Kingdom of Heaven

I saw the non-DC... what's the diference with the DC version?

Engineering..check this out.. Now when Kingdom of Heaven came out, of course I went to see it, and it was great, Ridley is fantastic at historical films, so what if he fudges the facts a little here and there...anyways, loved the film and yes bought the DVD and I liked it too...loads to talk about in this film. Time goes by, and then the DC comes out and my son says you want it? I say if there's any new stuff, sure. Sit down, turn it on, and what I see......smiles. I had seen it in the theater once, watched the DVD maybe 3 times and a lot of time had gone by and forgotten quite a bit so the DC was FRESHHHHH One of the top 5 best films Ridley has done and I own them all and have seen them all in the theater starting with Alien. Don't know what TL:DR is lol

I did like the movie. Sure I like some of his movies more than others, but I have never disliked any of Ridley's movies. I like his style and the music he chooses. :)

I have been enlightned by a guiding light...Engineering...post it up, I never expected something off the Sci Fi topics..

i never had a chance to see kingdom of heaven in theaters, and a few years back i tried to watch it on Televsion but my service receiver was on the fritz and i was only able to see fragments of it so i turned it off. just a few days ago i purchased it on blu ray and watched it for the first time from start to finish. (the directors cut). i really loved it! as Svanya said, ive never seen a Ridley Scott film that i havent liked. hes not a god , just a film director, but as i've said in other posts hes very good at what he does and he knows what hes doing behind the camera. and in his own words hes a total package sort of film maker. not only does he direct well and frame his shots beautifully but he always works with stellar actors, musicians, set designers, etc... This was definitly one of the top films for me, really "epic" to employ the overused term. the whole time i was trying to figure out why i recognized the voice of the leper king and after it was over i was delighted to find out it was Edward Norton. the film had a cast of really good actors and it was very well done altogether. I like the way the subject matter was handled in a way that was not very one sided. i understand that its not completely historically accurate but it is a film not a documentary. i give it 4.5 stars out of five. i cant really find much fault with it but i cant say its completely perfect, but very very good! i really enjoyed it!

Kingdom of Heaven was aweful - I'm being polite!

Ok Tremayne, now I know for sure youre James Cameron hahaha

Don't really have a lot of time right now but I just wanted to state that Scott has done a few films that I don't like. I don't like Hannibal or Thelma and Louise. I don't really care for Someone to Watch Over Me or White Squall. GI Jane is on the list as well. I will get into the greatness of KoH and the difference between the theatrical and DC version as soon as I can and I have a lot to say since KoH DC is one of my favorites from Scott. In fact, I was going to start a thread called Kingdom of Heaven VS Gladiator in which I would spread the gospel of why the KoH DC is better but I figured I'd just leave that one until I felt people out lol. Anyway, I'll collect my thoughts and return asap. Oh and @Inquisitor...What DO you like?????

Engineering, it's a side-step from the thread content, but your avatar.... I dreamed THAT happened to me last night. Man, that was scary. :)

What more is added in the non directors cut?

Really hated kingdom of heaven give it about 4 out of 10 - for once I agree with the critics! [url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/]rotten toms reviews[/url] I couldn't bear to watch it all the first time I saw it - I think my main problem was with Orlando bloom being so weedy and bimbo looking - felt like he didn't fit that part well. And also the fact that gladiator was so amazing - just couldn't help compare the two. Anyway what with all the talk of the directors cut being better I thought I should as least watch it all the way through this time so I am half way through now - too long for me to watch in one go - (too busy) ill report back if I like it better :P !

@Crabfart...With all do respect to Rotten Tomatoes and their reviews, most of those are for the theatrical cut and while I thought the theatrical cut was decent it pales in comparison to the DC. I'm really busy but I'll soon post reviews from critics who gave the theatrical pretty negative reviews only to turn around and talk about how great the DC is. There's a world of difference between the theatrical and DC cut. It's almost like Scott was Fincher on Alien 3 and they made him do all kinds stuff he didn't want to do. Imagine if Fincher was able to make a version of Alien 3 which he wanted to make. It's not exactly that big but that is a good analogy. If you really are interested i finding out the differences between the 2 got to the Wiki page for it [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_(film)]here[/url] and scroll down to the Extended Director's Cut section. Here's the first line from this section with an emphasis a certain sentence... [i]"An extended director's cut of the movie was released on December 23, 2005, at the Laemmle Fairfax Theatre in Los Angeles, unsupported by advertising from 20th Century Fox. [b][i]This version has been widely praised[/i][/b]; at approximately 45 minutes longer than the original theatrical cut, it is purportedly the version Ridley Scott originally wanted released to theaters.[/i] Many critics, myself included though I'm not a critic, believe it to be the most significant DC, IMO right next to Blade Runner, in regards to things that have been added actually changing dynamics of the story. These are not just scenes that have been lengthened for the sake of calling it a director's cut. IMO, this is the best example of why Director's Cuts were even invented.

Actually I'll just make it much easier and quote wiki's list of differences here. I'd much rather people actually watch the DC. Unless you absolutely hated the theatrical. I doubt there's much hope in that case even though the DC changed many critics views of the film. Critics notice cliches and certain things that make a film stand out more than just the regular movie gowing public. Not to be insulting or anything but I think that's why so many of them changed their tune but I doubt members here who hated it will. I'm sure haters of the film here will continue to hate it regardless. But really, it just depends on your reasons for not liking the theatrical cut. Anyway, here's a list of differences and if you think it looks like a lot typed out you should see what it does for the film. [i]The village priest who taunts Balian and is killed by him is revealed to be his half-brother (his mother's son by her lawful husband). The animosity between them is shown as originating from the priest's coveting of the firstborn Balian's meager inheritance. Godfrey is not only the father of Balian but the younger brother of the village lord who believes that Godfrey is looking for his own son to be Godfrey's heir in Ibelin. It is this lord's son and heir who organizes the attack on Godfrey's party in the forest and is subsequently killed. Both this plot point and the one above hinge on the firstborn son's right to exclusive inheritance: this is what apparently drove Godfrey to the Holy Land and the priest to begin his scheming against Balian. A dying Baldwin IV is shown refusing the last sacrament from Patriarch Heraclius. The character of Baldwin V, shown in some of original trailers but lacking in the theatrical release, is re-inserted into the film. He is the son of Sibylla by her first husband; not named in the film, the father is William of Montferrat. The boy is crowned King after Baldwin IV's death, but is then discovered to have leprosy, like his uncle. His death is depicted as an act of euthanasia by his mother, who administers poison via the child's ear. As in the theatrical version, Sibylla is then crowned queen.Balian fights a climactic duel with Guy near the end of the film, after Jerusalem is surrendered and Guy has been released by Saladin (an act intended to humiliate Guy in the eyes of his former subjects). Guy is humiliated furthermore by challenging Balian to a duel, being defeated, and then spared by Balian. A scene with Balian discussing his situation with the Hospitaller in the desert, which included the line "I go to pray" (featured in most trailers) is re-inserted. It is made clear that Guy de Lusignan knows that Sibylla is having an affair with Balian; however, his interest in her is primarily political, rather than emotional. It is revealed that Balian has fought in several battles in the past, is a skilled strategist, and is well known for building siege engines. Saladin decapitates Raynald de Châtillon instead of only cutting his throat; this is generally believed to be more historically accurate. Sibylla is portrayed as much less corrupt and unpredictable, despite what she herself states earlier in the film, and does her best to uphold her brother's peace until Guy forces her hand by threatening her son. The Gravedigger of Balian's wife is given more than his previous one line, despite his lowly status he is very intelligent, remarking that the suicide was far more of a personal choice and not an act of the devil and realizes that Sibylla is not a nurse but the Queen. [/i] I guess I would say that the edition of Baldwin V is the most significant change. This not only shows that Sybilla had a son but shows their relationship and that he was to be king and that everything would have been much better had she not poisoned him because he showed signs of leporsy. This really fleshes out her character and her relationship with Balian. There really are other differences. It's just a world of difference.

Thanks engineering, you saved some googling for me.

I Enjoyed the theatrical realease, probably would give it an 8 out of 10. I have yet to watch the Directors cut, I had already heard it makes it better, but now I definitely want to see it.

I am afraid even the directors cut didn't grab me...it is better but I still had some gripes with it: Questionable shots and effects like the over cranked (slow mo) parts - in gladiator seemed to look and feel so much more together were as KOH seemed to have strange choices this film seemed to be all over the place with no reason for some shots (I am a director of music videos - so I guess I look at this sort of thing more). Orlando bloom really still for me did not fit this part (being a bit unconvincing and weedy) and some of the things he said made me burst out laughing: "rise a knight...rise a knight" eeeek - cringe-worthy :S ! I could go on but never mind I really did want to like this (being a big ridley fan) but even with the DC its only now a 5 out of 10 for me (up from 4) :( ....in its defence though - I do need to brush up on some of the history of that time even though it is obviously an extremely fictionalised film it does have lots of real symbolism and is based on real events / stories supposedly (history is always told by the victors ofc :P ).

@crabfart...[i]" (history is always told by the victors ofc ). "[/i] The Muslims were the victors lol. Story isn't told from their point of view really lol. I'll give a more in depth response asap.

Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors, but I saw Kingdom of Heaven on TV before I knew it was one of Ridley's films. It wasn't fantastic, but it was very good. And most of all it kept me thinking about the movie, mostly the direction of the characters, feel of the story, and delivery. For days I'd think about it and the more I thought about it the more favorable I was to it, so much so I went out and bought it on DVD (should have bought the director's cut though). It wasn't until then I bothered to noticed that Sir Scott directed the movie. I thought "no wonder...."