Kingdom of Heaven - Directors Cut (2005)

Originally Reviewed

Wednesday May 31, 2006

 

Kingdom of Heaven was one of my favorite films of 2005, the shear beauty and vastness of the film was amazing. This was one of those times I couldn't wait for the DVD release, and then became very excited upon hearing rumors of a 4-disc extended cut of film. So I bypassed purchasing the theatrical release (which I might now end up getting later on) in hopes the director's cut would soon follow and finally after a long wait it has, and it was definitely worth the wait.
 

 

After seeing the film back in 2005 upon its release date I was pretty shocked by the negative feedback it was receiving, mounted at the story, the film and its star Orlando Bloom. None of these criticisms really made any sense to me because I found the film to be highly entertaining; my only opinion of the critics' scorn is based upon their desire for another Gladiator type epic. Kingdom of Heaven is nothing short of an epic but it’s hardly the type of film to be compared to Gladiator, which is not a bad thing. Kingdom of Heaven stands on its own, it’s a different time period, it’s a different story and it includes characters that actually lived, although large parts of their lives were written for dramatization. The critics wanted to compare this film to Gladiator and in almost every review I read it continually began to be mirrored against Ridley Scott's past success, which is foolish when the two films aren't even remotely similar as far as subject matter, they are completely different films and shouldn't be compared. This review will concentrate on the new additions to the director's cut, to read my review of the theatrical version you are welcome to read it here: Kingdom of Heaven Theatrical Review but be warned it's one of the first reviews I ever wrote and is therefore rather mediocre.

 

First off I found the complete 180 turn the critics took after the release of this version very interesting, from pure hatred and disgust of the film, to pure praise and exclamations of it being an instant classic, frankly this confuses me. How can a film be crap and then be magnificent with the additions of a few more scenes, it only proves to me that the critics examinations in the beginning were very flawed. The director's cut is great but what has been added does not change the ambiance of the film, it doesn't change the outcome of the war, it doesn't change the underlining message of the story, it only adds additional information to an already griping story.

What the director's cut brings to the table is some background information that helps fill in some holes that may have left questions in the minds of the viewers. Additional scenes with the monk at the beginning give us a deeper look into his role in Balian's life and we learn he is actually the brother of Balian, or more likely a half-brother. These scenes are very beneficial in showing this jealous brother and Balian's motivation for the eventual murder of him when it is revealed he had the head of Balian's dead wife cut off.

We also receive background information on Godfrey, the father of Balian and how he was introduced to Balian's mother. Godfrey is actually the brother of the lord over the city, and his brother believes Godfrey as come to bestow his power upon his son, since Godfrey has no heir (having no knowledge of Balian being Godfrey's son).

The biggest addition cut out from the theatrical version, at the request of the movie studio, and in a way rightly so was the son of Princess Sibylla (Eva Green). In the original script Sibylla had a son from a previous marriage and at the death of her brother King Baldwin her son was to inherit the throne, later leading to instances that would see her husband Guy de Lusignan take the throne as depicted in the theatrical version. The reason for the movie studios’ having this cut was it did not fit into the storyline of Balian, and honestly I would have to agree. While this storyline does offer additional emotional pull for the character of Sibylla, it does not affect the main character of Balian, who never interacts with the son of Sibylla. So from that stand point I can completely understand why this storyline was cut, and in my opinion I could take it or leave as the arguments for its presence or exemption could be made either way.

Accompanied by these additional story-lines, the director's cut offers extended battle scenes usually even bloodier. One of the big questions I had after watching the theatrical version was what ever happened to Guy de Lusignan? They show him before the big battle being paraded on a mule but after that nothing else is said of him, well another nice addition is the additional scene with Guy after the battle, in a fight between him and Balian which sufficiently pleased my curiosity on his absence before and was a fitting close for the character.

Overall the director's cut version of Kingdom of Heaven is well worth the watch, the extended scenes definitely add to the overall experience of the film and does set it apart from the theatrical version as an improvement, whether or not the addition of Sibylla having a son makes the film better is up to the viewer it did definitely add a little more emotion to her character but it adds absolutely nothing to story of Balian. Are the additions to the film so great that they would take a piece of crap (according to the critics) and turn it into a magnificent masterpiece? No, it's an improvement but in my opinion it was a good film to begin with, it only made it better. Would the film had done better if the director's cut version had been released to begin with... probably not since for the most part people don't want to go see a three hour historical epic, but it probably would have received better reviews from the critics who originally scorned it.

If you enjoy the film I suggest you check out the two discs of bonus features, which contain some really interesting documentaries on the making of the film and some of the background of the story. Turns out most of the characters were real people and many of the events in the film did actually occur, including the surrender of Jerusalem over to Saladin by Balian. Of course many things were made up for dramatization, such as the relationship between Sibylla and Balian, which never occurred, and according to history Balian was actually a nobleman not a poor blacksmith. It's still interesting to see that the characters did exist and some of the main events did actually occur. This is a great film and while a little lengthy, even more so than the theatrical version, it is finally being told in the completeness that Ridley Scott originally intended. Definitely check this out whether you loved or "hated" the first version.

10/10