User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 325 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 32 out of 325
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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
    Collapse
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. MiguelS.
    May 7, 2005
    9
    Very good film, not perfect, but good. Visually Stunning. Amazing battle scenes. Ridley Scott is a great EPICS director.
  14. 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
  15. PatW
    May 2, 2005
    7
    Not even David Lean hey, Terry?
  16. 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.
  17. BarbN.
    May 5, 2005
    1
    What an over-produced, self-important bore.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. IvorS.
    May 7, 2005
    3
    Highly disappointing, bad casting. Definitely Ridley Scott's worst film till date.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. MonteF.
    Aug 11, 2005
    8
    Though a little too politically correct, this was an entertaining movie with great graphics.
  26. 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.
  27. GregoryM.
    Mar 23, 2006
    10
    Excellent piece. Balanced and moving.
  28. 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.
  29. joe
    Oct 19, 2005
    10
    Good movie.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. BB
    May 13, 2005
    7
    It's a good film, but it never gave me that "Gladiator-feeling". Still much much better than Troy.
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. DanL.
    May 28, 2005
    9
    Better than Gladiator.
  37. 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
  38. JohnF.
    May 5, 2005
    9
    Very entertaining movie. Strong story and much better than Troy or Alexander.
  39. SilvaA.
    May 5, 2005
    10
    Great Movie. And a lot better than Troy or Alexander. Loved the performance.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. Pantail
    May 6, 2005
    9
    Though it's not a classic one, it's still so fantastic.
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. M.I.A.
    May 7, 2005
    7
    It was good. That's all I can say.
  51. 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..
  52. JakeM.
    May 7, 2005
    6
    It is a bit muddled. But also glorious. And Orlando is stirring.
  53. AdamL
    May 8, 2005
    0
    Great! A movie that glorifies the Nazi's ! (Oops, I mean Crusaders...).
  54. MarkR.
    May 8, 2005
    8
    A thinking man's action feature.
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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!
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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
  63. 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!
  64. 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.
  65. 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!
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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 !!!!!!!! )
  71. 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
  72. LarryR
    May 26, 2005
    10
    Excellent epic, attention to detail fantastic, and a happy ending to boot!
  73. 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!!
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. TelyS.
    May 6, 2005
    3
    How do you create a politically correct version of the Crusades? By lying.
  77. 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
  78. 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.
  79. 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.
  80. 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
  81. 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.
  82. JeromeF.
    May 9, 2005
    0
    The story was uninvolvling. The actors were unengaging. The visuals for unoriginal. What more needs to be said.
  83. 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
  84. AlanaV.
    Jun 15, 2005
    8
    It was alright i couldn't really follow the story at some points.
  85. 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.
  86. 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!!!!!!
  87. 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
  88. bilalb.
    Aug 26, 2005
    10
    It is a perfect film ? have ever watched.
  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. 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.
  91. 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.
  92. FabienL.
    Nov 28, 2005
    8
    Quite an interesting piece of history, great cast, great photography.
  93. [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
  94. TerryK.
    Oct 16, 2005
    10
    This is a great movie. Ridley creates an incredible world, and Orlando in habits it with understated finesse.
  95. 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.
  96. 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!
  97. 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.
  98. 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.
  99. 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
  100. 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.
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?