User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 326 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 32 out of 326
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. AsadQ.
    Jul 1, 2006
    3
    Lightweight plot, the absence of dialogue, and an emotionless protagonist made this one movie I had to turn off before finishing. Too bad - it's a subject I would have enjoyed seeing brought to life on the screen.
  2. JonF
    Oct 16, 2005
    2
    Disjointed and incoherent. Their is not enough time devoted to develop the characters. Furthermore, some of the battle scenes seem intent on showing violence by have blood spew across the screen. The problem, it looks just plain silly. I really think this should have been two movies to give time to develop characters, or it just shouldn't have been made at all.
  3. RaschidA.
    Dec 7, 2005
    2
    Other than Saladdin and his army the rest of the movie is another Hollywood piece of crap. The History Channel did a much better job telling this story. It also has better actors.
  4. Aug 27, 2010
    1
    Ridley Scott tries to rehash the same grandiose style that did him well in 'Gladiator' for the pitiful 'Kingdom of Heaven' but the terrible script/screenplay leaves no room for the viewer to have any interest in either the surplus battle scenes, the undeveloped characters, or the nonexistent plot. And as far as acting goes, Orlando Bloom is to Russell Crowe as Shia LaBeouf is to Harrison Ford.
  5. EricL
    May 9, 2005
    3
    Really lame. Unlike Gladiator, the central character here is completelly underdeveloped, as well as underperformed by Orlando Bloom. His rise to becoming a great knight (and even more improbably) a master war tactician never feels credible. The movie tries to argue that most of the factions were motivated more by money and power than religion, but come on, even in this modern age, Really lame. Unlike Gladiator, the central character here is completelly underdeveloped, as well as underperformed by Orlando Bloom. His rise to becoming a great knight (and even more improbably) a master war tactician never feels credible. The movie tries to argue that most of the factions were motivated more by money and power than religion, but come on, even in this modern age, religious fanatacism has everything to do with the situation in the Middle East, are we supposed to believe they were actually less "fire and brimstone" types during the Crusades? Sorry, that just feels very modern to me. Worst of all, while the battle scenes were technically well shot, they did not break any new ground-- they are not even close to rousing. The bottom line is that this movie is a big "so what?" Expand
  6. BarbN.
    May 5, 2005
    1
    What an over-produced, self-important bore.
  7. IvorS.
    May 7, 2005
    3
    Highly disappointing, bad casting. Definitely Ridley Scott's worst film till date.
  8. JeremeyM.
    May 7, 2005
    1
    This was such a horrible painful experience I walked out with 45 minutes left. For a movie about the crusades and religious predjudice it falls horribly short. Is completely unblanaced and lacks cohesive timing. The 'deep meaning' in this movie would probably only resonate with those who are so hollow in the mind they can't handle the true history of what happened on an This was such a horrible painful experience I walked out with 45 minutes left. For a movie about the crusades and religious predjudice it falls horribly short. Is completely unblanaced and lacks cohesive timing. The 'deep meaning' in this movie would probably only resonate with those who are so hollow in the mind they can't handle the true history of what happened on an even itellectual level. And god forbid we show the Christian army getting slaughtered! Oh that would just be so horrible. But hey, when you can't handle history you can always just walk aroundit. Do yourself a favour, take a two and a half hour nap instead. It's the same effect Expand
  9. jackb
    May 9, 2005
    3
    Perhaps not the worst of the recent medieval epics (that would be Troy), but it once again demonstrates the inverse relationship between the quality of a movie and the amount of money that gets spent to make it. Orlando Bloom completely lacks screen presence, and the plot (such as it is) is dull as ditchwater.
  10. Seamus
    May 5, 2005
    3
    Mediocrity defined. Bloom is critically miscast; he's incapable of delivering leading man heroism or of expressing emotion convincingly. The first hour is also murderously dull, yet somehow skimps on character development -- Who are these people? Why should we care about them? The big defend-the-castle battles were done before in "Lord of the Rings," "Troy," and a dozen other movies Mediocrity defined. Bloom is critically miscast; he's incapable of delivering leading man heroism or of expressing emotion convincingly. The first hour is also murderously dull, yet somehow skimps on character development -- Who are these people? Why should we care about them? The big defend-the-castle battles were done before in "Lord of the Rings," "Troy," and a dozen other movies of the past decade. It's time for something new. Perhaps most infuriatingly is the morality of the movie. The pro-war Christians are the conniving, scheming, and brutal villiains of the movie, but the pro-war Muslims are honorable and pious. It's a political statement for our times, but why warp a real war to make it? Expand
  11. LarryS.
    May 6, 2005
    2
    I don't know about the "political statement" this movie is implying according to some, but i personally hope all christians and muslims die, so i just wish someone would've dropped a huge atomic bomb on all of them while i was watching this boring movie.
  12. JonathonJ.
    May 6, 2005
    0
    I hate this movie almost as much as i hate george w. bush, dick cheney, tom ridge, zell miller, john kerry, ted kennedy, bill clinton, jesus, ralph nader, david letterman, bea arthur, conan o'brian, frank sinatra, michael jordan, jimi hendrix, cesar romero, buddha, and anthony michael hall combined. it just wasn't a very satisfying movie.
  13. GaborA.
    May 7, 2005
    3
    Less than mediocre effort. Dramatic scenes evoke chuckles not tears. Story is non existant. Characters minus two are static and boring. Relatively true to the history but not to any standards of what a good movie is.
  14. AdamL
    May 8, 2005
    0
    Great! A movie that glorifies the Nazi's ! (Oops, I mean Crusaders...).
  15. BoB
    May 10, 2005
    3
    Wow jack b, Troy is not Medieval. It's ANCIENT GREECE genius! The nobles were not nearly as noble as the movie portrays them to be, and the Crusaders were no nearly as evil. Sure, there were many people who were in the Crusades for the wrong reasons, but they had good intentions. The Muslims had taken over half of Christendom, Europe had now choice but to retaliate, or they would be Wow jack b, Troy is not Medieval. It's ANCIENT GREECE genius! The nobles were not nearly as noble as the movie portrays them to be, and the Crusaders were no nearly as evil. Sure, there were many people who were in the Crusades for the wrong reasons, but they had good intentions. The Muslims had taken over half of Christendom, Europe had now choice but to retaliate, or they would be destroyed by the Muslims. The ignorance of some of these reviewers is astounding. Expand
  16. MannyC.
    May 17, 2005
    0
    Sheer drivel. Not only was this long winded pile of rubbish so boring it hurts, it made me question if Ridley Scott must have suffered brain damage recently. The blatant anti- religous (especially Catholic) viewpoint of the films many dull speeches made me wonder if i had wandered into some bizarro cults indoctrination chamber. Do the world a favour and dont pay to see this. if it makes Sheer drivel. Not only was this long winded pile of rubbish so boring it hurts, it made me question if Ridley Scott must have suffered brain damage recently. The blatant anti- religous (especially Catholic) viewpoint of the films many dull speeches made me wonder if i had wandered into some bizarro cults indoctrination chamber. Do the world a favour and dont pay to see this. if it makes no money then hopefully directors will feel compelled to make films of at least a little better quality than this dung. Expand
  17. TelyS.
    May 6, 2005
    3
    How do you create a politically correct version of the Crusades? By lying.
  18. MattM.
    May 7, 2005
    1
    This movie was a piece of crap!!!! gladiator is my favorite movie of all time, and this is the exact opposite. The movie put me to sleep, and it was ridiculous the circumstances and turning points were coincidental and had zero subtext or emotional investment. This movie made Alexander look like the godfather.
  19. JeromeF.
    May 9, 2005
    0
    The story was uninvolvling. The actors were unengaging. The visuals for unoriginal. What more needs to be said.
  20. Jacobo
    May 14, 2005
    3
    Great battle sequences. Everything else is pretty much mediocre. The connect-the-dots plot is dull. The performances are flat, and the characters have utterly no chemistry.
  21. jimc.
    May 18, 2005
    2
    Here's a blockbuster that made me think all the time: is it worst than Alexander? is Scott's history teacher the same guy that teaches religion to Mel Gibson? Why can't Eva Green lift my spirits? Will Armaggedon come soon and blow the whole thing up? Does getting bored stiff make you live longer?
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    Genuinely spectacular and historically quite respectable, Ridley Scott's latest epic is at its strongest in conveying the savagery spawned by fanaticism.
  2. Reviewed by: Ian Nathan
    60
    A frustratingly thin epic. You're left wanting more exposition, more character development, the tidying up of loose ends.
  3. 60
    One imagined that a movie about the Crusades would be gallant and mad; one feared that it might stoke some antiquated prejudice. But who could have dreamed that it would produce this rambling, hollow show about a boy?