13 Comments

• 1. JoJo replies at 29th December 2005, 10:07 am :

  Nice math there, dumbass. 145 + 45 is 190, not 230. The version that was screened recently was 190 minutes long, i.e., 3 hours, 10 minutes.

• 2. Richard Brunton replies at 29th December 2005, 10:19 am :

  Oops, yes I did make a mistake, I calculate that 45 minute addition into hours. Trying to post too fast.

  You know, this is what I hate about the Internet, why do you have to be so insulting instead of actually just pointing it out? People wouldn’t do that kind of thing face to face (well, not to mine anyway unless they were one of my friends).

  This is what I hate about the Internet and really drags me down when I spend hours every day searching for stories and posting them. If anything were to make me stop this, that kind of attitude is just it.

  This morning I spent ages getting five posts together, I make a mistake (thanks for pointing it out) and that’s the first comment and it’s in a ridiculing tone with childish name calling. Thanks there for the effort Rich.

• 3. Simone replies at 29th December 2005, 10:49 am :

  I agree, the dumbass comment was way out of line.

• 4. Sujay replies at 29th December 2005, 11:09 am :

  Unfortunately there are just people like that in the world.

  Anyway, I wasn’t thrilled with Kingdom of Heaven. It was just very boring to me. And I love these types of films. It looked great, but there just wasn’t enough meat to make it interesting. I was looking to my watch to see when it would end. The only good part of the film in my opinion was the Leper King, who was brilliantly played by Edward Norton. He unfortunately does not get any face time, without giving anyway. I’m just not sure that extending it is just going to make it any better.

  I guess there’s no word on if the screening audience thought it was good longer?

• 5. darren seeley replies at 29th December 2005, 11:16 am :

  I guess there’s just a few folks out theere who look around sites like these, not to post on anything worth posting about, but just to show how bright they are by giving a correct answer, followed or preceeeded by something that implies thier IQ is actually much lower.

  Speaking of which, I don’t know what to make of Scott putting back in the 45 minutes.

  He should have done that for the DVD (which did have some deleted scenes) because where ‘Kingdom’ went wrong is not in length or lack therof.

  It is simply a great looking but horrible movie. It has a good acting bit for Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons, but Orlando Bloom is awful. I also think that Ridley, being an agnostic, researched just enough to get the bones of a story and rewrote the rest of history to suit his views. Dramatic license is fine- there’s nothing wrong with it overall. But too many liberties will get you laughed out of the theatre.

  Let’s start with the obvious: yes, they filmed around a historical area during the Crusades- in Spain. The bulk of the picture is set in Jeruselem, which did not have flat sand surrounding the city. This one oversight causes a strain on credibility. It was bad enough that Balian not only survives a shipwreck earlier on, but his horse did too. And look- his father’s sword!

  The next grave error with the dramatic license is that in making the changes to the real life Balian, which if left alone, would have been more compelling as a film. We are not just laughing at Orlando because of his bad acting and the scene with the shipwreck, but his historically rewritten character as well. In the film, in France, Balian was trained only as a blacksmith, and once in Palestine. with no military trainin, knows more about siege weapons and military strategy than everyone else- and can even teach the locals how to make wells in the desert.

  Historically, Balian wasn’t a blacksmith, was not a blacksmith, wasn’t illegitimate, wasn’t raised as a commoner and his wife didn’t kill herself. His father, Balian the Old , had three sons, all legitimate: Hugh, Baldwin and Balian. Baldwin is important; it was Baldwin who had a fling with Sybilla, not Balian. Think about that for a moment.

  How much better would the film be if Balian had his brothers with him? Now could that be part of the 45 missing minutes? Unlikely. This would mean that there is no need for Godfrey.

• 6. Arethusa replies at 29th December 2005, 12:21 pm :

  45 extra minutes? That has to qualify as another sign of the apocalypse. god damn who spent money to go and see that inevitable snore fest?

  And don’t worry Richard we still like you! Especially after hearing your great accent. :->

• 7. chark hammis replies at 29th December 2005, 1:37 pm :

  It’s relatively easy to rip any historical film, as the story will innevitably take liberties with composite characters and changing events for more dramatic.

  It’s a film- i.e.- “movie magic”. The whole premise of film is that you’re asked to suspend disbelief. Ultimately, it’s entertainment based on history.

  Ron Moore made a great quote in his “Behind Enemy Lines” director commentary when Owen Wilson’s character is escaping from a barrage of gunfire without being shot/escapes being discovered. He asks (and I’m paraphrasing)- why do people complain about these kinds of things? Do they want the character to die? Ok- we kill him. End of movie. So to bring it back around to the topic at hand- would you rather Balian had drowned in the shipwreck?

  Historical accuracies aren’t what makes a film good (See The Great Raid- relatively historically accurate, but savaged by critics)- it’s the composite whole of how story, direction, cinematography, sound, and acting all come together.

  Personally, I liked Kingdom of Heaven and am looking forward to the extra 45 minutes cut back in- which, I’m told, contains a lot of characterization that was cut out.

• 8. chark hammis replies at 29th December 2005, 1:39 pm :

  PS- Richard- who cares about some jackass. You’re bigger than that, aren’t you? Just change the mistake and make an editor’s note.

• 9. darren seeley replies at 29th December 2005, 5:08 pm :

  With all due respect, chark, I never said there’s anything wrong with dramatic license. However, there is a line that is sometimes crossed, and ‘Kingdom’ crossed it. The same thing happened in 1985, where Al Pacino appeared in the dud ‘Revolution’. That film crossed the line with historical fact because much of the Hugh Hudson directed film was a re-writing of history. In that film, the bad guys weren’t the British. They were the colonials.

  Does the same rule apply?

  “It’s only a film” - usually said by someone who can’t back up an arguement, because in this case, when history is twisted enough where it does not make sense in the story, that hurts the film. You ask me, would I have wanted Balian (and his horse, for that matter) to die in the shipwreck? Since the filmmakers took extreme liberties with an historical character and some of the events, what if I told you having done research on the subject that historically, guess who wasn’t on the ship to begin with?

  For that matter, there was no ship. The filmmakers made it all up.

  Given your arguement that is all for entertainment and who cares aboout historical accuracy, then despite me reseaching facts, I’ll go with dramatic licsene and answer your question.

  Yes.

• 10. chark hammis replies at 29th December 2005, 6:34 pm :

  Darren-

  What line is crossed? Who dictates the line that can’t be crossed? You’re speaking purely subjectively here, Darren. You’re contending the movie crossed a “line” because it was historically innaccurate and that bothered your sense of historian.

  You’re arguing historical accuracy ruined the film- I argue it doesn’t matter because it’s intended as entertainment- as fantasy and entertainment inspired by fact. It’s not because I can’t back an argument- it’s that your historical facts are irrelevant to the point I’m making. I commend you on your knowlege of the crusades, but those details don’t necessarily matter because this isn’t a history book. It’s a movie.

  Granted, when I’m watching a film and there’s a glaring historical/geographical gaffe, it takes me out of the film for a moment- but the film can be enjoyed for more if you don’t assume it’s trying to come across as historical gospel. Nor is it required to.

• 11. Arethusa replies at 30th December 2005, 3:53 am :

  Guys, guys, guys who cares about historical accuracy? KoH was just a chance for Orlando Bloom fulfilling his dream of playing Aragorn, complete with PC speech that would have gotten him burnt on a spike in Ye Olden Days with that hot french actress from “Dreamers” seducing him throatily.

  Edward Norton as the King of Jerusalem was pretty cool though.

  I will say though that if you’re going to make a movie about the Crusades, a not entirely obscure part of history, you could at least try to make it a bit more complex instead of a summer popcorn flick? (I really like the way Balian discovered water for the Arabs. You da man, Bal!) Monty Python and the Holy Grail had more depth.

• 12. Richard Brunton replies at 30th December 2005, 4:18 am :

  Historical accuracy in Hollywood is something we could only dream of. Braveheart, Pearl Harbour, U-571, and on, and on…

• 13. Meli replies at 31st December 2005, 2:06 pm :

  Unless this 45 minutes adds some miracle of depth and interest then it’s simply a waste of time. I didn’t get to see this movie in the theater, but happily rented it. The beginning started out fine, laughable, but fine. Then the fragmented story droned on and on, which put me straight to sleep. I wanted so much to like this movie, but the only thing I found interesting was the lepper king. In my opinion if you’re going to grossly misrepresent history for entertainment then at least make it interesting!