is much to admire about this film, but unfortunately as a historian, I cannot approve of this film. The problem I have is with the character of Balian. Balian of Ibelin was born a noble. He was not a bastard or a blacksmith. It is a historical implausibility for a bastard to be elevated to the rank of a noble upon the death of his sire. It is even more implausible, or dare I say, impossible, for other nobles to acknowledge him as such, and without the slightest protest or scorn. Scott is so determined to portray Balian as an outsider, which helps him explain things to the audience about a history they likely know very little about, that he undermines the very history he seeks to tell by presenting a deeply flawed protagonist. This Balian can simply not exist. He is also, in my opinion, and with respect to Orlando Bloom, a very good actor, horribly miscast. Bloom was also very ill during much of the filming and it was a punishing shoot, which may explain his somewhat dull performance. Still, some of the history is presented with authenticity, and the Sybilla character is given a significant upgrade with the restored cut.
Interesting side-note that was probably already mentioned in the comments lol: The Christian king was played by Edward Norton, who at the time wanted the credit for the role to remain unlisted (IIRC).
I was lucky to see a special private screening of the extended cut of this years ago with Ridley Scott doing a Q&A afterwards, he seemed to be resigned to the fact that it had flopped at the box-office but blamed other unnamed 'sword & sandals' type movies that had come out at a similar time and not done well. Although he didn't say it and didn't want to criticise other filmmakers he was definitely talking about Troy and Alexander.
Salahudin is one of my favorite people in history, i am neigh Christian or Muslim but he was seen as to companionate and too patient. all that they showed in the movie is true. By every metric he was a great leader and a empathetic leader of his time. What they don't show is that he brought the Muslims together which at the time is like the unification of Japan in the ronin period. it is a massive and historic event in history. The director did a great job at not making him a villain like most movies would, but also like a hero for the other side. "Extra History" actually did a really good biop on him and would highly recommend looking into it.
One of the best “Director’s Cut” of anything. I should rewatch it. Also, if you haven’t seen it yet, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood (2010) is like a sequel to this. It takes place in 1199 where a man named Robin returns to England from the Crusades. It turns into a Magna Carta story. It’s a decent enough film, entertaining and worth watching!
Seconded. They should have called it "A Tale of England" or something, calling it Robin Hood just distracted it from all the other good stuff in it. I honestly believe Ridley is weaving together bits of history in his body of work and when he's gone we'll see the huge tapestry of history all connected together in his films. Prometheus would have been a great beginning to his history if it didn't get derailed into an Alien movie :/ But yeah, Robin Hood is wonderful... EVEN Scott's A Good Year.
It should be noted that the Fall of Jerusalem was not itself a Crusade. The first Crusade was in 1095 AD. The action in this film takes place around 1187 AD. The 3rd Crusade led by Richard the Lionheart was in the early 1190's. The last Crusader city was Acre which fell to the Mamluks in 1294. Scott and his writers rake some liberties, but the general outlines of what happened are correct. A terrific and grossly underappreciated film by Ridley Scott.
Kingdom of Heaven trivia Sir Ridley Scott disowned the theatrical cut. He claims that the Director's Cut is the definitive version. Edward Norton was briefly considered for the role of Guy, but upon reading the script he lobbied for the role of King Baldwin. Because the King appears behind a mask, he requested not to be credited. However, his name was put back in the video releases of the film. Three 60-foot siege towers were built for the film, using the technology of the period. Each one weighed 25 tons. To accomplish the scene where a number of siege towers collapse, one of the real towers was knocked over on set and filmed from 11 different positions and locations. Various shots of the single tower falling were then composited together to give the impression that several towers had collapsed in different ways and in different directions. To create both the theatrical cut and the Director's Cut, editor Dody Dorn worked for fifteen months straight. The average film takes, at most, four or five months to edit. Director Sir Ridley Scott and writer William Monahan felt that the unnamed character played by David Thewlis was an embodiment of God, or at the very least, an angel on a mission from God. This is not at all apparent in the theatrical cut, but in the Director's Cut, there are two scenes which strongly hint at it--one where the character seemingly disappears after a conversation with Balian (Orlando Bloom), the other where he seems to "resurrect" Balian after he is attacked and injured by three assassins. After being cast in the role of Godfrey, Liam Neeson realized he knew nothing about the Crusades and began his research with "The Complete Idiots Guide to the Crusades" by Paul L. Williams, a book Neeson calls "extremely informative". Sir Ridley Scott received many letters of thanks and congratulations from Muslim groups for his even-handed depiction of the religion. Roughly 12,000-15,000 costumes were made for the film, each with 13 to 15 separate components (helmets, boots, gloves, several pieces of chainmail, belts, scabbards, etc.). King Mohamed VI of Morocco is a friend of Sir Ridley Scott, and personally provided the production with a detachment of 1,500 military personnel and equipment. Often these personnel depicted both Christian and Muslim armies, with a change of costume and location between scenes. After the film was pitched to them, studio marketing executives took it to be an action-adventure hybrid, rather than what Sir Ridley Scott and William Monahan intended it to be--a historical epic examining religious conflict. 20th Century Fox promoted the film as an action movie with heavy elements of romance, and in the advertising campaign it made much of the "From the director of Gladiator (2000)" slogan. When Scott presented the 194-minute version of the film to the studio, it balked at the length, and studio head Tom Rothman ordered the film to be trimmed down to two hours, feeling people wouldn't go to see a three-hour movie. Ultimately, Rothman's decision backfired, as the film gained mixed reviews (with many commenting that the film seemed "incomplete"), and it did not perform well at the U.S. box office. The flag budget for the film was $250,000. In total, 1,200 flags, comprising 650 separate designs, were made in Spain, England, Morocco, and India. Sir Ridley Scott offered the small role of English King Richard I to Russell Crowe, but due to scheduling conflicts, Crowe was unable to do it. The part eventually went to Iain Glen. The French village at the start and end of the film was built near Huesca, a small city in northern Spain. The castle seen in these scenes is a real crusader castle built in 1076, Castillo de Loarre. As he would do in Morocco when building Ibelin, production designer Arthur Max decided to use traditional building techniques and local craftsmen. In Galicia, he found craftsmen who still did slate roofs, thatching, and stone dry-walling, and these men were employed to build the village set. Orlando Bloom had just completed filming Troy (2004) when he received the screenplay for Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and was initially reluctant to even read the script for another historical epic. Knowing it was being put together by Sir Ridley Scott convinced him to give it a chance. After being cast as the Hospitaler, David Thewlis visited the Hospitalers' Museum at St. John's Gate in London, near where he lives. While there, he discovered that his flat was actually built on the remains of the old priory of the Hospitalers' headquarters. Balian of Ibelin really existed but he was neither a bastard born in France nor a blacksmith; he was, in fact, a legitimate nobleman born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The filming of the siege of Jerusalem took twenty-one days. In real life, the siege itself lasted only thirteen days. Most exterior filming took place in Ouarzazate, Morocco, where Sir Ridley Scott had also filmed Gladiator (2000) and Black Hawk Down (2001). A massive replica of Jerusalem was constructed in the desert. The set contained 28,000 square meters (301,389 square feet) of wall, and used 6,000 tons of plaster. The front of the set was 1,200 feet (365.76 meters) long, and the walls were 56 feet (17 meters) tall. Despite what is shown in the film, Balian of Ibelin was actually at the battle of Hattin. Hattin is the battle not shown in the film, only its aftermath of slaughtered crusaders. Historically, the crusader army was gathered on the coast at Acre, then marched inland to a small town called Zipori, which was about 25 km from Hattin and had plenty of water. Guy was counseled not to move the army further because of the lack of water in the desert. When they moved anyway, Balian was given command of the critically important rear guard of Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaler warrior monks. After a terrible march through the desert in the heat without water, the men were almost dead on their feet from exhaustion and thirst; Balian persuaded King Guy to stop and make camp near the foot of the hill known as the Horns of Hattin. Their situation that night was especially torturous because they were within sight of the freshwater Sea of Galilee, and the Saracen army (which by then had them almost surrounded) had plenty of water and were ostentatiously wasting it in front of the thirsty Europeans. The following day Saladin's army virtually annihilated the crusader army. Captured lay nobles were ransomed for great sums of money; the Templars and Hospitalers, considered to be fanatics, were all executed out of hand. All other captured soldiers were sold into slavery, which caused such a glut in the slave trade at the time that they were sold for next to nothing. One man was reportedly sold in exchange for a pair of sandals. Balian himself survived and escaped the battle. Saladin gave him safe passage to Jerusalem to collect his family, provided he vowed not to take up arms again. However, in Jerusalem the people begged him to stay and organise the defence. He asked Saladin to release him from his vow, and Saladin not only allowed him to take over the defence of the city, but also arranged safe passage for Balian's family before the siege began. The scene after the battle where Saladin offered a drink (with real snow from the mountains) to King Guy is factual, as is his comment that he did not give the cup to Reynauld of Chatillon. In the moral code of the time hospitality implied clemency; yet Saladin had sworn to kill Reynauld with his own hands for all the trouble he had caused. Saladin was proven many times to be a man of honour, so he could not in good conscience offer a man a drink and then kill him. During the last day of the siege if you look closely you can see a burning siege tower, during production one of the towers caught fire and was subsequently burned down (one of the charges for the firebombs hadn't been put out properly and was left smoldering overnight; it eventually caught the tower and lit it up). Both director/producer Sir Ridley Scott and production designer Arthur Max liked the aesthetic of the burnt tower, and decided to use it in the film. Orlando Bloom gained twenty pounds of muscle for this movie. The screenplay originally began with Balian (Orlando Bloom) awakening after the shipwreck. Screenwriter William Monahan had wanted to begin the story with the death of Balian's wife in France, but had feared that that would make the screenplay too long. When Sir Ridley Scott became interested in the project, he told Monahan not to worry about length, and to begin the screenplay where he wanted to begin it. In the "burning bush" scene in the Director's Cut of the film, Balian's horse jumps as the camera pans across the desert, just after the character of the Hospitaler (David Thewlis) has "disappeared", thus enhancing the sense that the character is a spirit of sorts. According to Sir Ridley Scott, the horse did this completely spontaneously as the scene was being shot. After the team arrived in Morocco, an article appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" on January 20, 2004, claiming that the film "panders to Osama bin Laden". However, the writer of the article was quickly exposed as not having seen the screenplay. Subsequently, however, a copy of the screenplay was leaked to the world press, and provoked a strong reaction in terms of its depiction of Muslims. In an article on August 12, 2004, Professor Khaled Abu el-Fadl wrote, "I believe this movie teaches people to hate Muslims. There is a stereotype of the Muslim as constantly stupid, retarded, backward, unable to think in complex forms." This new sway in criticism greatly concerned King Mohamed VI, who came to fear for Sir Ridley Scott's safety, and as such, Mohammad provided Scott with four bodyguards. If you would like more trivia here is a link m.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_trv
I am surprised you did not comment, or perhaps you just did not include, any commentary on The Hospitaller. Especially the scene in which he appears behind Balian out of no where, without horse and likewise dissappears again without trace. There is a great video here on youtube called: The Angel Hospitaller? I found it very compelling.
The king at the end is Richard the lionheart. He and Saladin had a Correspondence and mutual respect. Richard managed to undo a lot of Saladins progress, but was eventually defeated.
so HAPPY to see this film get a proper reaction from a great reviewer. Its long been one of my favorite Ridley Scott films, and the Director's Cut Roadshow Edition even more. Thank you Shan for selecting this film. I love historical epics and this is a very good one. It does take lots of liberties with the timeline and characters, but Scott has always felt the story is more important than historical accuracy. A good bit of trivia is that after all the production was finished, the armor and costumes were sold off. When he decided to direct his Robin Hood film (with another great director's cut - check that out if you haven't) the first thing he did was find if all the armor was available, and he rented it back from the company they sold it to. Since the films are from the same period, the armor was still accurate.
The first shootings of the film, where Balian lives, are at Castle of Olite, in Spain. The theatrical version skips all the part of Sybilla’s son and some initial scenes. You can’t understand Sybilla’s character without this.
This is actually one of the most historically accurate historical epics ever made. Yes certain things are added or taken away, the main character really existed, and he did hold off Saladin for a while, and when Saladin took the city he did show mercy to the Christians. Its also one of my fav movies too, this was way better than the theatrical cut and because the original cut was so bad this movie didn't receive the sort pf praise it rightfully deserved- if this version had been released instead
An absolute top three movie for me. I could watch it over and over. Glad you watched the directors cut even though the theatrical was good as well. Just glad someone reacted to this film tbh. More reactors need to.
Great reaction and review man. Fantastic film. Another historical movie that was panned on release that I enjoyed was Alexander (the final cut?). Maybe not as good as this one but still well worth a watch.
Awesome reaction to a great film. Thank you for watching this and choosing the directors cut. Hope to one day see it in theaters at a revival or something. Each side gets its due imo. The type of film you don't see too much anymore. Bravo 👏
I watched the theatrical cut so many times before I saw the director's cut. Some of the parts that stick out as 'new' was the desecration of Balian's wife's body by priest. In the theatrical - we do see when Balian notices his wife's cross but we don't see the disrespectful way in which the priest got it -groping her body and all. We don't get his brother-in-law slapping him and treating him like a mental case. The whole part about Sybila's son being a leper and her mercy killing is left out as well. The conversations with Godfrey were all in the theatrical cut as well as all the convo's with the king and his sister. Always loved this movie. I also really liked how they portrayed Saladin.
Love this movie. You should watch a video about the confirmed theory about the hospitaller being an angel, it was quite mind blowing when I discovered it.
I've enjoyed this film several times. The only thing that always annoys me is the way they show the castle of Kerak, because I've actually been there. It's a castle situated amongst many steep hills with a single narrow road to the gate. Nothing like the castle in a flat plain that they show here
25:20 The period the movie is set certainly belongs to the era of the Crusades, but the events depicted were not part of a Crusade itself. The First Crusade lasted from 1095 to 1099 and ended with the Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the formation of the Crusader States in the Levant (the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and, of course, the most powerful of all being the Kingdom of Jerusalem). The Second Crusade lasted from 1144, with the Muslim conquest of Edessa, and ended in 1149 with an astounding defeat on the Christians, and this marked the beginning of the end for the Frankish Kingdom; from then on, the Kingdom began to suffer from an internal weakening and division caused by the ambition of rival nobles, meanwhile the Muslim population of the neighboring lands (Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul, Egypt, etc) began to unify against it, both militarily and religiously, first under Sultan Nur al-Din and then under his (unofficial) successor, Salah ad-Din (or Saladin). During the reign of Baldwin IV, the Kingdom was on the edge of a knife, but despite the constant threat, and although there were a few battles between Jerusalem and the united Muslim Syria under Saladin, Baldwin managed to keep the Kingdom safe and secure for over a decade thanks to diplomacy and truces with Saladin; unfortunately, when Baldwin died from his leprosy, and his young nephew and successor Baldwin V also died (though not by the hand of his mother, and he most likely didn't have leprosy like his uncle), the Crown passed to Sibylla and Guy of Lusignan, and less than a year later, in 1187, the entire Christian military force was destroyed at the Battle of Hattin. After that, the rest of the Crusader States and cities (with the exception of Tyre) fell to Saladin, including Jerusalem. And the news of this loss shocked the European world to such an extent that not only did Pope Urban III die from a heart attack, but his successor, Gregory VIII called for a new campaign to retake Jerusalem, which we now know as the Third Crusade; this one was perhaps even more religiously motivated than the First, and is definitely the one that most passed into legend. So, in conclusion, the movie depicts the last few years of that small window of time between the Second and Third Crusades.
This is meant to be set around/during a version of the Second Crusade because Balian meets Lionheart on his way to the Third Crusade at the end of the movie.
It was between the second crusade 1147 - 1149 and the third crusade 1189 - 1192. So it was not directly during a crusade. The battle before the battle of Jerusalem was the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Jerusalem got lost in the aftermath and so the third crusade began. As you can see at the end Richard I of England was going to the "holy land" to start the third crusade
Historians aren't sure how Sibylla's son died, but he had been described as being sickly. Also, Saladin did let many Christians leave- but only if they could pay the tax he imposed. Anyone who couldn't pay was either sold into slavery or killed, I think. Still, it was quite merciful for the time. I have great respect both for Baldwin and Saladin. Great reaction.
This directors cut made this one of my favorite movies next to Lord of the Rings and Hidalgo. The story telling and acting make this such a good movie.
this is the movie with the biggest impact of the directors cut i know. the normal movie is kinda meh and doesnt make much sense. but the directors cut is an epic story and a great movie
I saw the theatrical cut in cinema back in the day, remembering it well, and I thought it to be awesome, too. But indeed lots of stuff was cut that might have made things clearer. There was a Balian of Ibelin, actually a couple of them over time, but if I memember correctly that portrayal is pretty fictional. As for Saladin letting the population of Jerusalem go free, it wasn´t that simple. He allowed them to pay ransom to leave. Some could and did, some did for others, various groups found various ways. However the remaining ones, still at least thousands, were enslaved.
The heraldry for Ibelin is accurate but to the wrong period as it turns out. there's not much surviving from this period but they searched some old tapestries or paintings and found a depiction that included Ibelin from a later time and used that.
Never ended up seeing this movie; just happened to slip through the cracks back when I was buying and watching many many films. But it is notorious for the theatrical cut not recieving favorable reviews, and the Director's Cut recieving pretty much glowing reviews, especially in comparison.
I truly enjoy your reactions and analisys of movies. I know you have done a couple of shows but I would truly love to see your reaction and analisys of THE EXPANSE. I think you would truly enjoy it and I think I can speak for most of your viewers who would love to hear your analisys of that show. It is considered by many to be one of the best sci-fi shows ever or at least in a very long time.
It's an amazing period-piece film. It really feels visceral and all in place. Master film making. David Thewlis's character was my favourite. Real-life Paladin.
Definitely an incredible movie in hindsight, I love everything about the production of the movie, the high middle ages is definitely an era that needs more of a spotlight in film. I think the one thing I would have loved to see that would have been to add a variation in language use in the film, Latin, Old English, Old French and of course Classic Arabic would have really taken this movie to the next level.
FUN FACT : Both The King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and King Richard I of England are great grandsons of Fulk, The King of Jerusalem. Making them Cousins. They're literally from the same house, The Plantagenets.
This is technically in the time of the second or right after the second crusade but not yet part of the 3rd crusade which was where Richard the Lionheart came into the picture.
The theatrical cut literally cut a whole young king arc, totally erased the character. So the movie felt jumpy and something was missing. Some of the fiction parts: 1. Balian is a noble by birth, not a blacksmith bastard. 2. Balian married Sybilla step Mother, so he didn't have any affairs with Sybilla 3. Guy wasn't that crazy bloodthirsty person. 4. Saladdin never met King Baldwin IV in person. 5. Balian continue defended remains of the Kingdom for years, not going back to a random village. At least we got some historically accurate sequence: Guy and Reynald was captured after a miserable Battle of Hattin, Reynald was executed and Guy was released after Jerusalem fell.
In real life Balian wasn't some blacksmith living in rural France, he was born and lived in Holy Land basically all his life He also didn't have any romance with Sybilla, his brother did After Saladin took Jerusalem, he remained in Holy Land and took part in negotiating between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart during 3rd crusade couple years later But it was true that he was the one to defend Jerusalem and ultimately surrender it There are many historical inaccuracies in this movie (but it isn't a document, so it's perfectly acceptable), but the realest characters are 2 great leaders : Baldwin IV ("the leper king") and Saladin, their characters were perfectly cast and written The funniest change is that in real life Guy didn't want the war to happen, but he also was as incompetent as it is shown in movie and the main reason why crusaders lost and had to surrender Jerusalem
![Top Gun Maverick (2022) Reaction & Review! FIRST TIME WATCHING!! [RE-UPLOAD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qROBAkslFYo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Top Gun Maverick (2022) Reaction & Review! FIRST TIME WATCHING!! [RE-UPLOAD]](/img/tr.png)
![Chicken P - People's Favorite (Remix) [Feat. 42 Dugg] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a6Bn8FEtxmY/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of the best directors cut ever. It's silly this wasn't the theatrical release.
I remember watching it one day on TV, not knowing they had done a directors cut, felt like I had never actually seen the movie.
I liked the movie in the theatrical release but this cut explains so much more it also brings up question like the priest being an angel and not real or so I read
The director's cut tells such a complete story that the theatrical cut feels like sabotage.
The director was ordered to cut an hour from the movie because movie theaters wanted to have extra showings each day. This movie is better than Gladiator.
I mean there's no difference between 2
Edward Norton deserves a lot of credit for playing the King behind that gold mask.
in the theatrical release his in fact uncredited at his request! he wanted the king to be more mysterious
@@chernobyl68 I'm not saying he should have been actually credited, that's his choice, just that 17 years later his contribution shouldn't be overlooked just because of the anonymity.
I never knew that it was him. Wow.
@@anonimuso I really loved his performance but it took me quite a while to find out who played the mysterious king.
@@LadyIarConnacht Norton's performance was brilliant without ever seeing his own face
." Assemble The Army ! " The history about The Leper King Baldwin IV is intriguing he defeated Saladin twice in battle once when he was 16 and his army heavily out numbered at the
Battle of Montgisard . Reynald de Chatillon fought for King Baldwin and in real life was beheaded by Saladin himself for refusing to convert to Islam
What Balian told Guy was essentially, "If you decide to live, live better. You are a knight. Act like it. Or just sit there and bleed out".
Guy said it himself, he was really there because he wanted to be killed. He had been shamed in the eyes of all Christians and had lost all influence.
The real history behind this story is fascinating.
Saladin already had the city under siege when Balian came to him, asking permission to enter so that he could gather his family and escape with them. Saladin agreed. Inside, the people begged Balian to take up the defense of the city. Balian returned to Saladin and asked permission to defend the city, and Saladin allowed it.
Saladin didn't just allow Balian to defend the city, he even sent his personal guard to escort Balian's family to safety so they would be out of the city and away from the fighting.
source?
@@dieweissehand We have multiple primary accounts from both the Crusader side AND the Saracen side confirming this, among them Salah-Al-Din's chief chronicler and brother, Nur-Ad-Din.
@@kevinnorwood8782 I was already looking for this, but I can not find such a Text. Source pls
muslims - "source; trust me bro" @@dieweissehand
Shan, this film’s events took place in between the second and the third crusades. The second last scene shows King Richard the Lionheart on his way to the holy land to conduct the famous third crusade by joining up with other rulers of Europe.
Yea there is stuff in there that was not real history its a mix of real and not
This is more like ending of the first crusade. Second crusade events was not shown. And Richard the lion heart heading towards Jerusalem is the beginning of third
@@goatman9998 Not completely correct. Balian's father was part of the second criusade, as he recounts his exploits during the siege of Damascus.
A criminally underrated historical film.
It was Ok, but nothing exceptional.
And sadly quite wrong in its depiction of this historical period.
Which wouldn't be a big deal if people didn't take it for reality.
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=the+real+crusades+history+kingdom+heaven
@@Astuga Could you give some examples of truly exceptional historical films? I would like to watch
@@FF-bj4nq "Maximilian and Marie De Bourgogne" or simply "Maximilian", is a 2017 German-Austrian three-part historical miniseries.
Also "Zrodzeni do Szabli / Born to the Sabre"
That said, hardly any historical movies are exceptional in regard of being historical accurate.
Of course they still can be entertaining.
It isn't historical. One of the reasons it is so hated is it's WILD liberties taken with history. It is good fun to watch, if a bit slow, but the issue Scott gets with all these movies is the "historical" marketing, just like with his latest movie about the "Last Duel", presented as history when the script is based on a "historicaly-inspired novel". Were it presented as fiction, those movies wouldn't have half the cabal of haters they get.
In my language, they are classified as "epoch costume movies".
@@k.v.7681 historical as in 'set in a historical period'. its obviously not a documentary.
Yes! Director's Cut, just like this movie needs. The theatrical cut is ok, but the extended cut makes it a way more rounded story.
For some historical details, lets get just the more important ones:
. Balian was legitimate and a noble. He was very much very high status and close to the King of Jerusalem. This is how and why he was able to lead the defence of Jerusalem, which he did in real life.
. There was no love relationship between Balian and Sibila. But Sibila and her brother did exist more or less like in the movie. The story of the lepper king is true. The son of Sibila was King of Jerusalem for a short time before he died. Very unlikely he was killed by his own mother. But Sibila and Guy did rise to power after. Real life Sibila seems like she truly loved Guy. And very unfortunately....she very much did all she could to steer Guy into power at her side. He might have been a good lover but it seems he was not the best strategist ever.
. Reynald was an historical character but very unlikely he was crazy. He was in fact a very competent military leader. He did some pretty daring expeditions / campaigns. Its more or less clear that in real life he acted under the King of Jerusalem. But the dynamics of war were somewhat different.
. The situation between Jerusalem and the muslims was way more complex. No, they were not wishing for peace and none had these unrealistic ideas that they could create a paradise. It was kind of a cold war situation but one where they would fight battles here and there on occasion. Each side would attack the other kind of testing their relative power. The lepper king had indeed won a major victory in his early youth and had a fearsome reputation. The muslims were a bit weary of going all out against him since they knew he could win battles.
. The war kind of had a big turning point at the Battle of Hattin as depicted in the movie. Guy does not look like he was a very competent leader. He very much lead his forces into a trap and was obliterated. Then it was up to Balian to defend Jerusalem, buy time till other reinforcements could organize in surrounding areas. The city was lost like the movie depicts and there was indeed a truce which allowed a lot of people to leave. But the war did not end. And Balian lived his entire life around there, involved with several political conflicts.
I’d like to add that Balin was there at Hattin an was one of the few that managed to lead a successful breakout
The real Raynald was on King Baldwins side an opposed Guy being king
@@ComradeCommissarYuri
Fine addictions.
Yes, Balian was notorious at Hattin.
And absolutely, Reynald was not a rogue crazy guy. He was very much a man of his time and by all accounts a good competent leader.
Watching this film after 15 - 20 years makes you realise what an all star cast they had, an insane amount of recognisable actors even in minor roles too
I recall hearing a story involving Saladin and Richard I.
Saladin observed from a distance Richard being unhorsed and fighting, and he was very impressed. So, he sent out riders to give Richard a fresh horse so that he could continue watching Richard fight. (I think he gave Richard three (eventually dead) horses until he called a retreat and ended the battle for the day.)
Richard I had horses killed beneath him, but was only ever unhorsed by one person - William Marshal, aka "The Best Knight That Ever Lived" (so named by contemporary historian Stephen Langton).
The Score for this movie was written by Harry Gregson-Williams, but Ridley Scott chose to track music from other Films into certain scenes, including a Cue each from "The Crow" by Graeme Revell and "Blade 2" by Marco Beltrami (the 'What is Jerusalem worth?'-Moment). Most notably, the music playing during the 'Rise a Knight'-Scene before the final Battle is originally from "The 13th Warrior" by Jerry Goldsmith. I chose to believe that this was partly Scott paying Tribute to Goldsmith (whom he worked with twice) who passed away a year before "Kingdom of Heaven" came out.
During the king's funeral, he also reused the opera music from his 2001 movie, Hannibal (Vide Cor Meum). It's a really beautiful piece:
ruclips.net/video/RFB3PbD4-Lk/видео.html
Harry Gregson Williams extended score is magnificent.
The movie is not depicting any actual crusade, but rather in between the second and third. The ending with Richard the Lionheart riding through is the start of the third one.
My favorite theory is that the Knight Hospitaller is an angel, since he seems to just appear when Balian needs him most.
I didn't expect much from this movie, but was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. It had great heroes and great villains and a story that kept you engaged. The costumes were also outstanding.
yeah. you can imagine that grave digger or prisoner in the beginning had story like he didn't cut the wives head off and embarked on repentance road of his own and in the end found himself in Jerusalem knighted before the most important battle of that time.
I love Alexander Siddig in this. He was always one of my favorites on Deep Space Nine and he plays such a cool, collected character here. And Jeremy Irons is such an awesome hardass in this film, too. I played a paladin on WoW named Tiberias for many years. They're all so goddamn good.
One thing this movie does well imho is that it makes you feel like you're moving to different places. Hard to explain, but it just feels "vast" in some way.
I saw the theatrical cut when it was in theaters, and thought that it was "okay". Not terrible, but nothing that I was going to buy on disc, or anything that I'd care to watch again. Years later, I saw that there was a Director's Cut, and that it was like 45 (!) minutes longer. That made me curious enough to give the movie a second go, so I watched the Director's Cut.
It's now still one of my personal favorite movies of all-time.
To give those who are unaware, just one example: Sibylla's son, the one who had leprosy, he's not even in the theatrical cut. And I don't mean he's just not shown on camera, I mean that his character doesn't even exist. That's just one of *many* examples of exactly how much was cut and altered for the theatrical release.
It's so funny how drastically better the director's cut is. I fell asleep watching this movie in theaters, one of like 3 movies I've ever fallen asleep in (the others being A Perfect Storm when I was a kid and when my friend made me see Rise of Skywalker a second time) but the director's cut is in my top 10 favorite films. Just exquisite, the set design, music, ambience, all beautiful.
This is probably my favorite period movie. Salahuddin's smile cures my depression, I'm not kidding. :D
Great Reaction.
Saladin was one of the great warrior kings of history. As all men, he had shortcomings, and probably committed war crimes by modern definitions, but he was eminently honorable, and devoutly pious. He died with only 1 piece of gold, and 40 pieces of silver to his name, having given the rest of his earthly wealth away to help the poor.
@D Anemon I hear you, but can only agree up to a point. We would have to get into a discussion of whether it's immoral to kill someone who plans to kill you.
One point: 'Man on Fire' wasn't a Ridley Scott film. That was directed by Tony Scott, his brother (R.I.P.) who also directed the first 'Top Gun', 'Spy Game' and many more fine films.
Delighted you went for the Directors Cut. It elevates everything about the original theatrical cut. Superb film, one of Ridley Scott's very best.
The Saracen who is a aide to Saladin-who also does a good Undertaker imitation, is Alexander Siddig, aka Doctor Bashir from Ds9 :)
One of the men that's with Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson is actor David Thewlis, he's an amazing actor, he starred in one of my favorite films a Mike Leigh British film called Naked, it is definitely worth a watch.
A lot of people nowadays recognize him as Professor Lupine, the werewolf in the Harry Potter movies.
The original scenes were shot at the Castillo de Loarre in Northern Spain. The entire movie is filmed in the most beautiful locations ... Segovia, Ávila, Palma del Río, and Seville's Casa de Pilatos and Alcázar. I love this movie. Completely agree that it was a shame that this wasn't the theatrical release.
Good for you for watching this movie AND watching the Directors Cut. If the Directors cut was what made it to the theaters, this film would have easily been nominated and won Oscars just like Gladiator did. Oh well. The theatrical version is good but so so also. This version is absolutely epic.
Worked at AMC in San Diego when this came out. I loved it. The biggest thing people i knew or who watched it complained about was Orlando Bloom being too "young and cute" to lead the film. I think this had to do with LoTR and typecasting. Watching it now, he fits perfectly.
The production quality is absolutely insane. Hollywood just simply isn't making movies like this anymore, I mean the big production movies are CGI superhero fights instead of practical costumes, real sets, practical effects.
I will say that even though it flopped and apparently no one liked it, I thought that Ridley Scott's film 'The Duel' was phenomenal as well.
But again I mean good lord the amount of talent and work that was put into Kingdom of Heaven is humbling.
Great reaction to a great film. It gets some flak from historians for taking liberties, but it's definitely one of the most stunning and vivid depictions of medieval conflict during that period. And what a cast of brilliant actors. Even Orlando Bloom stands out and delivers one of his finest performances. Much like Oliver Stone's Alexander, it was brutally chopped by the studio and didn't get the recognition it deserved but was later redeemed by a Director's Cut.
I was fortunate enough to see the Director's Cut first - I absolutely adore this movie, one of my favorites! Cannot believe it didn't receive more honors and recognition than it did.
You said you wanted to see a making of for this film. There is an extraordinary one called The Path To Redemption, which is contained within the 4-disc DVD collection of the film. It is a 6-part feature length documentary and covers all of the making of the film, from script development to siege battle, and also includes an examination of the historical origins of the story. That documentary is exquisite. One of the greatest making-of films I’ve seen.
As to your question about how you get over the death of a child….you don’t. Ever.
The Lepor King was portrayed by Edward Norton who did not want credit.
One of the most underrated films. Despite the large historical inaccuracies in some places, it conveys the spirit of the era, events and atmosphere very well.
👉 _The Duellists_ (1977) - Ridley Scott's debut historical masterpiece. You'd like it. Recommended.
I second this👍
Absolutely, yes! And it still stands up; what an incredible first outing for a director.
23:29 - "Prolonged, close contact with someone with untreated leprosy over many months is needed to catch the disease. You cannot get leprosy from a casual contact with a person who has Hansen's disease like: Shaking hands or hugging."
_Kingdom of Heaven_ is one of the few occasions when the Director's Cut actually feels like a totally different film.
Fun fact - Marton Csokas (Guy) and David Thewlis (the friendly knight) and Michael Sheen (the priest brother) were all in another medieval movie with a SciFi bent that you should def watch. Timeline was made 2 years before this one in 2003. Great film.
"A king may move a man, a father may claim a son. But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say “but I was told by others to do thus” or that “virtue was not convenient at the time". This will not suffice."
Such a powerful message. Kingdom of Heaven DC is such an underrated film. One of my faves.
So glad you watched the Director's Cut. It's been awhile since I've seen both versions but I do remember the theatric release cut much of Sybilla's storyline with her dealing with her son's leprosy leaving me feeling a bit confused over her seemingly descent to madness.
the son was entirely cut out of the theatrical release.
The relationship between Balian and his half-brother is also missing, IIRC, which makes the early narrative of the film ... confusing, to say the least. I know the film is fictionalized, but the theatrical cut is also unnecessarily muddled by the cuts. I think even the final confrontation between Balian and Guy is missing from the theatrical. A baffling decision!
@@beansfriend7033 I'm pretty sure the final confrontation between Balian and Guy is missing as well. It's been ages since I spun up my DVD copy (and I'm sure it's just a theatrical version). It didn't have the history about Sybilla's son in it, nor that final sword battle between Balian and Guy. I'll have to seek out this 3 hour version and give it a watch.
I'm glad you decided to watch the directors cut, it makes the movie make more sense, for example in the theatrical version when Reynald says to Guy in the jail cell "Is the boy in heaven?" i always assumed he was talking about Orlando Bloom but when you watch the directors cut you realize he's talking about the boy king.
They did a retrospective for Ridley Scott in Paris when Napoleon came out, when I tell I literally JUMPED to get a ticket when they announced they were projecting the director's cut for Kingdom of Heaven on the big screen. Chills X10000
The last battle is what Game of Thrones The Long Night should have tried to do but in a grander scale and longer. Incredible that Sir Ridley Scott in 2005 (really 2003-2004 when it was filmed) gave the Game of Thrones production teams a blueprint for an epic scale battle during the night in a seige type setting inside walls/castle yet they still fumbled the ball.....
If long movies don't scare you, check out Hamlet (1996), directed by and starring as Hamlet himself, Kenneth Branagh. I believe it is the full play script, filmed scene for scene, and it clocks it at just over 4 hours. :) The cast reads like a who's who of mostly British theater veteran actors, but there are some other highly known actors as well, and there are great performances all around. I just love it to bits!
Yeah, it's amazing, and it is every single line of the play. It gets some flack for not being in a truly medieval setting, but being in a late rennaissance period actually makes it more contemporary with Shakespeare, so I never understood that critique.
Branagh has done many amazing Shakespeare films my personal favorite was Much Ado about Nothing (1993)
@@chernobyl68 it's fantastic as well, as is Henry V 😊
And then follow that up some time soon after with the 1990 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead starring the (very young) Tim Roth and Gary Oldman, and prominently featuring Richard Dreyfuss. It even doubles up on this film's King Richard, Iain Glen, playing Hamlet. Every scene of the movie that is a scene from the play is played perfectly straight to the dialogue of the play, but everything written around it is brilliantly existential and absurd tragic-comedy and wholly original to the play's writer Tom Stoppard.
The director's cut is definitely an improvement from the theatrical cut, which was cut because of Tom Rothman and his executive interference. There is much to admire about this film, but unfortunately as a historian, I cannot approve of this film. The problem I have is with the character of Balian. Balian of Ibelin was born a noble. He was not a bastard or a blacksmith. It is a historical implausibility for a bastard to be elevated to the rank of a noble upon the death of his sire. It is even more implausible, or dare I say, impossible, for other nobles to acknowledge him as such, and without the slightest protest or scorn. Scott is so determined to portray Balian as an outsider, which helps him explain things to the audience about a history they likely know very little about, that he undermines the very history he seeks to tell by presenting a deeply flawed protagonist. This Balian can simply not exist. He is also, in my opinion, and with respect to Orlando Bloom, a very good actor, horribly miscast. Bloom was also very ill during much of the filming and it was a punishing shoot, which may explain his somewhat dull performance. Still, some of the history is presented with authenticity, and the Sybilla character is given a significant upgrade with the restored cut.
Interesting side-note that was probably already mentioned in the comments lol: The Christian king was played by Edward Norton, who at the time wanted the credit for the role to remain unlisted (IIRC).
Saladin also kept many Christian symbols and monuments in the city, he allowed Christians to come back there to pray
I was lucky to see a special private screening of the extended cut of this years ago with Ridley Scott doing a Q&A afterwards, he seemed to be resigned to the fact that it had flopped at the box-office but blamed other unnamed 'sword & sandals' type movies that had come out at a similar time and not done well. Although he didn't say it and didn't want to criticise other filmmakers he was definitely talking about Troy and Alexander.
Salahudin is one of my favorite people in history, i am neigh Christian or Muslim but he was seen as to companionate and too patient. all that they showed in the movie is true. By every metric he was a great leader and a empathetic leader of his time. What they don't show is that he brought the Muslims together which at the time is like the unification of Japan in the ronin period. it is a massive and historic event in history. The director did a great job at not making him a villain like most movies would, but also like a hero for the other side. "Extra History" actually did a really good biop on him and would highly recommend looking into it.
One of the best “Director’s Cut” of anything. I should rewatch it. Also, if you haven’t seen it yet, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood (2010) is like a sequel to this. It takes place in 1199 where a man named Robin returns to England from the Crusades. It turns into a Magna Carta story. It’s a decent enough film, entertaining and worth watching!
Seconded. They should have called it "A Tale of England" or something, calling it Robin Hood just distracted it from all the other good stuff in it. I honestly believe Ridley is weaving together bits of history in his body of work and when he's gone we'll see the huge tapestry of history all connected together in his films. Prometheus would have been a great beginning to his history if it didn't get derailed into an Alien movie :/ But yeah, Robin Hood is wonderful... EVEN Scott's A Good Year.
i thought it was a truly dreadful film. Not a film i would ever recommend .
Thirded, check out the Directors cut of Robin Hood as well!
@@chernobyl68 yep I own a Blu-ray copy!
And also I would recommend a RUclips channel called history buffs he will review and talk about this film and also about the Battle of Hattin.
It should be noted that the Fall of Jerusalem was not itself a Crusade. The first Crusade was in 1095 AD. The action in this film takes place around 1187 AD. The 3rd Crusade led by Richard the Lionheart was in the early 1190's. The last Crusader city was Acre which fell to the Mamluks in 1294. Scott and his writers rake some liberties, but the general outlines of what happened are correct. A terrific and grossly underappreciated film by Ridley Scott.
Kingdom of Heaven trivia
Sir Ridley Scott disowned the theatrical cut. He claims that the Director's Cut is the definitive version.
Edward Norton was briefly considered for the role of Guy, but upon reading the script he lobbied for the role of King Baldwin. Because the King appears behind a mask, he requested not to be credited. However, his name was put back in the video releases of the film.
Three 60-foot siege towers were built for the film, using the technology of the period. Each one weighed 25 tons. To accomplish the scene where a number of siege towers collapse, one of the real towers was knocked over on set and filmed from 11 different positions and locations. Various shots of the single tower falling were then composited together to give the impression that several towers had collapsed in different ways and in different directions.
To create both the theatrical cut and the Director's Cut, editor Dody Dorn worked for fifteen months straight. The average film takes, at most, four or five months to edit.
Director Sir Ridley Scott and writer William Monahan felt that the unnamed character played by David Thewlis was an embodiment of God, or at the very least, an angel on a mission from God. This is not at all apparent in the theatrical cut, but in the Director's Cut, there are two scenes which strongly hint at it--one where the character seemingly disappears after a conversation with Balian (Orlando Bloom), the other where he seems to "resurrect" Balian after he is attacked and injured by three assassins.
After being cast in the role of Godfrey, Liam Neeson realized he knew nothing about the Crusades and began his research with "The Complete Idiots Guide to the Crusades" by Paul L. Williams, a book Neeson calls "extremely informative".
Sir Ridley Scott received many letters of thanks and congratulations from Muslim groups for his even-handed depiction of the religion.
Roughly 12,000-15,000 costumes were made for the film, each with 13 to 15 separate components (helmets, boots, gloves, several pieces of chainmail, belts, scabbards, etc.).
King Mohamed VI of Morocco is a friend of Sir Ridley Scott, and personally provided the production with a detachment of 1,500 military personnel and equipment. Often these personnel depicted both Christian and Muslim armies, with a change of costume and location between scenes.
After the film was pitched to them, studio marketing executives took it to be an action-adventure hybrid, rather than what Sir Ridley Scott and William Monahan intended it to be--a historical epic examining religious conflict. 20th Century Fox promoted the film as an action movie with heavy elements of romance, and in the advertising campaign it made much of the "From the director of Gladiator (2000)" slogan. When Scott presented the 194-minute version of the film to the studio, it balked at the length, and studio head Tom Rothman ordered the film to be trimmed down to two hours, feeling people wouldn't go to see a three-hour movie. Ultimately, Rothman's decision backfired, as the film gained mixed reviews (with many commenting that the film seemed "incomplete"), and it did not perform well at the U.S. box office.
The flag budget for the film was $250,000. In total, 1,200 flags, comprising 650 separate designs, were made in Spain, England, Morocco, and India.
Sir Ridley Scott offered the small role of English King Richard I to Russell Crowe, but due to scheduling conflicts, Crowe was unable to do it. The part eventually went to Iain Glen.
The French village at the start and end of the film was built near Huesca, a small city in northern Spain. The castle seen in these scenes is a real crusader castle built in 1076, Castillo de Loarre. As he would do in Morocco when building Ibelin, production designer Arthur Max decided to use traditional building techniques and local craftsmen. In Galicia, he found craftsmen who still did slate roofs, thatching, and stone dry-walling, and these men were employed to build the village set.
Orlando Bloom had just completed filming Troy (2004) when he received the screenplay for Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and was initially reluctant to even read the script for another historical epic. Knowing it was being put together by Sir Ridley Scott convinced him to give it a chance.
After being cast as the Hospitaler, David Thewlis visited the Hospitalers' Museum at St. John's Gate in London, near where he lives. While there, he discovered that his flat was actually built on the remains of the old priory of the Hospitalers' headquarters.
Balian of Ibelin really existed but he was neither a bastard born in France nor a blacksmith; he was, in fact, a legitimate nobleman born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
The filming of the siege of Jerusalem took twenty-one days. In real life, the siege itself lasted only thirteen days.
Most exterior filming took place in Ouarzazate, Morocco, where Sir Ridley Scott had also filmed Gladiator (2000) and Black Hawk Down (2001). A massive replica of Jerusalem was constructed in the desert. The set contained 28,000 square meters (301,389 square feet) of wall, and used 6,000 tons of plaster. The front of the set was 1,200 feet (365.76 meters) long, and the walls were 56 feet (17 meters) tall.
Despite what is shown in the film, Balian of Ibelin was actually at the battle of Hattin. Hattin is the battle not shown in the film, only its aftermath of slaughtered crusaders. Historically, the crusader army was gathered on the coast at Acre, then marched inland to a small town called Zipori, which was about 25 km from Hattin and had plenty of water. Guy was counseled not to move the army further because of the lack of water in the desert. When they moved anyway, Balian was given command of the critically important rear guard of Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaler warrior monks. After a terrible march through the desert in the heat without water, the men were almost dead on their feet from exhaustion and thirst; Balian persuaded King Guy to stop and make camp near the foot of the hill known as the Horns of Hattin. Their situation that night was especially torturous because they were within sight of the freshwater Sea of Galilee, and the Saracen army (which by then had them almost surrounded) had plenty of water and were ostentatiously wasting it in front of the thirsty Europeans. The following day Saladin's army virtually annihilated the crusader army. Captured lay nobles were ransomed for great sums of money; the Templars and Hospitalers, considered to be fanatics, were all executed out of hand. All other captured soldiers were sold into slavery, which caused such a glut in the slave trade at the time that they were sold for next to nothing. One man was reportedly sold in exchange for a pair of sandals. Balian himself survived and escaped the battle. Saladin gave him safe passage to Jerusalem to collect his family, provided he vowed not to take up arms again. However, in Jerusalem the people begged him to stay and organise the defence. He asked Saladin to release him from his vow, and Saladin not only allowed him to take over the defence of the city, but also arranged safe passage for Balian's family before the siege began. The scene after the battle where Saladin offered a drink (with real snow from the mountains) to King Guy is factual, as is his comment that he did not give the cup to Reynauld of Chatillon. In the moral code of the time hospitality implied clemency; yet Saladin had sworn to kill Reynauld with his own hands for all the trouble he had caused. Saladin was proven many times to be a man of honour, so he could not in good conscience offer a man a drink and then kill him.
During the last day of the siege if you look closely you can see a burning siege tower, during production one of the towers caught fire and was subsequently burned down (one of the charges for the firebombs hadn't been put out properly and was left smoldering overnight; it eventually caught the tower and lit it up). Both director/producer Sir Ridley Scott and production designer Arthur Max liked the aesthetic of the burnt tower, and decided to use it in the film.
Orlando Bloom gained twenty pounds of muscle for this movie.
The screenplay originally began with Balian (Orlando Bloom) awakening after the shipwreck. Screenwriter William Monahan had wanted to begin the story with the death of Balian's wife in France, but had feared that that would make the screenplay too long. When Sir Ridley Scott became interested in the project, he told Monahan not to worry about length, and to begin the screenplay where he wanted to begin it.
In the "burning bush" scene in the Director's Cut of the film, Balian's horse jumps as the camera pans across the desert, just after the character of the Hospitaler (David Thewlis) has "disappeared", thus enhancing the sense that the character is a spirit of sorts. According to Sir Ridley Scott, the horse did this completely spontaneously as the scene was being shot.
After the team arrived in Morocco, an article appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" on January 20, 2004, claiming that the film "panders to Osama bin Laden". However, the writer of the article was quickly exposed as not having seen the screenplay. Subsequently, however, a copy of the screenplay was leaked to the world press, and provoked a strong reaction in terms of its depiction of Muslims. In an article on August 12, 2004, Professor Khaled Abu el-Fadl wrote, "I believe this movie teaches people to hate Muslims. There is a stereotype of the Muslim as constantly stupid, retarded, backward, unable to think in complex forms." This new sway in criticism greatly concerned King Mohamed VI, who came to fear for Sir Ridley Scott's safety, and as such, Mohammad provided Scott with four bodyguards.
If you would like more trivia here is a link m.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_trv
The movie takes place just before the start of the 3rd Crusade, which was initiated in response to Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem.
You should consider watching The Duelists, Ridley Scott's first movie (and some would argue his best!). Thanks and keep up the good work.
I am surprised you did not comment, or perhaps you just did not include, any commentary on The Hospitaller. Especially the scene in which he appears behind Balian out of no where, without horse and likewise dissappears again without trace. There is a great video here on youtube called: The Angel Hospitaller? I found it very compelling.
18:20 - shit, Edward Norton is amazing in this part
The scenes from "France" were actually shot around Burgos, Spain. Breathtaking place btw
The king at the end is Richard the lionheart. He and Saladin had a Correspondence and mutual respect.
Richard managed to undo a lot of Saladins progress, but was eventually defeated.
so HAPPY to see this film get a proper reaction from a great reviewer. Its long been one of my favorite Ridley Scott films, and the Director's Cut Roadshow Edition even more. Thank you Shan for selecting this film. I love historical epics and this is a very good one. It does take lots of liberties with the timeline and characters, but Scott has always felt the story is more important than historical accuracy. A good bit of trivia is that after all the production was finished, the armor and costumes were sold off. When he decided to direct his Robin Hood film (with another great director's cut - check that out if you haven't) the first thing he did was find if all the armor was available, and he rented it back from the company they sold it to. Since the films are from the same period, the armor was still accurate.
Siiiiick. I was just looking up reactions for this movie last night.
The first shootings of the film, where Balian lives, are at Castle of Olite, in Spain.
The theatrical version skips all the part of Sybilla’s son and some initial scenes. You can’t understand Sybilla’s character without this.
This is actually one of the most historically accurate historical epics ever made. Yes certain things are added or taken away, the main character really existed, and he did hold off Saladin for a while, and when Saladin took the city he did show mercy to the Christians. Its also one of my fav movies too, this was way better than the theatrical cut and because the original cut was so bad this movie didn't receive the sort pf praise it rightfully deserved- if this version had been released instead
Ghassan Massoud was great as Saladin.
What a joy it is to watch your reactions. I really dig your style.
An absolute top three movie for me. I could watch it over and over.
Glad you watched the directors cut even though the theatrical was good as well. Just glad someone reacted to this film tbh. More reactors need to.
Great reaction and review man. Fantastic film. Another historical movie that was panned on release that I enjoyed was Alexander (the final cut?). Maybe not as good as this one but still well worth a watch.
I love how this was his follow-up to Matchstick Men lol
Awesome reaction to a great film. Thank you for watching this and choosing the directors cut. Hope to one day see it in theaters at a revival or something. Each side gets its due imo. The type of film you don't see too much anymore. Bravo 👏
DUDE...!
I'm just speechless... I'm just going to go out and get a lottery ticket just in case.
This film is almost perfection. Still a few scenes I’d cut from the directors cut but overall a masterpiece
I watched the theatrical cut so many times before I saw the director's cut. Some of the parts that stick out as 'new' was the desecration of Balian's wife's body by priest. In the theatrical - we do see when Balian notices his wife's cross but we don't see the disrespectful way in which the priest got it -groping her body and all. We don't get his brother-in-law slapping him and treating him like a mental case. The whole part about Sybila's son being a leper and her mercy killing is left out as well. The conversations with Godfrey were all in the theatrical cut as well as all the convo's with the king and his sister. Always loved this movie. I also really liked how they portrayed Saladin.
It takes almost everybody until after the movie to know Edward Norton plays Baldwin
Ridley's wife plays Saladin's sister. She's also Maximus's wife in Gladiator.
Love this movie. You should watch a video about the confirmed theory about the hospitaller being an angel, it was quite mind blowing when I discovered it.
One bit of the score was taken from the 13th Warrior score by Jerry Goldsmith.
I've enjoyed this film several times. The only thing that always annoys me is the way they show the castle of Kerak, because I've actually been there. It's a castle situated amongst many steep hills with a single narrow road to the gate. Nothing like the castle in a flat plain that they show here
25:20 The period the movie is set certainly belongs to the era of the Crusades, but the events depicted were not part of a Crusade itself.
The First Crusade lasted from 1095 to 1099 and ended with the Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the formation of the Crusader States in the Levant (the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and, of course, the most powerful of all being the Kingdom of Jerusalem). The Second Crusade lasted from 1144, with the Muslim conquest of Edessa, and ended in 1149 with an astounding defeat on the Christians, and this marked the beginning of the end for the Frankish Kingdom; from then on, the Kingdom began to suffer from an internal weakening and division caused by the ambition of rival nobles, meanwhile the Muslim population of the neighboring lands (Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul, Egypt, etc) began to unify against it, both militarily and religiously, first under Sultan Nur al-Din and then under his (unofficial) successor, Salah ad-Din (or Saladin). During the reign of Baldwin IV, the Kingdom was on the edge of a knife, but despite the constant threat, and although there were a few battles between Jerusalem and the united Muslim Syria under Saladin, Baldwin managed to keep the Kingdom safe and secure for over a decade thanks to diplomacy and truces with Saladin; unfortunately, when Baldwin died from his leprosy, and his young nephew and successor Baldwin V also died (though not by the hand of his mother, and he most likely didn't have leprosy like his uncle), the Crown passed to Sibylla and Guy of Lusignan, and less than a year later, in 1187, the entire Christian military force was destroyed at the Battle of Hattin. After that, the rest of the Crusader States and cities (with the exception of Tyre) fell to Saladin, including Jerusalem. And the news of this loss shocked the European world to such an extent that not only did Pope Urban III die from a heart attack, but his successor, Gregory VIII called for a new campaign to retake Jerusalem, which we now know as the Third Crusade; this one was perhaps even more religiously motivated than the First, and is definitely the one that most passed into legend.
So, in conclusion, the movie depicts the last few years of that small window of time between the Second and Third Crusades.
This is meant to be set around/during a version of the Second Crusade because Balian meets Lionheart on his way to the Third Crusade at the end of the movie.
Had never seen the Director's cut before, way better than the release I saw.
It was between the second crusade 1147 - 1149 and the third crusade 1189 - 1192. So it was not directly during a crusade. The battle before the battle of Jerusalem was the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Jerusalem got lost in the aftermath and so the third crusade began. As you can see at the end Richard I of England was going to the "holy land" to start the third crusade
Historians aren't sure how Sibylla's son died, but he had been described as being sickly.
Also, Saladin did let many Christians leave- but only if they could pay the tax he imposed. Anyone who couldn't pay was either sold into slavery or killed, I think. Still, it was quite merciful for the time. I have great respect both for Baldwin and Saladin.
Great reaction.
This directors cut made this one of my favorite movies next to Lord of the Rings and Hidalgo. The story telling and acting make this such a good movie.
I love that alot of the score is original music of the time and seems to echo through he ages and your right it's absolutely beautiful
this is the movie with the biggest impact of the directors cut i know. the normal movie is kinda meh and doesnt make much sense. but the directors cut is an epic story and a great movie
I saw the theatrical cut in cinema back in the day, remembering it well, and I thought it to be awesome, too. But indeed lots of stuff was cut that might have made things clearer.
There was a Balian of Ibelin, actually a couple of them over time, but if I memember correctly that portrayal is pretty fictional. As for Saladin letting the population of Jerusalem go free, it wasn´t that simple. He allowed them to pay ransom to leave. Some could and did, some did for others, various groups found various ways. However the remaining ones, still at least thousands, were enslaved.
The heraldry for Ibelin is accurate but to the wrong period as it turns out. there's not much surviving from this period but they searched some old tapestries or paintings and found a depiction that included Ibelin from a later time and used that.
Never ended up seeing this movie; just happened to slip through the cracks back when I was buying and watching many many films. But it is notorious for the theatrical cut not recieving favorable reviews, and the Director's Cut recieving pretty much glowing reviews, especially in comparison.
Gettysburg had an intermission when I saw it in theaters when I was a kid.
Kingdom of Heaven was filmed in Seville in Spain and Ouarzazate in Morocco.
I truly enjoy your reactions and analisys of movies. I know you have done a couple of shows but I would truly love to see your reaction and analisys of THE EXPANSE. I think you would truly enjoy it and I think I can speak for most of your viewers who would love to hear your analisys of that show. It is considered by many to be one of the best sci-fi shows ever or at least in a very long time.
"And if God did not love you, how could you have done all the things you have done?"
It's an amazing period-piece film. It really feels visceral and all in place. Master film making. David Thewlis's character was my favourite. Real-life Paladin.
The king at the end was King Richard. While he is fighting in the crusades Robin Hood is running around England. Too bad Robin Hood isn't real though.
I can't look at that one dude without seeing Dr. Bashir from DS9.
The 1st and 2nd Crusades happened in 1074 and 1147. This film takes place between the 2nd and 3rd.
Definitely an incredible movie in hindsight, I love everything about the production of the movie, the high middle ages is definitely an era that needs more of a spotlight in film. I think the one thing I would have loved to see that would have been to add a variation in language use in the film, Latin, Old English, Old French and of course Classic Arabic would have really taken this movie to the next level.
FUN FACT : Both The King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and King Richard I of England are great grandsons of Fulk, The King of Jerusalem. Making them Cousins. They're literally from the same house, The Plantagenets.
This is technically in the time of the second or right after the second crusade but not yet part of the 3rd crusade which was where Richard the Lionheart came into the picture.
33:55 that music was used in The 13th warrior as well :) ;) watch it!
The theatrical cut literally cut a whole young king arc, totally erased the character. So the movie felt jumpy and something was missing.
Some of the fiction parts:
1. Balian is a noble by birth, not a blacksmith bastard.
2. Balian married Sybilla step Mother, so he didn't have any affairs with Sybilla
3. Guy wasn't that crazy bloodthirsty person.
4. Saladdin never met King Baldwin IV in person.
5. Balian continue defended remains of the Kingdom for years, not going back to a random village.
At least we got some historically accurate sequence: Guy and Reynald was captured after a miserable Battle of Hattin, Reynald was executed and Guy was released after Jerusalem fell.
In real life Balian wasn't some blacksmith living in rural France, he was born and lived in Holy Land basically all his life
He also didn't have any romance with Sybilla, his brother did
After Saladin took Jerusalem, he remained in Holy Land and took part in negotiating between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart during 3rd crusade couple years later
But it was true that he was the one to defend Jerusalem and ultimately surrender it
There are many historical inaccuracies in this movie (but it isn't a document, so it's perfectly acceptable), but the realest characters are 2 great leaders : Baldwin IV ("the leper king") and Saladin, their characters were perfectly cast and written
The funniest change is that in real life Guy didn't want the war to happen, but he also was as incompetent as it is shown in movie and the main reason why crusaders lost and had to surrender Jerusalem
“We prey to God to destroy our enemies, our enemies pray to God to destroy us, someone’s gonna be disappointed. Can you say everyone?”
George Carlin