Review: Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Starring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, and Edward Norton.Before I start reviewing the actual story of Kingdom of Heaven, I want to give it at least five big compliments. Director Ridley Scott has really achieved something here, and I want to congratulate him on it:
1. No one has ever made any war film on such a large, epic scale as Kingdom. That's worthy of congratulations - no battle footage has ever been on so grand and awe-inspiring, never before has anyone seen a two-hundred thousand man army beat the tar out of another two-hundred thousand man army out on some desert plain. It pushes beyond Lord of The Rings and Troy and into new territory - hey, notice how many of these films star Orlando Bloom? His name on a film guarantees that it probably cost more than 100 million to make. In my book, that's not a bad thing; we need more of these sort of films populating the early summer months, it eases the pain brought on by House of Wax and Monster-In-Law.
2. The acting done in the film is pretty solid for a epic historical movie - this is normally the sort of film where good actors look like bad actors, and bad actors also look like bad actors. But Irons, Norton, and Neeson are all excellent, and Bloom is... well, Orlando Bloom, again (see review in Ned Kelly). However, he's added an extra level of passion and depth to his pretty-boy-kills-baddies bit. It's not heart-wrenching or jaw-dropping, but it's not bad. Plus, he bulked up twenty pounds for the flick, and the extra effort shows - he doesn't look completely out of place as a blacksmith this time (yes, he's a blacksmith again). Eva Green (The Dreamers) is excellent as Sibylla, though it's a completely thankless role: the princess of Jerusalem who falls for Bloom instantly despite already being married to Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), a one-note evil dude with his eyes on the throne and no interest in his wife. Bloom and Green get it on almost instantly, which is okay because:
a) Cinema Morality Rule #34: It's not cheating if the husband doesn't really care about the wife because he's too busy being evil.
b) Cinema Morality Rule #13: It's not cheating if the main character protests at first that it might be wrong, and therefore they shouldn't do it.
c) Cinema Morality Rule #1: It's not cheating if the main character, like, totally loves her.
3. John Mathieson's cinematography for the film is absolutely breathtaking. I mean, it looks simply stunning. Mathieson and Scott have done excellent work before - Gladiator, Matchstick Men - and Kingdom, coming right at the heels of last year's Phantom of the Opera, show that he's just about on the top of his game.
Okay, I'm running low on compliments, so:
4. After Alexander last Christmas, we were all starved for a decent historical epic with some good fight scenes. Thanks. You've tided me over for a bit.
5. At least at the end of this film, the viewer says, "You know what that film reminded me? Gladiator was a really good movie. I should watch that again." Whereas at the end of... Monster-In-Law, a viewer notes "Hey, you know what else sucked? Everything else Jennifer Lopez has ever been in. I think I'll never watch a movie again as long as I live." So, you see, Kingdom is really a great film in that regard - it's given us some option other than Jennifer Lopez and Paris Hilton this weekend. That's worth a lot.
Okay, now that I've been nice, I've got to start ripping on William Monahan, who wrote Kingdom and deserves a good talking to. In fact, he's getting one now.
Dear William,
I recently saw you major opus Kingdom of Heaven, and thought I'd drop you a line. You see, William, you've clearly got a lot to explain.
Alright, you wrote a long war movie in which you never take a side. How can you expect this to work? Your main character, Balian, comes in to lead the Crusaders against those crazy infidels, the Moslems. But he doesn't really want to fight the Moslems. Neither does anyone else who isn't a crazy religious zealot. So Balian spends the whole movie asking "Can't we all just get along?" And everyone else answers, "No, dammit, let's kill us some infidels!" as if the Crusades were some redneck hunting trip for religious symbols, which your screenplay tries very hard to convince us that they were.
I mean, seriously, Bill - you have the entire forces of the Crusaders riding out to meet the entire forces of the Moslems, and nobody cares, not even you - which is why we cut away and never see the battle. And the whole time we're really just hoping that everyone just gets together and talks and sorts things out. And in the final, climactic battle, with all the cool siege engines, and flaming balls launched from trebuchets, and boiling oil poured from the battlements, the audience is sitting there wondering, "so, when are they going to get together and talk this out so that they don't have to fight anymore?"
Bill, you mystify me. Haven't you ever seen a war movie? And I understand that you're opposed to war - that's very clear from this film. I also understand that you're opposed to the war on Iraq - that too, is also pretty clear, since it spends a good deal of time cluttering up your story about the Crusades. I even think that it's helpful that you tried to show us what a terrible thing the Crusades really were. But did you really have to make it so ham-handed that nobody cared at all about the battle? Isn't there a better way to do things?
Just a suggestion, Bill. Good luck on Tripoli and Jurassic Park IV. I sincerely hope that they both don't suck.
Cordially,
Wyman
Kingdom of Heaven gets three stars out of a possible five, because I could only think of three legitimate compliments, and - Cinema Morality Rule #74: there's no way you can give a film more than three stars if you can only think of three good things about it.
posted by Ben Wyman @ 10:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home