User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 320 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 32 out of 320
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. ChrisD
    May 5, 2005
    10
    An awesome epic movie. We were waiting for a movie like this movie since Gladiator. All performances are awesome. A must see movie this spring.
  2. AaronM.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    The movie is a fascinating look at at a fascinating historical period. It really focuses on both sides of the Crusade, and looks deep into the motives that caused it. An epic film.
  3. GregoryM.
    Mar 23, 2006
    10
    Excellent piece. Balanced and moving.
  4. joe
    Oct 19, 2005
    10
    Good movie.
  5. ScottH
    Oct 27, 2005
    10
    Great movie dont get what all those arses are talking about but who cares about them still orlando Bloom was amazing in this movie great movie suggest it to anyone cant wait for DVD.
  6. Maurice
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    A spectacular canvas that outshines previous spectacles as Braveheart and Gladiator by a mile. The acting from the whole cast is marvelous especially by Edward Norton, Ghassan Massoud and Liam Neeson. Also, Orlando Bloom finally grows up in his acting and gives a very good performance. I give Kingdom of Heaven a strong 10.
  7. terryw.
    May 1, 2005
    10
    Far superior to Troy and Alexander and up there with Gladiator. All performances are excellent including a suprisingly effective Bloom. But its in the production design, cinematography and special visual effects that this movie truly delivers. Even has a better climax than the excellent Gladiator. Do yourself a huge favour and see it on the biggest screen you can. Only Ridley Scott knows Far superior to Troy and Alexander and up there with Gladiator. All performances are excellent including a suprisingly effective Bloom. But its in the production design, cinematography and special visual effects that this movie truly delivers. Even has a better climax than the excellent Gladiator. Do yourself a huge favour and see it on the biggest screen you can. Only Ridley Scott knows how to make a proper Epic. Nobody else can compare. Expand
  8. SilvaA.
    May 5, 2005
    10
    Great Movie. And a lot better than Troy or Alexander. Loved the performance.
  9. BobS.
    May 6, 2005
    10
    Great spectacle, entertaining story, wonderful film making. I thought the film moved very quickly and held my attention throughout. Probably destined to be a classic, despite the nay-sayers and "critics". Go see it and enjoy a rousing adventure story with a message.
  10. Chimp
    May 7, 2005
    10
    Jesus....am i the only person to give this movie a 10? it was amazing.....thats all i can really say. oh yeah, and the guy who said he was expecting something "good" like troy or alexander? if those are good to you, i guess it makes sense for you not to like this movie.
  11. Bifidus
    May 8, 2005
    10
    A pamphlet for tolerance and humanity. The movie shows that these qualities don't depend on religion. An idealistic view of cultural and social common sense as universal values.
  12. BuketK.
    Jun 22, 2005
    10
    I think this film is great. Soundtrack,cast,director was very good. My favorite then lord of the rings. I looking forward to waiting dvd.
  13. kharagh
    Jun 28, 2005
    10
    Amazing movie! The best epic since Gladiator and I hope the Academy won't ignore it in the Oscars like they did with Troy. Highly recommended!
  14. TerenceO.
    Nov 8, 2006
    10
    An Epic and visual masterpiece. Authentic costumes for the period, breathtaking settings, great characters and actors. Those critics who gave low scores...just look at the names...I rest my case.
  15. tanere.
    May 16, 2005
    10
    Thank you Mr. Scott . It was a great historical film . We understood that , from the past till today all the christians and muslims ( ? am a muslim ) are living together with peace . Let's do it again . If someone doesn't want it , we are ready to fight with them in the name of the ALLAH . ( Allah wills it !!!!!!!! )
  16. LarryR
    May 26, 2005
    10
    Excellent epic, attention to detail fantastic, and a happy ending to boot!
  17. ThomasG.
    May 7, 2005
    10
    Totally awesome movie. Balian, Godfrey, Baldwin, and Saladin know more about God than Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Osama bin Laden ever will, even if they live ten thousand years.
  18. chelseac.
    Jun 7, 2005
    10
    This movie is the best movie orlando bloom has done in his career because he wasn't behind a bunch of people, he was the lead person which has made him a bigger and better star!!!!!!
  19. bilalb.
    Aug 26, 2005
    10
    It is a perfect film ? have ever watched.
  20. TerryK.
    Oct 16, 2005
    10
    This is a great movie. Ridley creates an incredible world, and Orlando in habits it with understated finesse.
  21. ChristopherA.
    May 11, 2005
    10
    I loved it! This isnt a movie that would appeal to everyone, but to someone who likes war movies, it doesnt get much better than this. I'll be watching this one again. Thanks to you Ridley Scott, for erasing the bad taste from my mouth that was Alexander!
  22. Oct 28, 2010
    10
    I originally saw the Kingdom of Heaven theatrical release first, and my opinion of it was mixed, much like how I feel about Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. The film seemed poorly edited and was missing something. Then came the Directors Cut and it all made sense. Americans were robbed of an excellent story once again due to low expectations on what the general public would like. Whether orI originally saw the Kingdom of Heaven theatrical release first, and my opinion of it was mixed, much like how I feel about Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. The film seemed poorly edited and was missing something. Then came the Directors Cut and it all made sense. Americans were robbed of an excellent story once again due to low expectations on what the general public would like. Whether or not his is true is another story all together. What I feel is true is that the directors cut elevates the movie to something more than another action story. It adds so much more to the dynamics of the characters, fleshing them out in much greater depth and detail, and providing more of a connection from one character to the next. The stories protagonist, Balian (played by Orlando Bloom) is a mixture of several different personalities from the period, but his view of the world at the time could be considered very tolerant/progressive. Bloom carries his role well, playing him as a reluctant "hero" who is more practical, preferring to rely on his mind as well as his fighting prowess. He tends to fall in line more on how the ideal knight, sans the arrogance, would act if he actually defended his oaths. He gets a lot of flack for this role for some reason, but I feel he fit very well. The rest of the cast is very well thought out, with Eva Green skillfully playing the role of Sibylla as a strong, intelligent woman who understands all too well what must be done to maintain power. Her character is probably one of the most tragic ones in the story, although the list of those is pretty long. Jeremy Irons portrays the grizzled and cynical veteran Tiberias, who does some chewing of the scenery, but not in the bad way as far as I'm concerned. His character is probably one of my favorites, as his expressions and manner of his delivery is perfect for his role. There are very few characters that I did not appreciate in this one, but needless to say it would take up a lot more text. Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Marton Csokas all do excellent jobs in their roles as Balians father, King Baldwin IV, and the comic book villain that is Guy de Lusignan. The three that stood out the most for me were Ghassan Massoud as a very honorable and respectful Salah'ad-din, Brendan Gleeson as the vicious but entertaining Raynald de Chatillon, and finally David Thewlis as the Zen-like Hospitaller. Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors of all time, and this movie definitely displays why. This movie is awash in his trademark visual aesthetics (gorgeous color palettes, the ever present snow flakes fluttering about, etc), excellent writing, and some of the best music I have ever heard in a movie. Any movie. All in all he weaves together a very complex, but not entirely historically accurate, story between the second and third Crusades. As much as the trailers would have you believe it, this is no action movie. The pacing is good but sometimes on the slower side, and if you live for constant scenes of blood and violence, then you will be disappointed. Kingdom of Heaven is a glimpse back in time through the eyes of Scott and Monahan and they did an amazing job. Expand
  23. Mar 10, 2013
    10
    The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is an absolutely phenomenal film. Visually, Ridley Scott pushes the boat out past even his high standards. Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most beautiful looking historical epics ever made. It's also emotionally engaging, superbly acted and informative. Just make sure you're watching the director's cut and not the muddled theatrical version.
  24. Nov 12, 2011
    10
    Epic, again a Ridley Scott masterpiece with lots of depth and a message of knighthood, something clearly lost and not in the flavor nowadays. I strongly advise watching this movie and again critics must have been sleeping....they are wrong.
  25. Dec 9, 2011
    10
    "What man is a man if does not make the world better"

    those signed words on the smithy touch my soul every time i watch this epic film. i regret i didnt go to watch it to the cinema, though in home still is a very good movie to watch. the phography is beautiful, the cast is amazing, the dialogs are deep and well done. the action is intense in a very good way, you dont see favoritism
    "What man is a man if does not make the world better"

    those signed words on the smithy touch my soul every time i watch this epic film.
    i regret i didnt go to watch it to the cinema, though in home still is a very good movie to watch.
    the phography is beautiful, the cast is amazing, the dialogs are deep and well done. the action is intense in a very good way, you dont see favoritism for the muslims or the catholics.
    balanced.
    epic.
    After watching it i have learn what it takes to be a real knight.
    Expand
  26. Mar 11, 2013
    10
    In my opinion, Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most underrated movies I have come across. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and receives very little attention compared to its bigger brother, Gladiator. The extra scenes in the Director's Cut explain the story considerably better. Although more loosely based than we'd care to admit, the time period of the Crusades is an awesomeIn my opinion, Kingdom of Heaven is one of the most underrated movies I have come across. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and receives very little attention compared to its bigger brother, Gladiator. The extra scenes in the Director's Cut explain the story considerably better. Although more loosely based than we'd care to admit, the time period of the Crusades is an awesome atmosphere that I am surprised is not utilized as much in film. I found Orlando Bloom actually a decent actor in this one and the film has one of the best soundtracks in a movie. Expand
  27. Nov 4, 2012
    10
    I don't know what it is with Ridley Scott films, but his director's cuts are vastly superior than theatrical versions. The director's cut is the only version of this film I acknowledge and it is one of the greatest movies of all time.
  28. KeithW.
    May 4, 2005
    9
    This is a spectacular quality movie with high values and excellent acting. The beautiful Bloom easily becomes the great screen idol and has the acting talent to sustain a valid place in the the cinema. Ridley once again delivers real, intelligent entertaining with the added boomph of superb period feel and detail, which lifts the movie to Gladiator and Ben Hur stature (although it's This is a spectacular quality movie with high values and excellent acting. The beautiful Bloom easily becomes the great screen idol and has the acting talent to sustain a valid place in the the cinema. Ridley once again delivers real, intelligent entertaining with the added boomph of superb period feel and detail, which lifts the movie to Gladiator and Ben Hur stature (although it's better than Hur!). An enjoyable, exciting and thoroughly well made movie that deserves to be showered in Oscars and BAFTA awards! Expand
  29. MiguelS.
    May 7, 2005
    9
    Very good film, not perfect, but good. Visually Stunning. Amazing battle scenes. Ridley Scott is a great EPICS director.
  30. ShaneS
    May 6, 2005
    9
    Mr. Scott at his best. Without vilifying Christian or Muslim, Mr. Scott has magnificently crafted a film that is both timely and timeless, with a subtle message of a peaceful coexistence. History repeats itself because no one listens the first time; finally a film with a message and a lesson. We should look to Sir Ridley's masterpiece for a lesson in dealing with the current, ongoing Mr. Scott at his best. Without vilifying Christian or Muslim, Mr. Scott has magnificently crafted a film that is both timely and timeless, with a subtle message of a peaceful coexistence. History repeats itself because no one listens the first time; finally a film with a message and a lesson. We should look to Sir Ridley's masterpiece for a lesson in dealing with the current, ongoing struggles throughout the world. Expand
  31. AndrewB.
    May 6, 2005
    9
    Orlando Bloom has finally decided to act and fight like a man. The biggest flaw of the movie is the fact that the story was at some points choppy and needed more character development. But an entertaining film nonetheless.
  32. AhmedM.
    Jun 9, 2005
    9
    An Excellent movie better than gladiator and black hawk down the script is fantastic, soundtrack is awesome the movie is great and saladin was good.
  33. KarlF.
    May 16, 2005
    9
    Much better than anticipated: own atmosphere thats intense and heavy; memorable crusader characters; fine ending; not predictable, all in all very good entertainment standing out from the main stream.
  34. DanL.
    May 28, 2005
    9
    Better than Gladiator.
  35. JohnF.
    May 5, 2005
    9
    Very entertaining movie. Strong story and much better than Troy or Alexander.
  36. Pantail
    May 6, 2005
    9
    Though it's not a classic one, it's still so fantastic.
  37. GodComplex
    May 7, 2005
    9
    "What is Jeruselum worth?" "Nothing" "Everything" All in the name of "God." Each side thinke they are righteous.. This film sumed up how bad things are now. Faith and Madness. Ofen both are the same, hand in hand..
  38. PatrickS.
    Jan 14, 2006
    9
    in years to come people will notice how detailed and well crafted this movie is. The love and effort put into making this film is unbelievable this will be remembered as another Blade Runer and i think it would become another cult classic Ridley Scott , pure genius just ignore the hollywood 'critics', this is Art, not a product!
  39. HarryP.
    May 6, 2005
    9
    This movie was the definition of epic. It bored me, it was predictable, everything was big and the action was hard to follow, an effeminate man was cast as the lead... everything you could want. I honestly don't know why they made this movie after King Arthur, Troy, and Alexander all bombed.
  40. ScottJ.
    May 6, 2005
    9
    This movie is awesome because instead of making the movie Hollywood, read Troy, they stuck with the history. This has really no big historical changes as well as telling the events as they happened. For those who say that this type of warfare has been done before you are correct. However, you miss the most important part in that this how they fought at this time. If you would prefer a This movie is awesome because instead of making the movie Hollywood, read Troy, they stuck with the history. This has really no big historical changes as well as telling the events as they happened. For those who say that this type of warfare has been done before you are correct. However, you miss the most important part in that this how they fought at this time. If you would prefer a movie to use rockets and modern weapons in miedevel times play with your toy soldiers. This movie potrayed the history with no bias towards either side and pulled off a difficult time period. It seems everyone is attacking this movie either for doing what has been done before or on the fact that they do not like religion. They miss the best part in that it sticks with history and lets it tell the story rather then adding stuff that did not happen in order to try and make more money. Ridley Scott should be congratulated for making an awesome movie Expand
  41. GregA
    May 8, 2005
    9
    The battle scences were not as good as Gladiator - but I just can't get over how good the msg this fill delivered was. I'm going to see it again and will buy it on DVD. I'm glad someone made a film about this time period.
  42. Anonymous
    Jul 29, 2009
    9
    Terrific movie. The acting was great by everyone, even Bloom who is unfairly getting criticized by some. Truly epic story-telling and filming.
  43. Nwest
    Jun 23, 2005
    9
    An excellent movie for what it is. People can nitpick historical shortcomings, and that Balian went from a blacksmith to a war hero almost overnight, but its a great movie. Lots of action, good character development, not about religion but about personalities, and solid acting.
  44. Sep 12, 2014
    9
    Compared to the movie version of the film, the extended cut (on dvd) is much better and a fuller movie. It gives time for explanations and depth. If you liked it on big screen, you're gonna love the extended cut.

    On its own, though, the theatrical version is already an almost perfect movie. Depth, dedication, faith - and the loss. Battle, cruelty, love, loyalty. What are we fighting for
    Compared to the movie version of the film, the extended cut (on dvd) is much better and a fuller movie. It gives time for explanations and depth. If you liked it on big screen, you're gonna love the extended cut.

    On its own, though, the theatrical version is already an almost perfect movie. Depth, dedication, faith - and the loss. Battle, cruelty, love, loyalty. What are we fighting for in this world? And is it really worth the fight - and the sacrifices?

    The journey of Balian turning from a blacksmith into a knight is portrayed as if it took only a while, which feels rushed in comparison to the rest of the movie. When this matter is settled, the rest is one enjoyable ride; a beautiful, bloody ride.
    Expand
  45. Aug 15, 2012
    9
    The crusades are a fascinating historical event. This movie will give you a little peek of the history, the madness and som of the history that lies behind the conflict today. I've red a book about Saladin and why he let the christian leave Jerusalem. It was not because of Orlando Bloom, but because he thought it might create peace. He was mistaken, the knights reorganized and fought back.The crusades are a fascinating historical event. This movie will give you a little peek of the history, the madness and som of the history that lies behind the conflict today. I've red a book about Saladin and why he let the christian leave Jerusalem. It was not because of Orlando Bloom, but because he thought it might create peace. He was mistaken, the knights reorganized and fought back. If you like this movie, check out the Swedish movie Arn Collapse
  46. Jun 7, 2014
    9
    It was a very good movie and the director tried at least to show a good picture of the two sides of the battle. But, it would be better to choose other actors for the Muslim side to be more impressive. The actor of Saladin was not very good for this role.
  47. MonteF.
    Aug 11, 2005
    8
    Though a little too politically correct, this was an entertaining movie with great graphics.
  48. Burbak
    May 6, 2005
    8
    This movie has good visual effects, it does not look phony like Troy or Alexander. The only thing missing was Angelina Jolie, but then she can't be in every movie. The story line is weak, and somehow the movie lacks depth, and violence is mindless and glorified, no one is ever afraid to die...and people speak with a british accent...but this is hollywood at its best...on the scale of This movie has good visual effects, it does not look phony like Troy or Alexander. The only thing missing was Angelina Jolie, but then she can't be in every movie. The story line is weak, and somehow the movie lacks depth, and violence is mindless and glorified, no one is ever afraid to die...and people speak with a british accent...but this is hollywood at its best...on the scale of paisa wasool...I give it 8 out of 10. Expand
  49. joris
    May 6, 2005
    8
    Ignore the unavoidable 'hero-clichés' and be stunned by the amazing visuals. Ridley's touch is clearly present, good movie.
  50. MarkR.
    May 8, 2005
    8
    A thinking man's action feature.
  51. HarrisonB.
    Jul 16, 2005
    8
    Good history movie. It does a good job focusing on the Crusades. However, I got confused on some parts in the movie. But it was a very good action movie.
  52. SusanM.
    May 30, 2005
    8
    Above average good. Well told, and it didn't seem as long as it was. If you don't know much about Crusades, you won't learn much, but the battle scenes are amazing!!
  53. GraceH.
    Jun 10, 2005
    8
    Though Kingdom of Heaven was a bit of a disappointment in my opinion, it was still very well done. The visuals are, as expected, amazing and Orlando Bloom demonstrates quality acting that may finally prove himself to the critics panning him as expressionless and wooden. The movie felt empty somehow, however. Watered down and condensed, I was left asking if that was really it. The full Though Kingdom of Heaven was a bit of a disappointment in my opinion, it was still very well done. The visuals are, as expected, amazing and Orlando Bloom demonstrates quality acting that may finally prove himself to the critics panning him as expressionless and wooden. The movie felt empty somehow, however. Watered down and condensed, I was left asking if that was really it. The full version, to be released on the DVD, will hopefully do a better job of filling in the blanks. Not an amazing movie, but a good one. Besides, Bloom is a nice face to watch, if nothing else. Expand
  54. AlanaV.
    Jun 15, 2005
    8
    It was alright i couldn't really follow the story at some points.
  55. KyleK.
    Jun 2, 2005
    8
    I thought this movie was great because it reminded of my band Odd Man Out's music. It made me think of life...the way it should be, just like my music. Whimsical feeling might I add. I got chills from Orlando Bloom's magnificient acting. I dont give many movies a 10 except maybe Envy. But this really deserves the fantastic score it gets. Bring your kids.
  56. Tonydannie
    Jul 12, 2005
    8
    This was a great film. better then expected..At first viewing the trailer i thought Riddley Scott was trying to remake Gladiotor to look like LOrd Of the Rings. I was very wrong. The "holy" war portryed in this film was enough to keep me interested and watching more and more of it. There are some amazing shots in this film (I still Cant get the far off shot of the Christian army This was a great film. better then expected..At first viewing the trailer i thought Riddley Scott was trying to remake Gladiotor to look like LOrd Of the Rings. I was very wrong. The "holy" war portryed in this film was enough to keep me interested and watching more and more of it. There are some amazing shots in this film (I still Cant get the far off shot of the Christian army approaching with the golden cross lit brightly by the hot sunlight) And Orlando Bloom was good.(though he still sounds like Legolas to me ). Still this movie is worth a peek. If you loved Gladiator you will enjoy Kingdom Of Heaven. Expand
  57. FabienL.
    Nov 28, 2005
    8
    Quite an interesting piece of history, great cast, great photography.
  58. [Anonymous]
    Oct 14, 2005
    8
    Starts off somewhat clunky, but once the main point gets moving, it's well on its way to greatness. There's just enough action, but the movie transcends that genre: it becomes an epic about fighting for what's REALLY right. Surprisingly, the movie's also even handed, not putting a bad face on either religion, just on the ones that abuse them. Wish there was one more Starts off somewhat clunky, but once the main point gets moving, it's well on its way to greatness. There's just enough action, but the movie transcends that genre: it becomes an epic about fighting for what's REALLY right. Surprisingly, the movie's also even handed, not putting a bad face on either religion, just on the ones that abuse them. Wish there was one more battle scene in the middle, to even the pacing out a bit, and that camesra work and choreography in some fo the action were more engaging, but otherwise, a good unique movie about the issues of today. Expand
  59. VictoriaT.
    Apr 29, 2005
    8
    Very good battle movie. Wonderful battle/siege scenes. Personally could have done with out the sappy love story. Thank goodness it is a small part of the story.
  60. Saebjorn
    May 14, 2005
    8
    Visually strong, Bloom OK, other actors fine. Breathtaking moments, music, cinematography and the genius og R. Scott make KOH the best epic in years. little bir too long and the script needs more more spce.
  61. ChristineJ.
    May 16, 2005
    8
    Exciting and entertaining, portrays the Crusades and crusaders more truthfully than history sometimes presents. A good, solid cast. Orlando Bloom made a credible leap as a leading actor in his first role. I'd buy the DVD.
  62. joe
    Jun 27, 2005
    8
    Good movie.
  63. SK
    Jul 18, 2009
    8
    This movie is an epic in every sense, especially the director's cut version (45 minutes longer). The is visually incredible with a a score to only make it more outstanding. The acting is very good too with Liam Neeson, Eva Green and Ghassan Massoud (Saladin) all being excellent. Edward Norton's King Baldwin IV carried a great weight in the film and was one of the best parts of This movie is an epic in every sense, especially the director's cut version (45 minutes longer). The is visually incredible with a a score to only make it more outstanding. The acting is very good too with Liam Neeson, Eva Green and Ghassan Massoud (Saladin) all being excellent. Edward Norton's King Baldwin IV carried a great weight in the film and was one of the best parts of it. And of course I should mention Orlando Bloom, who will probably pleasantly surprise many who watch the movie. His performance had many good things to it. A blacksmith who by way of his father's nobility and land can become a great knight in Jerusalem, Bloom was definitely solid. I understand many critical of the movie would have liked it to be a bit "madder" in terms of how it presented the crusades, but reading the Ridley Scott and William Moynahan (writer) wanted to retell this story by a fictionalized account with a bit of a exaggerated benefit of the doubt to peace. I think this movie had much of what an epic should be. Perhaps not quite a Braveheart, but compares to Gladiator and has a sense of purpose and epic story-telling that set it in a higher class than Troy and 300 when comparing "sword-and-sandal" epics. Expand
  64. Nov 23, 2011
    8
    While Balian as a central character is under developed, Bloom did a fairly good job with what he had to work with. His rise to becoming a "Perfect knight" doesn't seem palpable enough, it would've been good to have seen him make a few mistakes, or perhaps take an action that has a consequence greater than he first anticipated. The themes running through the film are all good themes to workWhile Balian as a central character is under developed, Bloom did a fairly good job with what he had to work with. His rise to becoming a "Perfect knight" doesn't seem palpable enough, it would've been good to have seen him make a few mistakes, or perhaps take an action that has a consequence greater than he first anticipated. The themes running through the film are all good themes to work with, and the film definitely tries to analyse them, but it does take a couple of re-watches in order to figure them out completely, which I think is good. I gave The Dark Knight praise for doing that, so this gets praise too. The themes of Balian attempting to be an incorruptible knight seeking redemption for his sins (by committing none in the Holy Land) worked quite well, even though at times it seemed like he was sticking to his principles a bit too much. I think it was a good twist how Balian refuses to commit a little evil for the greater good by having Guy executed, however Seyblla, who is willing to commit a little evil for the greater good eventually dooms the kingdom by doing so. In a sense, they're two sides of the same coin.

    The film also highlights the other reasons why people went on Crusade. Its so universally believed now that the Crusades were just about religion and nothing else, as is the recent wars in the Middle East, that people forget about the commercial aspects of the Crusades. It's no secret that trade between Italy and the Crusader States helped to fester the Italian Renaissance by bringing massive wealth, and it was also no secret that Pope Urban who initiated the First Crusade, stated that the Holy Land was a land that "floweth with milk and honey". People were attracted to the Middle East because there was a great deal of riches there, and the film definitely brings out the fact that in the end, religion is just an overtone, while at the core, they're only fighting for betterment of themselves; something which Balian does not wish to do. In terms of cinematography, the movie is beautifully shot and edited, and highlights Ridley's signature big sweeping shots. The battle scenes are all well done and frighteningly realistic. The acting is also to be commended, mainly for Edward Norton, Jeremy Irons, the always great Liam Neeson, Alexander Siddig and Massoud (I really hope that's the right one), who portrayed Saladin. In all a good movie, that could've been helped here or there, but definitely worth a watch nonetheless.
    Expand
  65. Feb 6, 2012
    8
    I liked Kingdom of Heaven, but had a few things that I disliked. I loved all of the fight scenes, they were beautifully done, also as a history buff I liked how to showed some intelligent knights are torn on if this is right or not. What I disliked the most was the fact that they praised and criticized both Muslims and Christians. It was like a roller coaster. The producers were tryingI liked Kingdom of Heaven, but had a few things that I disliked. I loved all of the fight scenes, they were beautifully done, also as a history buff I liked how to showed some intelligent knights are torn on if this is right or not. What I disliked the most was the fact that they praised and criticized both Muslims and Christians. It was like a roller coaster. The producers were trying to please everyone which hurt the movie. Expand
  66. PatW
    May 2, 2005
    7
    Not even David Lean hey, Terry?
  67. BB
    May 13, 2005
    7
    It's a good film, but it never gave me that "Gladiator-feeling". Still much much better than Troy.
  68. M.I.A.
    May 7, 2005
    7
    It was good. That's all I can say.
  69. DwightV.
    May 11, 2005
    7
    People need to relax and stop getting personal, your just reviewing! Overall it was a pretty decent movie, the acting was good the action scenes were average and the story was clever, since no one hasn't done a movie on this time period recently.
  70. JoanB.
    May 15, 2005
    7
    While the story wasn't as engaging as I would have liked, and I felt Orly was lacking credibilty as a leader, I really appreciated Scott's vision for the film. As Chris Rock said, Scott should have "waited for Russell" to be available. Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson were excellent, but had too little screen time. Kudos also to Ed Norton for somehow bringing poignant humanity to a While the story wasn't as engaging as I would have liked, and I felt Orly was lacking credibilty as a leader, I really appreciated Scott's vision for the film. As Chris Rock said, Scott should have "waited for Russell" to be available. Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson were excellent, but had too little screen time. Kudos also to Ed Norton for somehow bringing poignant humanity to a character who's face we don't see. The visuals were stunning. Expand
  71. TomC.
    May 13, 2005
    7
    A watchable action pic - nicely crafted in costumes and sets, scenery and mood. Battle scenes were a good mix of epic scale and close action, pandemonium, but coherent and not overly gory. Kind of a mudded fictional story with snatches of real history sprinkled in. In the end the story line was just not as interesting as the real history and characters of this time. But the film deserves A watchable action pic - nicely crafted in costumes and sets, scenery and mood. Battle scenes were a good mix of epic scale and close action, pandemonium, but coherent and not overly gory. Kind of a mudded fictional story with snatches of real history sprinkled in. In the end the story line was just not as interesting as the real history and characters of this time. But the film deserves kudos for attempting a somewhat balanced view of the protagonists and glimpses of reality while telling its tale. Expand
  72. Jun 25, 2014
    7
    I saw the director's cut while it was long, it is hard to imagine the theatrical version after seeing what they originally planned to release. Yes, it was slow at times, but everything included was definitely important for the story and having things make sense. Now, in terms of the film, it is gorgeous in many respects. First, the cinematography is great. The sets are also beautifully putI saw the director's cut while it was long, it is hard to imagine the theatrical version after seeing what they originally planned to release. Yes, it was slow at times, but everything included was definitely important for the story and having things make sense. Now, in terms of the film, it is gorgeous in many respects. First, the cinematography is great. The sets are also beautifully put together and they really chose a great location for filming this one, as it provided many beautiful images. In addition, the soundtrack was perfect. Often times, I do not notice a film's soundtrack, except when it was very good or very bad, and this one was great. Finally, the battle scenes were very well put together. They were certainly violent, but for the most part, beautifully filmed and choreographed.The acting was also solid, in particular from Edward Norton. He had a very small role, but had a really commanding presence here and killed it whenever he was speaking. Brendan Gleeson and Jeremy Irons were also very good here. Orlando Bloom and Eva Green were mostly good as well. Really, the only things holding this one back for me were the pace at times. While, for the most part, it was very interesting and moved at a steady pace, at times it slowed down to almost a crawl. If those could be picked up a bit, this one would be better. Another negative would be the script. At times, it was absolutely cringeworthy, at others it was serviceable, and at others it was pretty good. However, it certainly left a lot to be desired at times. Expand
  73. Nov 15, 2012
    7
    Watch the Director's Cut. The theatrical release was a disjointed mess skewed by bad editing and money-hungry last-minute changes.
  74. BitBurn
    Jun 5, 2005
    6
    Not a bad movie. Not a very good one either. I found the whole thing building up incoherently and emotionless. Not for everyone, I guess.
  75. JakeM.
    May 7, 2005
    6
    It is a bit muddled. But also glorious. And Orlando is stirring.
  76. DanaM.
    May 9, 2005
    6
    Very good acting considering the average grade story line. With the heavy british accents it was difficult at times to understand the dialogue, especially with the holier than thou conversation. Another save the castle segment like Lord of the rings. Lots of splattered blood and gore. Wait for DVD.
  77. MarkB.
    Jun 2, 2005
    6
    Say what you will about Charlton Heston's limited acting range, but in historical spectacles like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, The War Lord and many others, he was damned good at what he did. Without overacting or trying too hard, Heston came across perfectly as everyone's popular conception of a man of the movie's particular historic era, and regardless of what robe, Say what you will about Charlton Heston's limited acting range, but in historical spectacles like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, The War Lord and many others, he was damned good at what he did. Without overacting or trying too hard, Heston came across perfectly as everyone's popular conception of a man of the movie's particular historic era, and regardless of what robe, uniform or military apparel he was called upon to wear, he donned it with total authority. I wistfully thought about Heston a lot while watching Kingdom of Heaven, in which Orlando Bloom, playing a blacksmith turned warrior and eventual peacemaker during the Crusades, gets completely swallowed up by HIS suit of armor. Bloom, like Josh Hartnett, Chris O'Donnell and other peers, not only comes across as far too modern for these epics but almost unceasingly confuses being contemporary and sensitive with total wimpiness. It's understandable that he came off in Pirates of the Caribbean as nothing more noticeable than The Guy Who Wasn't Johnny Depp, because Depp by design so thoroughly dominated that movie--but then, there's no excuse for the terminal blandness epidemic spread by him, Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and all The Guys Who Weren't Peter O'Toole in last year's Troy. Thus it shouldn't at all be surprising that Bloom is totally overshadowed by a fellow actor who never shows his real face onscreen, but Edward Norton infuses his role as a leprosy-ravaged king with so much complexity, decency and humanity that he communicates inner beauty buried beneath almost unbearable ugliness more forcefully than anyone since John Hurt in The Elephant Man a quarter-century ago. Norton is the major reason to see Kingdom of Heaven; Brendan Gleeson, who imbues his role as a sadistic war criminal with something surprisingly resembling tenderness, is another; Ridley Scott's frenetic battle scenes which here as in his Gladiator, are so furiously edited that you think you're seeing a lot more onscreen gore than you really are, is a third...but with reservations. Again, as with Gladiator, the extensive and obvious use of CGI in these sequences distances the viewer from really feeling the heat or experiencing the pain; compare Scott's slick, impersonal approach with the vibrancy of similar scenes in 2004's most unjustly maligned commercial film, Oliver Stone's Alexander, which brilliantly communicated both the exhiliaration and the terror of the troops racing to battle. Then again, I'm still not certain why or how a movie about a Christian-Muslim conflict whose repercussions are still being felt a thousand years later --and in some people's minds, is still considered a root cause of September 11-- with any sort of point of view or stance whatsoever...and, in fact, Kingdom of Heaven has none. It bends over so far backwards to be politically correct, nonoffensive and fair to all sides that its only villains are a small cabal of murderous fundamentalist Christians--a safe move for the producers because their audience equivalent is that small section of the Fox News-watching population who believe that the film industry has been overrun by liberal, secular humanists since the days of The Jazz Singer--the Al Jolson version, not the Neil Diamond one--and so won't be going anywhere near this movie anyway. As for the rest of us, the extremely lukewarm and indifferent critical and public reception given this film is not only just but extremely reassuring; if you remember how shocked Academy Award viewers were a few years ago when, in a move that undoubtedly was responsible for a heap of buyers' remorse on the part of the voters, they actually picked Scott's entertaining but inconsequential Gladiator as Best Picture of the Year, then it's definitely a relief to know that history will NOT be repeating itself. Expand
  78. KenH
    Jun 6, 2005
    6
    I had higher expectations and it didn't fulfill. Like all R. Scott movies, it visually is awesome, but like Black Hawk Down or G.I. Jane, the characters weren't likable or compelling. Worth seeing on the big screen though.
  79. KaroG
    Jul 25, 2005
    6
    My favorite thing about this film was the interesting character of King Baldwin IV, played by Edward Norton. I instantly recognized the voice of the character but was unable to connect it to Norton until the end credits were shown. The fact that the King was a competent leader and noble hearted man but was suffering immensely from leprosy and wore a mask because of it made him all the My favorite thing about this film was the interesting character of King Baldwin IV, played by Edward Norton. I instantly recognized the voice of the character but was unable to connect it to Norton until the end credits were shown. The fact that the King was a competent leader and noble hearted man but was suffering immensely from leprosy and wore a mask because of it made him all the more interesting. Additionally, the battle scenes and the character of Saladdin were also high points of the movie. Orlando Bloom's character, however, was a downfall, mostly because of his unrealistic transition from blacksmith to outstanding leader/warrior. I understand this is a movie, but if its going to be based on history, the events of the movie should be somewhat believeable. Expand
  80. MarcD
    May 5, 2005
    6
    It is better than Alexander and more coherent than Troy. But, the pacing still seems a little off at times and you may find yourself a little lost due to the lack of information on the historical significance of the story being told. In the end, it is a solid effort.
  81. ChrisR.
    May 8, 2005
    6
    The Kingdom of Heaven is a historical action-drama set mostly in the Middle East during the Crusades of the 12th Century. We follow the main character, Bailan (Orlando Bloom) as he raises from a common English blacksmith to become a Baron and the defender of the City of Jerusalem, i.e. the "Kingdom of Heaven". The Christians have possession of the city (and have had it for over 100 years) The Kingdom of Heaven is a historical action-drama set mostly in the Middle East during the Crusades of the 12th Century. We follow the main character, Bailan (Orlando Bloom) as he raises from a common English blacksmith to become a Baron and the defender of the City of Jerusalem, i.e. the "Kingdom of Heaven". The Christians have possession of the city (and have had it for over 100 years) and the Moslems want it back. Ultimately, Bailan (and the audience) learns that the true Kingdom of Heaven exists in the mind and soul of man, not in a piece of ground. My expectations of this movie were not realized. The movie is 2 and 1/2 hours long and, frankly, drags a bit as the film attempts to explain the historical background and the importance of the religious conflict over Jerusalem ... ho-hum. The climatic battle scene was the high point of the movie, but even that had its drawbacks as the director, Ridley Scott, used some of that "fakey fast motion" to make the actors appear to be in frantic combat, much like he did in Gladiator. Sorry, only give this one a 6.75. Expand
  82. Kieran
    Sep 22, 2008
    6
    The best version of this film is the Directors Cut. Its adds 45 mins extra and is worth every second. Directors cut is a 10/10. This version misses too much and spoils the navative.
  83. WakoJ.
    May 11, 2005
    6
    This movie is a cross between Gladiator and The Return of the King, without the grandeur of the latter or the emotional heft of the former... Orlando Bloom should be named Orlando Bland. The movie is confusing and choppy at times, and, although not exactly boring, it never fully satisfies the way great epics do. OK for a rainy afternoon, but not a must-see.
  84. BlueFalcon
    Jun 13, 2005
    6
    It reminded me of gladiator, but not nearly as good.
  85. SolidS.
    Oct 19, 2005
    5
    I don't know why everybody likes this movie. The story line sucks, the acting is wood, and the action scenes are not up for the task. It is way over rated so I think 5 is very generous for it.
  86. KoolKeith
    May 6, 2005
    5
    I just got back from this movie and foud it to be very disappointing. I was expecting something like Gladitor, but this movie is much slower and it doesn't have very interesting characters. I advise to stay away from this movie and wait for Star Wars or Batman Begins to get your action fix.
  87. MarkK.
    Jul 6, 2007
    5
    Ridley Scott should take lessons in how to use action scenes to aid character development from Peter Jackson. 'Kingdom' drags to a crawl too often. The only effective scenes in 'Kingdom of Heaven' are the siege scenes you've already seen in L.O.R. Overall, a 'Kingdom' of a disappointment.
  88. TonyB.
    Oct 19, 2005
    5
    Produced on a grand scale, Kingdom of Heaven is a lumbering sometimes confusing spectacle. Surely, the fortune spent on it could have been used to finance a dozen scripts more worthy of coming to the screen. Orlando Bloom, while giving a generally decent performance, is way out of his depth here and not capable of carrying the film.
  89. DevonC.
    May 1, 2007
    5
    It started off with a good balance, then it got confusing as well as boring. William Monahan's writing was the only good thing about it. Ans also, bad casting, Orlando Bloom fits as a charming romantic character. But in this he's just, bad.
  90. Kyle
    May 11, 2005
    5
    Good battle sequences; Bloom was good. But man, this story was convoluted! The historical innaccuracies were annoying, an the tired old "all religions are the same" message was stifled by the very plotline used to attempt to convey it.
  91. DavidT
    Oct 24, 2005
    4
    Literally put me to sleep. First hour plods along at snails pace - plot is disjointed and the scripting is bland.
  92. FattyM.
    May 6, 2005
    4
    Wow, 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.
  93. SusanJ.
    Nov 2, 2005
    4
    This 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!
  94. BrutusO.
    May 17, 2005
    4
    Ponderous and meandering. The (highly dubious) romantic subplot was so facile as to to set a new low standard for historical epics - which is really saying something. Liam Neeson's preliminary involvement was also so uninteresting as to be unnecessary, and the bad guys (admittedly they were thoroughly nasty) were entirely peripheral to the plot as well. On the other hand, the battle Ponderous and meandering. The (highly dubious) romantic subplot was so facile as to to set a new low standard for historical epics - which is really saying something. Liam Neeson's preliminary involvement was also so uninteresting as to be unnecessary, and the bad guys (admittedly they were thoroughly nasty) were entirely peripheral to the plot as well. On the other hand, the battle scene for the fall of Jerusalem was sufficiently spectacular to give Lord of the Rings a run for its money, and there were a number of production values of note. Saladin's appearance towards the end gave the film a bit of a boost in terms of charisma as well. Shame about Orlando Bloom, the clunky dialogue, the random plot and the heavy handed exposition about how like, "barbaric" the Crusaders actually were. And a particular boo for the gratuitous CGI effect that ensured every fight scene (ie about half of the movie) was overlaid with spurts of arterial blood. So just an ordinary tale about a ditch digging, black-smithing, working class illegitimate boy (who just happens to inherit a vast desert property from his dad), before running off and forgetting all about his legacy in his rush to butcher thousands in an attempt to expiate his Catholic guilt about being a murderous nutter with a wife who committed suicide. As one does. Worse than Gladiator. I recommend arriving at the movie about an hour and ten minutes late, so you can skip the tiresome character development and the romance, and just catch the battle scene at the end. Expand
  95. Mar 4, 2013
    4
    Watch 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.
  96. 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
  97. IvorS.
    May 7, 2005
    3
    Highly disappointing, bad casting. Definitely Ridley Scott's worst film till date.
  98. 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.
  99. 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.
  100. 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
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?