Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut (Four-Disc Special Edition) DVD
Amazon Products

 Rating: - Where, oh where IS the kingdom of heaven?
Happily, I did not see this firm when it was first released, and was unaffected by a butchred commercial version. But then, except for STAR WARS, which I saw the day it opened at the Paramount, New York, I make it a point to avoid first release showings on most films. Here, my caution was rewarded and I was able to enjoy a rare experience undiluted and at my leisure. This is, as most reviews see it, a very good, very unusual film; something one expects from Ridley Scott. Myself, I say that's only the beginning, and for more than a month I've been racking my brains to remember when I've seen anything as magnificent and as cinematically successful.

The viewing time? Too long? Not for me. I'm a confirmed Wagnerite, and my motto is "If its good, don't stop."

The cinematography? Absolutely on the highest level. If many of those battlefield shots were blown up and presented like Matthew Brady's photographs of the killing fields of our Civil War, they would be hailed, heartily praised as exmples of the very best kind of that photography. In color and sweep and with the cast dressed -- so incredibly well -- in the armor of the medieval Islamic period, one has the impression of watching vast Delacroix historical paintings come to life. The photography is very often breath-taking. Affictionadoes of war or, call them ancient or antiwue battle movies with swords and spears and horses, will will be able to examine closely and to enjoy one panorama after anotehr from very long shots showing position and movement of troops over terrain, to mid-shots of charges -- a couple plainly in homage to Olivier's brilliant charge of the Knights at Agincourt -- and close-ups of the carnage where one almost cringes for fear of being spattered with mud and blood.

The sets are sublime, and there are so many of them and of such wide variety, both inerior and exterior, and of widely differin scale, one's mind is overwhelmed. To imagine the city of Jerusalem a century after the firsr Crusade, and then to present it in a numer of ariel views and in different kinds of light, is a feat of successfully convincing visualizaion unknown to me. Though I have seen photographs of the Crusader castles in Palestine, their architectural character has never been so clear. And neither has he city itself. City of Abraham, prince of Chaldea, this is one of only a very few cities that deserve to be called Holy,

What about religion? Well, both the Director and Scenarist are diffident about it, to say the least, for though it would be ridiculous to create an historical film about Crusading knights in and around Jerusalem without engaging in some way in the discussion or the depection of occult traditions (as well as disguised motivations) that swirl about everyone in the story, from the lowest to the highest, my personal impression is that although the film story is intensely concerned with personal morality and faith, it is accutely anti-clerical. In symbol it appears to this reviewer to be aseries of contrasts between characters symbolizing Roman Catholic practice and other characters symbolizing Potestant Chrisian practice. The Kingdom of Jerusalem is several times called a Nation of Conscience -- which might fit in with what Luther had in mind when he thought and wrote about the christian practice of faith -- bur it stands in stark contrast with the words and the inetntions of Innocent III, who intended that all humankind should be ruled by the Papacy, once conquered by the hordes of semi-barbarous marauders he sent East. But one must resist the urge to be sucked into chuch history. Nevertheless, it would probably be fair to say that the film is as profoundly spiritual and sincere as it is anti-religious, or heritical.

Did I mention that it is utterly engrossing? It is. Ane here one ought to think about sound. This master director knows how to utilize and synthesize both found sound, sound effects, and music with the spoken word in such a way that the ear is constantly refreshed, and the mind always stimulated -- both by what one hears and what one almost hears or thinks one hears. Or even what one might heave heard. Its a kind of auditory confusion few directors can work well, but which he understands and uses like a virtuoso. For example: Immediately after I finished the movie I realized there were parts of it, details, that I didn't understand, and thinking I hadn't heard them, I was prompted to watch the film again (weeks later) with the volume adjusted and sitting closer to he speakers.. After the next viewing I realized I hadn't missed much at all; that rather, I'd been tricked. This is how: when a dull person wants to get your attention, he shouts at you. When an intelligent one wants your attention, he lowers his voice, forcing you to pay closer attention to what he has to say. The wrier had given to the director a script allowing the director to tell the story mostly with pictures, which is what a good director does. One doesn't go to the movies to listen to movies. That's what Radio shows were for. By using the camera skillfully to show the performers in shifting angles as they move through the scenery not always talking, the director is able to give us more and better information than he could were he only to film conversations.

The cast is wonderful; all very, very interesting-looking, and talented. Whoever cast the movie accepted quite a challenge, for most of the actors' faces are interesting and have something to tell us about the story, from the stars to the extras. The faces of the Muslims were thrilling in their variety and beauty. It is daunting enough to imagine Saladin, but to imagine his sister is even more so. Both hero and heoine are beautiful and beautifully matched. One could go on and on about hem, but why? You have eyes.

In short, the film is in every respect an embarassment of riches. Most of us have seen and enjoyed his other films, and have begun to see what that peculiar gift is that he possesses which runs through all of them. His primary concerns appear to be about men; that is, about duty, strength of character, loyalty and personal inegrity. To my mind KINGDOM OF HEAVEN may well be Ridley Scott's ultimate masterpiece. His identifying mark or motto is something like "A Scott Free Production," which leads me to think he may have produced it, (or raised the money for the film) himself. If so, it must have been a staggering sum. But, the difference here is that in KINGDOM, every farthing of the multiples of millions of dollars and/or pounds is clearly visible. He made them all work double or tripple duty, and the result is all for our benefit.

Stop! It just dawned on me as I submited this review, that if you want to get an idea of how really and truly amazing this movie is, you should find a copy of De Mille's THE CRUSADES, and watch them in sequence. Your choice.

Search: