Kingdom of Heaven: A Review

For those who appreciate getting what they pay for, “Kingdom of Heaven” is a delight. It excels in every aspect: direction, historical accuracy, performance, and intelligence. Each scene is a spectacle, cleverly linked to the next. Ridley Scott has achieved harmony here, and harmony is beyond praise or criticism.

Who wouldn’t enjoy “Kingdom of Heaven” (2005)? Well, perhaps those who are drawn to the false profundity of “The Matrix,” the spectacular stupidity of “The Lord of the Rings,” the stolen glamour of “Troy” (2004)—or anyone who thrives on deception. But for the rest of us—those who expect value for their money—“Kingdom of Heaven” is sure to please. It’s solid in every way: staging, historical accuracy, acting, and intelligence. Inspiration may not be for sale, but Ridley Scott’s script is marketable in the best sense. After all, it’s Ridley Scott, so even Orlando Bloom no longer resembles a fop.

Attention to Detail

Initially, the film overuses computer graphics. The digital enhancements are noticeable in the northern landscapes, with obvious set extensions serving as backdrops for knights riding to the blacksmith. Perhaps the snow didn’t fall on time, or the sea didn’t rage as expected, so they digitally altered it. However, later on, no matter how closely you examine the background soldiers in the battles, they are not animated extras, and the desert sand is not from a studio set. Messina could have looked like this, and so could Golgotha, Kerak, and Jerusalem. It feels authentic; it’s cinema where the special effects are subtle enough to go unnoticed.

Even in the screenplay, where there isn’t much room for improvisation, certain scenes are dedicated to ordinary, genuine work. The blacksmith forging in his smithy, the bellows—everything looks as it should. When the blacksmith becomes a baron in Palestine, he digs a well and builds a water intake system—wooden, detailed, and according to the rules. These small details speak volumes about the natural approach taken. Baron Godfrey’s knights wouldn’t have recognized the blacksmith if Ridley Scott hadn’t considered the quality of his sword’s hilt—ensuring the red stone gleamed in the sun and reflected across the marketplace. It shines and reflects without any slow-motion, strobing, or solarization—simply as a well-crafted stone on a hilt, noticeable even in a crowd.

Historical Accuracy

Historically, Ridley Scott also played his cards right by tackling the Crusades. We learned about them no better than the Americans. Since no one wrote an “Iliad,” “Le Morte d’Arthur,” “The Song of Roland,” or “Richard III” about them, most people at best know that they actually happened. A thousand years ago, a bored Europe ventured to Palestine to plunder and reclaim the Holy Sepulchre. The specifics of Popes Urban, Godfrey of Bouillon, the Kings of Jerusalem, and the number of Crusades (eight, as it turns out) are only known to specialists. I assure you that Ridley Scott has not only adhered to the main historical outline but even the minor details. Everything in his film aligns with the Second Crusade: Saladin in his fifties, the young Baldwin IV suffering from leprosy, his sister married to Guy de Lusignan, the provocation by Reynald of Châtillon, the humiliating defeat of the Crusaders at Hattin, Saladin’s personal execution of Reynald and his subsequent release of Lusignan (under a promise he didn’t keep), and even the defense of Jerusalem by a certain Baron of Ibelin. Indeed, all the inhabitants were released (for a ransom). All of this occurred in 1187.

Hollywood Liberties

The only “Hollywood liberty” in “Kingdom of Heaven” is that King Baldwin didn’t die so dramatically; he endured everything described above to the fullest extent, and his chief advisor wasn’t named Tiberius (perhaps after the lost Battle of Tiberias?), but Raymond of Tripoli. And, of course, the idea that the Baron of Ibelin was just a simple blacksmith is also a product of imagination. However, if we compare it to how an old John Wayne with eyeliner once played the young Tamerlane, and it was still good, then “Kingdom of Heaven” is practically a history textbook, even more so than “Gladiator” (2000). Secondly, Ridley Scott wasn’t making a textbook but rather expressing surprised eyebrows at the coincidence of ancient history with our present day. He took the effort to view today’s reality as an almost complete repetition of a thousand years ago. This requires authenticity from a thousand years ago. Back then, thanks to the Crusades, Europe first realized its unity, and this realization was a dizzying carousel for one simple person. Today—a blacksmith, a child dies, a wife drowns, the village hates him, he kills a priest. Tomorrow—a baron, a castle with knights, the king respects him, the princess admires him. It may not have been possible, but it could have been.

Modern Relevance

A thousand years later, everything threatens to collapse again. Europe is still united, despite the Afghan-Chechen-Iraqi wars, but for one simple person, unity again turns into a dizzying carousel. Some are beheaded, others are saved and glorified, but on the blood of saviors. Where can a peasant turn in such a whirlwind? So far, the only solution is to become a knight without fear or reproach. Knighthood is understandable, so “Kingdom of Heaven” merely presents a moral lesson to George W. Bush Jr. (and some others) and doesn’t aspire to more. Moreover, it knows that since Bush Jr. (and some others) is as dense as a cork, the lesson will undoubtedly be lost. The main thing is that it’s simple, like the truth, and there’s no need to prove or be tedious. Ridley Scott’s interest is precisely to entertain, to make an already entertaining film based on global morality. And he, being a man, makes a real women’s novel, good and correct in a feminine way, like Lisa Kleypas, Catherine Coulter, and Jayne Ann Krentz.

Cinematic Spectacle

Hollywood’s advantage has always been that they learned Eisenstein better than we learned history. Each episode of “Kingdom of Heaven” is a spectacle, cleverly linked to the next. A beautiful deceased woman, an Italian fencing lesson, a hospital in Messina—everything is different and vibrant, not to mention what will begin in Palestine. Iron masks, chess, sex, luxurious clothes are as memorable as corpses. Each deceased person in the frame is a separate effect, and after the battles, you can imagine how many corpses there are. The battle in the northern forest differs from the battle in the desert as much as it differs from the siege of a city. This isn’t “Alexander” (2004), where everything moves at a snail’s pace. There’s a lot of fighting, and it’s cinematic. Ridley Scott either finds an unexpected angle for capturing the gates, or ends with a freeze-frame because “this will never end,” or leads the troops into an attack at night, just like Marshal Zhukov during the Battle of the Oder. Love and death are somehow intertwined without being overwhelming. The dialogue is sometimes a spectacle. “He doesn’t even realize that an equal never kills an equal.” The music is witty: when our side wins, it’s old European; when their side wins, it’s perpetually Asian.

Another unique effect is the rare casting. Not only did Orlando Bloom gain 20 pounds to mature, and he did mature. A knight, for goodness sake, a knight. But the princess is played by one of today’s truly most beautiful actresses, Eva Green (“The Dreamers” (2003), “Arsène Lupin” (2004)), and you simply drown in her eyes. Liam Neeson (Godfrey) seems to be extending “Rob Roy” (1995), which is consistently logical, and Jeremy Irons (Tiberius) didn’t hesitate to take a backseat, so it’s only a couple of episodes—but a powerful star-studded reinforcement of what’s happening. The true main character, essentially surpassing the Baron of Ibelin, is Saladin, played, thank goodness, not by the late John Wayne, but by a real Arab. The non-Hollywood Hassan Massoud plays a Syrian (of Armenian descent), and he is both a Syrian and a super-movie star in Syria. The negative characters are also practically not negative, but unfortunate. Renald of Châtillon (Brendan Gleeson) is even pitied for his impenetrable stupidity. But most of all, Edward Norton (Baldwin IV) is pitied. He was forced to go through the entire movie without a face, and it’s even absurd to include the role in his filmography—and yet, he went through it. Then he lay down for a second.

Final Thoughts

Essentially, Ridley Scott has created a mix of “The Decameron” (1971) and “Arabian Nights” (1974). He succeeded because logic in everything, without exception, is not a problem for him. After thirty years with “Alien” (1979), “Blade Runner” (1982), “Thelma & Louise” (1991), this former advertising executive was knighted by the English Queen, and it’s easy for him now. It’s easy for him to live, and none of his films can be overpraised. “Kingdom of Heaven” is by no means a great work; it can’t even be taken seriously. It’s essentially a trifle, and all the words about it are carefree words.

But Ridley Scott has achieved harmony here, proportionality, the “golden ratio” in cinema, and harmony is useless to praise or criticize.