- Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
- Release Date: May 6, 2005
User Score
7.8
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 261 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 216 out of 261
-
Mixed: 16 out of 261
-
Negative: 29 out of 261
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
SeamusMay 5, 20053
-
-
BarbN.May 5, 20051What an over-produced, self-important bore.
-
-
FattyM.May 6, 20054Wow, this was boring. i was expected something good like troy or alexander, but this was just long and pointless. and i don't know why it couldn't have been more gory, i mean, you see hardly any decapitations.
-
-
LarryS.May 6, 20052I 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.
-
-
JonathonJ.May 6, 20050I 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.
-
-
TelyS.May 6, 20053How do you create a politically correct version of the Crusades? By lying.
-
-
IvorS.May 7, 20053Highly disappointing, bad casting. Definitely Ridley Scott's worst film till date.
-
-
JeremeyM.May 7, 20051
-
-
GaborA.May 7, 20053Less 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.
-
-
MattM.May 7, 20051This 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.
-
-
AdamLMay 8, 20050Great! A movie that glorifies the Nazi's ! (Oops, I mean Crusaders...).
-
-
jackbMay 9, 20053Perhaps 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.
-
-
EricLMay 9, 20053
-
-
JeromeF.May 9, 20050The story was uninvolvling. The actors were unengaging. The visuals for unoriginal. What more needs to be said.
-
-
BoBMay 10, 20053
-
-
JacoboMay 14, 20053Great 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.
-
-
MannyC.May 17, 20050
-
-
BrutusO.May 17, 20054
-
-
jimc.May 18, 20052Here'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?
-
-
JonFOct 16, 20052Disjointed 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.
-
-
DavidTOct 24, 20054Literally put me to sleep. First hour plods along at snails pace - plot is disjointed and the scripting is bland.
-
-
SusanJ.Nov 2, 20054This movie never really moved. It never climaxed or ended. The movie sequence and lack of acting skills(notwithstanding Liam) just kep this film at a monotone pace. Very disappointing!
-
-
RaschidA.Dec 7, 20052Other 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.
-
-
AsadQ.Jul 1, 20063Lightweight 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.
-
-
Aug 27, 20101Ridley 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.
-
Mar 4, 20134Watch the directors cut. I saw kingdom of heavens when it was release in the cinemas and was very disappointed. Then I watched the directors cut and I was surprised how it turned out to be a good movie. Nevertheless when you judge the movie by its cinema release its average.
-
80Genuinely spectacular and historically quite respectable, Ridley Scott's latest epic is at its strongest in conveying the savagery spawned by fanaticism.
-
60A frustratingly thin epic. You're left wanting more exposition, more character development, the tidying up of loose ends.
-
60One 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?