Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Kingdom of Heaven
Chukchi Husky Jun 22 2009, 04:21 PM
Member Avatar
Lone Wolf
Rinoa
May 4 2009, 10:32 PM
My Western Civ. teacher last semester said that this movie is actually more historically accurate (in terms of costuming and main events) than a lot of other 'historical' movies. So, loving historical accurateness, I had considered watching it...and was going to until I realized the only one online I could find was all blurry and was put into fullscreen during capture anyway and I much prefer widescreen.

Is the movie good?
It's more historically accurate than many other historical films that I've seen, even the ones that claim to be historically accurate. One of the bonus features of the director's cut discusses the accuracy of the film. The director Ridley Scott did say that the film isn't a documentary so it's not meant to be accurate, and much of it has been changed to reflect modern viewpoints. The script writer had studied a lot about the period and said that if something isn't accurate it's not because they didn't know it. The biggest change is the character of Balian of Ibelin. In reality he was an old noble in the holy land. In the film as he's the main character that the audience follows he's changed into a younger, educated blacksmith in a French village who discovers his real father is the baron of Ibelin and then follows him to Jerusalem.

The film is good depending on the cut. The theatrical cut is considered average, as the studio didn't want a historical epic but an action adventure film. The director's cut (about 45 minutes longer, complete with an overture, intermission and entr'acte) is a lot better, makes more sense and considered one of Ridley Scott's better films. The director's cut is also considered more historically accurate.
Edited by Chukchi Husky, Jun 22 2009, 04:23 PM.
I beg for my tummy to be scratched...

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post
Kingdom of Heaven · Television/Movies