2005 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I didn’t think he was still capable of it, but today Ridley Scott managed to blow me away.

I didn’t see “Kingdom of Heaven” in the theater. Judging by the film’s box office returns, I was not alone. People stayed away from this film in droves. It was yet another sword and sandal epic. It starred Orlando Bloom (like most of the other sword and sandal epics have lately). It looked long (really it’s not as long as “Batman Begins”, but for some reason it just looked like it was gonna suck away at least three hours of one’s life). It didn’t have any particular hook (from its lackluster ad campaign, anyway). It was directed by Ridley Scott, and we all assumed that, having already made “Gladiator”, he had already said everything interesting he had to say in this genre. And it came on the heels of “Alexander”, which was an absolutely terrible example of this kind of film. After sitting- no, agonizing- through “Alexander” I (for one) was done with this type of movie pretty much forever. Simply put: as a filmgoing public, we were tired of “Kingdom of Heaven” before it even came out. We hadn’t seen it, but it just felt like we had. Those are the reasons I stayed away, anyway.

But damn was I wrong. And so, probably, were you.

“Kingdom of Heaven” distinguishes itself from all the other sword and sandal flicks for one great reason: it’s the only one that’s truly relevant to events in the world today. Think about it: it’s about Christians fighting Muslims in the Middle East, in a war that is basically being fought to make rich people richer and bring more power to the people with power. If that doesn’t sound pertinent, then you haven’t been paying much attention to the news for the past decade or so.

For one thing, Ridley’s direction is great. He plays with some big themes here, and he emphasizes them just enough to make them interesting without getting preachy. His work with color and mood are as good as ever. He makes this time period rich and immediate and gorgeous to the eye. He stages the battles and fights with a clear eye and without muddying them up with the sort of incoherent choreography that undermines so many films of this type…including, I must say, “Gladiator”. I always knew what was going on at every moment in every one of these fights, though he still conveys it in frantic style that makes you feel like you’re actually there on the sidelines. It’s one of the few examples I can think of where this style of fight choreography actually works (“Saving Private Ryan” is another). The style of the film is totally Ridley’s and it works better than it has in years. Sure, I liked “Matchstick Men”, but that was a small, character-driven film. It wasn’t the sort of vast spectacle he’s conveying here. Ridley’s command of spectacle is better here than it has perhaps ever been. He creates all the spectacle and makes it truly spectacular without ever sacrificing the nuances of his characters or the points he is trying to make. He allows enough time for the political and religious machinations behind these events (and the ramifications of them) without sacrificing a moment of the glorious action. He devotes enough time to the characters but not so much that the film grinds to a halt while these characters are established. It’s not perfect (there are a few too many shots of large armies toting large banners that are waving in the wind in slow motion) but it’s astonishingly effective.

I love that the film actually has a lot to say about topics as large as War, Religion, personal morality, national morality, politics and even Love. Ridley takes the Crusades and uses the subject to explore issues that still drive men and nations to this very day. After all, as the film’s end credits say, “To this very day, peace in the kingdom of heaven remains elusive”. Ridley actually seems keen on exploring the sort of issues that have made the Middle East such a quagmire for centuries. He and screenwriter William Monahan treat both sides of this conflict with respect and illustrate the motivations driving men on either side. They delve deeply into characters that are surprisingly three dimensional for a big, summer war epic. Orlando Bloom’s character, for instance, is a meaty creation and Orlando does a damn good job of bringing him to life. At the beginning of the film, Orlando’s character has lost a wife and child to suicide. His father and a priest tell him that fighting against the heathens that have taken control of Jerusalem may be the only way that he can redeem himself and rescue his family from the torment of Hell. Orlando goes to war because there is nothing left for him at home, to rescue the soul of his dead wife, and to better understand God. These are fascinating motives, they’re certainly better than the usual Love or Revenge plot that fuels most of these films. Even as he gains respect on the battlefield and the love of a princess, his morals haunt him. His every choice is given an added weight as he grapples with doing the right thing, even when it may not be easy or even the best thing for everyone involved.

The rest of the cast deserves accolades as well. Liam Neeson is great as Orlando’s warrior father, who teaches him not only how to fight but something of the virtues that define nobility. David Thewlis lends great support in his small role and Jeremy Irons makes the most of one of the best roles he’s gotten in quite some time. After dreck like “Dungeons and Dragons”, I’m sure Irons was famished for something this meaty. Edward Norton is little more than a voice here, but he still fleshes out a character that is literally without a face. Marton Csokas and Brendan Gleeson are great as the sort of power-hungry bastards you just love to hate. Ghassan Massoud gives a great, charismatic performance as a Muslim warlord (a performance brimming with soul and humanity). And Eva Green, while not the most complex character of the piece, still makes her princess something more than just a pretty face or a damsel in distress. (And she shows that a female character can have strength without wielding a sword or a bow.)

If anything, the film moves a bit too briskly. I understand that Ridley was forced to make a lot of cuts and trim a lot to get the film short enough to appease the studio. While I really like this cut of the film, I am very interested in seeing Ridley’s original vision. So many moments of this film could use a little more fleshing out, a little more time to develop into something even deeper. Perhaps Ridley’s original cut allowed such fine developments. I don’t know. All I do know is that while the film is well and briskly paced, it could have used a little breathing room. But that’s a minor nitpick. It’s never a bad thing when a movie leaves you wanting more.

The acting is great, the story and dialogue are intriguing, the direction is steady and assured and the messages of the film are important ones. This movie is so much better than Scott’s previous sword and sandal foray: “Gladiator”. “Gladiator” could have made interesting points about how governments since the beginning of time have relied on spectacle and entertainment as a way to distract the masses, but instead it was nothing more than a bloody revenge drama with some good acting. “Kingdom of Heaven” is so much more than that. Those expecting bloody, violent battles will be satisfied. But they might end up with a few things to think about as well.

It’s not quite “Ben-Hur” or “Lawrence of Arabia”, but it’s closer than films like “Gladiator” and especially “Alexander”. And it’s the only movie in Ridley Scott’s recent filmography that deserves to stand on a plateau with “Alien” and “Blade Runner”.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 26th, 2005 at 8:02 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.