Log in

View Full Version : Kingdom of Heaven revisited


Skybird
03-05-08, 06:30 PM
I think it was in 2005 that Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" was released in the cinemas. It triggered very two-split opinions back then, on the one hand people respected the typical Scott-o-vision overkill visual presentation, on the other hand people left the cinema with many questions and doubts about the ripeness of the screenplay, the complete painting of the characters, the sometimes strange dialogues, the lacking motives which left the main character acting one-dimensional and superficial, in short, the whole thing felt unbelievable and somehow incomplete.

Meanwhile we learned that indeed the co-financers demanded Scott to take the scissor and cut the film very drastically. In fact, this is one of the most badly cut and and shortened movies I know of. A complete parallel theme of action, focusing on the story of the Sybilla character, was left out, also the background history of Balian.

The so-called 3 century director's cut edition is available since longer now, but it was not before last week that I had enough interest again after the mixed experience of back then to give this new cut a try and buy it second hand. When I saw the commercial cut at the movies, I first was impressed, but in the following days was more and more let down by it. The director's cut now adds close to 50 minutes. That means that almost one third of the full material Scott intended to release in 2005 - was cut out by demand of the producers! He has a reputation to be a difficult-to-deal-with director. I can only imagine how massive the fight behind the curtain must have been before they managed to force him down - the very huge disadvantage of the version that then came to the movies.

And the reattached material makes the all important difference! I watched it this evening, and was left most impressed, what before looked like school theatre groups playacting on a fairy tale stage, turned out to be a well thought-out story with richer detail in character description, and an additional plot that suddenly lead all the open ends from before to a convincing conclusion, and finally brought story and character description on eye level with the overwhelming visual presentation. I now rate this as one of Scott's best movies, not en par with Blade Runner and Gladiator, but better than almost all his others.

If you saw the movie version back then and felt disappointed, give the director's cut a second try and enjoy 3 hours of cinema at it's finest - I'm sure you won't regret it. I for myself was completely fascinated.

Only rarely a direcor's cut was in so urgent need, like here. It adds not only much more time, but also quality, and story-telling. A very spectacular enhancement!

August
03-05-08, 06:41 PM
Nice write up. Thanks Skybird! :up:

kiwi_2005
03-05-08, 06:45 PM
Will try to look for this version, yeah i saw the original but this sounds better.

mrbeast
03-05-08, 06:48 PM
Fully agree with you there Skybird! :up:

I got the extended version some time ago and it is a completey different and, IMO, greatly superior film. I saw the original cut version at the cinema when it was first released and while I liked it I always felt it lacked something. Those extra 50 minutes really turn a good film into a brilliant one.

Definately one of Scotts best. :rock:

Dmitry Markov
03-05-08, 11:41 PM
Thanks, Skybird!

I like this film very very much indeed. It leaves pleasant aftertaste and makes you think. Me and my wife - we watch first version DVD from time to time. It really seems to be severely cut and I don't believe it was Scott's intent to shoot and edit the film the way it was released in the cinemas. Scott is one of my favorite directors of all times and every time it is obvious where there are his decisions and where the producer's decisions are.

I would immediately go to the DVD-store!

Best Regards!

Dowly
03-06-08, 12:54 AM
Aye, I have the extended edition. I though it was just another "Hey, here's an extended edition with 3 minutes of more credits" but seems not. I couldnt even think about watching the shortened version. Great movie, another masterpiece from Scott. :up:

Skybird
03-06-08, 02:41 AM
Forgot to mention: the DVD box has four DVDs, two with the movie, two more with the usual "docu assault".

Rotary Crewman
03-06-08, 04:20 AM
Heading through the Subsim store now to purchase it.

Also I see that Troy and Alexander have director cuts now. Anyone seen these and do they make good films great?

Skybird
03-06-08, 04:48 AM
Troy is very superficial, shallow, and ignores Homer to 66% if not more. You get plenty of stunning visuals - but that is all that you get. Watch it once, never watch it again. Brad Pitt, though, plays the Archilles in young storming Siegfried-style, that was at least amusing.

Alexander simply was - boring, and the characters and the cast did not convince me. I switched off in the middle of it.

Both movies focus too much on visual effects, have thin stories, and shallow characters. If I want effect movie, I would prefer others. Since Troy does at least not hide that it is not more than it is and thus fulfills it'S limited goals - not more -, Alexander raised self-declared claims of how much quality and depth and characterisation of the main figur it has to offer - but does not fulfill these self-images and thus fails, and fails pretty miserably by claiming to be more than it is.

Dmitry Markov
03-06-08, 07:16 AM
As for Troy - I prefer to watch movies as themselves - I never watch them from the point of view "does it have good connectivity with written masterpiece or does not". So for me it doesn't matter that there are less then 66% of Homer in film - movie is movie and book is book.
I went to see Troy in cinema right after couple of hours of hard kendo training and I've been watching the movie beeing in kendo state of my mind. So battle sequences seemed to me very convincing... As for other aspects - I agree with Skybird - it is quite shallow but IMHO this comes from realistic approach to story-telling. I think the story of the real Troy is also quite shallow as any other real story is. Symbolism, characters, drama and so on appears afterwards - in hands of poet or artist. Real people just solve real issues of the day and there is nothing too deep in it (But maybe it is the deepest thing in itself who knows :hmm: ).

Best Regards!

Rotary Crewman
03-06-08, 07:26 AM
I'm with Dmitry on this one. The movies were very good for what they were.

So going back to my original question, are the extended versions of Troy and Alexander any better than the originals?

mrbeast
03-06-08, 08:56 AM
Can't really see an extended Troy being much better than the original cut. Will probably just be more of the same.

Oliver Stone has struggled with Alexander since its release. I think its been through about 4 cuts so far. I'm tempted to buy the new Alexander. But as to it being any better: I don't think it can be. Ok so one or two things might be corrected or improved upon but there are major flaws that mar what could and should have been a good film. For a start the casting is poor. Angelina Jolie and Colin Farrell are woefully miss-cast in the two most important roles in the film. The accents are plain silly and it cuts out a lot of the story of Alexander, shooting strait to the defeat of the Persian Empire in the fairly early stages of the film.

I can see what Stone was trying to do in the film its just a shame it turned out so bad.

IMO the story of Alexander could only truely be done justice in a 3 part epic like Lord of the Rings, with plenty of battles.:up: