Review - Film - Kingdom of Heaven

Kingdom of Heaven

We went to see Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” for date night this week after eating easily the best Chinese dinner we’ve ever had at a little Chinese bistro in Aurora, CO. called the “Paradise Café”. The vegetable tofu soup was very good and both the curry chicken and garlic vegetables were incredible. The service was mediocre as the wait staff seemed to be having some kind of disagreement as to who should do what. However, I was unable to catch the gist of it because I was enjoying my food so much that I didn’t really care.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Liam Neeson is a great actor. His portrayal of Godfrey brought real emotion and sympathy to Godfrey’s personal quest for redemption. The movie opens at a grave site where men are burying a woman near a cross on a hill – a woman we later discover to be Balian’s wife. Nearby, in a smithy where Orlando Bloom’s Balian is beating steel into swords, Godfrey’s band comes to by to have their horses shod. Balian somberly agrees having recently lost his wife and child. It turns out that Godfrey is merely trying to buy a chance to acknowledge his illegitimate son and as forgiveness. The exchange is marvelous. Godfrey invites Balian to join his band and come to Jerusalem to aid the King of Jerusalem. Balian ultimately agrees after killing a priest who reminds him that his wife’s suicide guarantees her a place in hell.

This movie is controversial for a number of reasons. Local radio show hosts have even called it Anti-Christian trash. I suppose when picking at the scab of the crusades some discomfort is sure to arise. From my meager knowledge of history, I would deem the film’s historical basis to be approximately 50% on and 50% off which, for Hollywood, isn’t too bad. Still, the idea that the city of Jerusalem is nothing more than bricks and mortar and not the “Kingdom of Heaven” is bound to rankle some folks. I’m sure the references to God on the part of Balian could be viewed as blasphemous to some but certainly no more so than the mere thought that the great Muslim king and scholar Saladin would touch a crucifix much less pick it up and right it. On the whole I think Scott presents a fairly balanced view of this crusade as being a battle of ideologies over the possession of land – though deliberately not about God. I think it to be Scott’s commentary on the USA’s involvement in the Middle East. Time will tell I suppose…

The visuals, aside from the close combat scenes, are marvelous. The combat scenes are a slightly refined version of the same choppy combat scenes we saw in Gladiator and they are still uncomfortable and unsettling to watch. However, the wide shots are breathtaking in their size and scope. The cinematography is everything you would expect from a master like Ridley Scott simply pristine. The costumes, oh my the costumes, are incredible. From the Damascus mask worn by the King of Jerusalem to the armor, tabards, and helmets worn by the knights and the sumptuous robes and scimitars of the Saracens all seem to fit perfectly and aid the telling of the story. The sets are equally marvelous indicating the wealth and decadence of the crusaders.

On the whole, I think this is a story worth talking about. Lord knows, we humans have committed and continue to commit incredible atrocities in the name of divine providence. As Scott drives this point home again and again he seems to sometimes lose sight of the story he’s trying to tell and, as such, the story sometimes feels like it’s in a freefall. That coupled with his style of shooting battles, which I didn’t like in Gladiator or in KOH, leaves me wanting. I suppose I would also have liked to see the story be a little more historically sound and less a political rant. Still, it’s worth seeing on the big screen if you can get past the rhetoric.

RCS