(12 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading …Rent Movie.com movie reviews presents Kingdom of Heaven movie review a 2005 film starring Martin Hancock, Michael Sheen and directed by Ridley Scott Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people. It is the time of the Crusades during the Middle Ages - the world shaping 200-year collision between Europe and the East. A blacksmith named Balian has lost his family and nearly his faith. The religious wars raging in the far-off Holy Land seem remote to him, yet he is pulled into that immense drama. Amid the pageantry and intrigues of medieval Jerusalem he falls in love, grows into a leader, and ultimately uses all his courage and skill to defend the city against staggering odds. Destiny comes seeking Balian in the form of a great knight, Godfrey of Ibelin, a Crusader briefly home to France from fighting in the East. Revealing himself as Balian’s father, Godfrey shows him the true meaning of knighthood and takes him on a journey across continents to the fabled Holy City. In Jerusalem at that moment–between the Second and Third Crusades–a fragile peace prevails, through the efforts of its enlightened Christian king, Baldwin IV, aided by his advisor Tiberias, and the military restraint of the legendary Muslim leader Saladin. But Baldwin’s days are numbered, and strains of fanaticism, greed, and jealousy among the Crusaders threaten to shatter the truce. King Baldwin’s vision of peace–a kingdom of heaven–is shared by a handful of knights, including Godfrey of Ibelin, who swear to uphold it with their lives and honor. As Godfrey passes his sword to his son, he also passes on that sacred oath: to protect the helpless, safeguard the peace, and work toward harmony between religions and cultures, so that a kingdom of heaven can flourish on earth. Balian takes the sword and steps into history.
Comment by M. B. Trapp
# January 1, 2007,
When viewing a movie like this one, I know going in that I am going to have to approach it on two levels. First, I am going to assess the merit of the film on its own, how it stands as a film, on the quality of cinematic storytelling. Secondly there is the level of worldview evaluation; in other words, is the message that the movie espouses right or wrong, helpful or harmful, etc. Here is yet another Hollywood movie that excels in the first category but languishes in the second. Ridley Scott is one my favorite directors of all time, and when I heard he was doing a movie on the Crusades I was quite excited. Ridley’s directorial hand is as sharp as ever here, and he even does a great job of turning the bland Orlando Bloom into a believable leading man. One reason I like this type of movie (even if it isn’t entirely historically accurate and clashes with my Christian worldview) is that it takes me to a time in human history that I’ve never been to, and gives a vivid portrayal of what life was like in the period of the early Crusades, with all the brutality and beauty that piece of human history entailed. Kingdom of Heaven is essentially about one man caught up in the Crusades who feels he must do his duty for the human cause. He defends Jerusalem against Saladin’s Islamic army not because he wants to preserve the city’s religious heritage, but simply because he wants to defend the people that live there. And this is the message of the movie in a nutshell: living according to the conscience that God put in you is far superior to living according to some fanatical religious creed. Both Christians and Muslims complained that they were not portrayed well in this movie, and for good reason. The overall message is that killing people in the name of God is not quite the best thing for humanity (which I would agree with, by the way). The problem is that it lumps the great majority of religious believers into this category. The “good” Christians are not good because they live according to the ways of Christ, but because they become disillusioned with religion itself. The “kingdom of heaven” of the title is repeatedly referred to as a “kingdom of conscience.” So we shouldn’t be seeking any manifested will of God on earth; the true kingdom of heaven consists in living rightly according to what is in your head in your heart. There are three factions in the movie, all apparently portrayed as something differently than their real life historical counterparts: the Knights Hospitaller (good Christians), the Knights Templar (bad Christians), and the Muslims (variously portrayed as noble or savage; it should be said that the immediate context for Saladin’s attack on Jerusalem is a vicious attack by the Templars on innocent Muslims, but it is clear that he is seizing the opportunity to retake Jerusalem for Islam). The Templars and their leader, Guy de Lusignan, are portrayed as the most vicious, however. The Hospitallers are committed to living in peace with the Muslims because, after all, “their prayers sound like ours.” The movie gets caught in this annoying Hollywood habit of correcting the mistaken worldviews of yesteryear with more enlightened views of 21st century western man. Consider the lessons that the hero, Balian, learns: (1) the really religious people are the most dangerous because they want to kill people that disagree with them and (2) the class system of lord v. laborer is not a very fair system. I would certainly agree with the second lesson, but the problem with the first one is that they provide few alternative portrayals of devout believers. Every single official Catholic character portrayed or discussed - a priest, a bishop, and the pope - are sniveling little men who want to shed Muslim blood for the glory of God. After a bishop suggests to Balian at the point of defeat by Saladin that they ought to convert to Islam and repent later, Balian tells him sarcastically that he has learned a great deal from him about religion. Why, instead of becoming disillusioned with Christianity, couldn’t Balian have learned what true Christianity was about? Why couldn’t he have learned that religious tolerance in the civil realm is not incompatible with exclusivist personal beliefs? Why indeed.