|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
Le commentaire favorable le plus utile
Le commentaire critique le plus utile
15 internautes sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
KOH Director's Cut
Kingdom of Heaven, the Director's Cut, is steeped in history and faithful to the Middle Ages. The time period was filled with religious and political hypocrisy, cruelty and greed, where innocent people suffered for the power and land grabs of kings and religious leaders--sound familiar?
Ridley Scott presents his vision of the Middle Ages and the Crusades with...
Publié le Mai 31 2006 par Teresac
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 5 étoiles, 4 étoiles |
 |
8 internautes sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Kingdom of Heaven is a decent epic
The film isn't incredibly memorable; it won't go into the annals of filmdom like `Lawrence of Arabia,' `Lord of the Rings' or `Gladiator.' To me this film can be viewed on a rainy day. `Kingdom of Heaven' has the action, excitement, and interest. The story, the cinematography, and the acting are fine as well but I think the film misses its attempt to have an emotional...
Publié le Juil 5 2007 par Jenny J.J.I.
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 3 étoiles, 2 étoiles, 1 étoiles |
|
|
15 internautes sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
KOH Director's Cut, Mai 31 2006
Kingdom of Heaven, the Director's Cut, is steeped in history and faithful to the Middle Ages. The time period was filled with religious and political hypocrisy, cruelty and greed, where innocent people suffered for the power and land grabs of kings and religious leaders--sound familiar?
Ridley Scott presents his vision of the Middle Ages and the Crusades with rich colours, beautiful architecture, panoramic vistas, glorious costumes, and in my opinion, with a certain sarcastic and almost angry tone to the script. William Monahan's script was written in a way to show the viewer that even though the film is about those wars that occurred almost one thousand years ago, those wars are still occurring today. And those wars still lead to the intolerable suffering of innocent people.
There is a truly revolutionary subtext in the script. The oath that Balian takes when he knighted by Godfrey (played by Liam Neeson): 'Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth, always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless. Do no wrong', is an oath we should all take, with or without the God reference. We could all 'do the right thing' and in doing so, we could create a 'Kingdom of Conscience'. This idea is peppered throughout the film, and it makes one think: if we all acted ethically, there would be a lot less government and coercive religion, but more importantly, THERE WOULD BE NO WAR.
The actors were well-cast for their roles. Orlando Bloom is perfect as Balian. His role requires intelligence, skepticism, ethical and physical strength, and Bloom got it exactly right. Ghassan Massoud, who plays Saladin, has a truly majestic presence on the screen that makes it easy for the viewer to believe the history--that Saladin was one of the greatest warrior kings, ever.
There are some shots of battle scenes that owners of the Lord of the Rings extended edition will recognize. The raid at Osgiliath, the battle at Helm's Deep, the charge at Pelennor Fields and the siege of Gondor seem to have been transplanted from Middle Earth to the Middle East, but it is astonishing to see how much more life-like, gritty and violent Ridley Scott has filmed battle scenes.
Anyone who is a history nut for the period will be rolling in catnip. Again, in my opinion, this film could be a lot longer, perhaps giving more historical background, considering all the back and forth that went on between kings and popes, etc. Sir Ridley, if you read this . . .
Kingdom of Heaven is one of the best films I have ever seen.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 internautes sur 11 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
never trust a studio... an Epic reborn, Mai 26 2006
After watching the theatrical cut of the film I was dazzled by Ridley Scott's great visual style but left cold by the muddy storyline and character development. In this new 3hr cut the film is now one of my favorites of last year. The story has been fleshed out and even Orlando Bloom, who I thought was wildly miscast, seems perfect and convincing in the lead. Basically the studio thought that by cutting an hour of drama and leaving only battle scenes would make the film more exciting. WRONG. the new version flows seamlessly and I was never bored a moment. Unlike the dir cut. of GLadiator which the added scenes seemed tacked on and tedious, the new stuff here is absolutley essential. If you totally hated the first cut then you will probably won't like this either, but if you thought the film was good but could have been great I really advise you to check this out. I really think it's one of Scott's best films ( and if this version would have been released first I think it could have got a best picture nomination) oh well.........As for the set itself. the 4disc coll. is superb. the 3hr making of doc is almost too comprehensive, with a good commentary by Scott and Bloom, complete marketing campaign and dts sound to boot. Simply one of the best dvds of 2006 so far... enjoy!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
What is Jerusalem worth? nothing, EVEEEERYYYYYTHHHHHIIIIINGGGGG., Nov. 14 2007
Kingdom of Heaven in 2005 will be what Gladiator was in 2000. Ridley Scott has delivered a worthy follow up to his Oscar winner, which is also based on medieval times, with a central heroic character, and supporting casts of characters based on history.
The sets are as spectacular, instead of just Rome and the Collesuem, we have the Middle East and Jerusalem. The costumes are beautiful, from intricately remade Knights armour, to the desert garb of the Muslim warriors. The soundtrack is a mixture of sounds with middle eastern influences, but somehow pales in comparison with Gladiator and lacks a central theme.
Much is said about how the film portrays religion, given the sensitive subject of the Crusades, but I feel that Ridley has achieved a wonderful balance between how Christianity and Islam are portrayed. Both are given fair airtime on their ideologies, and the film tries to preach (pardon the pun) about tolerance, yet highlights the dangers of fanatical followers of both religions, of misguidance from men in search of worldly power.
Which Christianity took a beating - where senseless battles are waged in the name of Christ, where insensitivity breed contempt. Preists are cast in negative light and given lines like "convert to Islam, repent later" when all around seems lost. It is emphasized in the show that what matters is in your head and in your heart - that noble actions speak louder than mere empty and repetitive "praise the Lord" chants, as if that will protect you during Judgement Day.
Orlando Bloom plays Balian, a blacksmith who became a fugitive, but inherited land and army from his father, Godfrey, played by Liam Neeson. The film can be broadly categorized into 3 acts - the first in which Balian searches for his identity and new life in Jerusalem, the second in which the focus is on religion and politics of the time, and the last, the spectacular siege and war.
Bloom puts up a commendable performance, so to his detractors out there, you're in for a big surprise. Edward Norton had the difficult task of acting through a mask as leper King Baldwin, and I applaud Ridley's decision of casting real Muslim actors to learn from them.
Fans of Eva Green might be disappointed that the relationship between Balian and Queen Sibylla was played down to focus on the battles, but I feel it's a fair trade off.
Firstly, some of you might not like the quick-cut-MTV style editing in Gladiator's fight scenes, especially the close ups. This is repeated here though, in a blood splattering manner. The pan-out and general landscape sweeps are mindblowing, and will leave you wanting more. Think about the battles that you see Lord of The Rings Two Towers and Return of the King - the siege on Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith - Kingdom of Heaven delivers the equivalent, probably even better (without the fantasy elements). This is one medieval war movie whose battles will stick in your mind for some time.
All things said and done I found this movie to be very entertaining. It's visually stunning, reasonably well acted with a decent script and some nice characters. What it lacks in coherence and story it makes up for with a strong and quick pace (for the genre) and some truly impressive action scenes. Wolfgang Petersson and Oliver Stone should watch this before they even think of making another historic epic. Because Ridley Scott has learned the important lesson so well put in "Gladiator": the people want to be entertained
The Muslim characters in the movie consists of Saladin (Ghassan Massoud)and , Muslim Grandee (Nasser Memazia who want Jerusalem for other uses such as for the nation of Islam. I should say the Muslim characters in this film get a large bulk of screen time. Furthermore, their characters are treated with respect and almost admiration. In fact Scott tells us their back story as well and we see display of Muslim religion in the movie such as Muslim praying in mosques and in the city of Jerusalem.
This reminds me of the Palestian/Israeli conflict of sorts where you have both sides that believe in God but are battling for the control of one city, despite the fact that they both profess to believing in God. Some questions to ponder are these other people with religious ideals worse than we say they are, or are they merely some religious fanatics misusing the name of God for power? Couple that the moral questions that almost every character goes through and the questioning and denouncement and spiritual awakening of God and my you got yourself a thought provoking film
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 internautes sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Kingdom of Heaven is a decent epic, Juil 5 2007
The film isn't incredibly memorable; it won't go into the annals of filmdom like `Lawrence of Arabia,' `Lord of the Rings' or `Gladiator.' To me this film can be viewed on a rainy day. `Kingdom of Heaven' has the action, excitement, and interest. The story, the cinematography, and the acting are fine as well but I think the film misses its attempt to have an emotional core. It's primary focus is on the politics of the situation between the Christians and Muslims and the kings of both sides. But all films require an emotional core around the central characters to work well, or it's just pages out of a fictional textbook.
Part of the problem is the writing. The writers mention the tragic loss of the lead character's wife, and there is a very touching scene on the Mount, but then the matter is subsequently dropped. The writers mention the need of the lead character to redeem himself, and it is barely mentioned again until the very end. This redemption does have a nice payoff at the end, but by the time that happens you've forgotten all about it. There is also a minor plot element regarding a romance between two characters, but that too is almost forgotten until the end (where there isn't the best payoff).
The other problem is Orlando Bloom. He simply lacks the passion to be a lead character. He is fine in the broody, silent, reflective moments, but he does not project any sort of passion when required. He can't portray anger, or grief, or inspiration, or joy very well. It's something he should clearly work on, it's going to keep him back from truly being a great actor.
The film does have redeeming moments, such as the siege of Jerusalem and the humor only brothers-in-arms could create, much less appreciate. The cinematography, set design and costumes are beautiful, and the action is believable and exciting yet not gory. Ridley Scott's `Kingdom of Heaven' is a good epic and for those who likes this genre will enjoy it.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Extended version makes film a true epic, Sep 7 2008
Sometimes I really think that Ridley Scott should stand up to his producers. I've lost count of the different ways he's remade Blade Runner, he clearly wasn't happy with the final cut of Gladiator (or he's just reselling old material); and in this case he should have stuck to his guns and kept a substantial amount of material in. The original release is a marginal historical epic with a couple of gorgeous shots, but the extended version really develops characters further, widens the scope of the film, and, to put it bluntly, makes more sense. Once you see how certain scenes were meant to look, you'll be amazed at the ways in which he consented to butcher his own film.
The fundamental weakness of the film remains unalterable - and that is Orlando Bloom. Great Legolas, great Will Turner, but lacks the gravity to be the centrepoint of an epic film. I don't know why this is so - I like the guy and enjoy his acting - but he just doesn't carry things in the manner of, say, Russell Crowe in Gladiator.
Despite the film's weaknesses - in acting, in ambiguous dialogue, in some real historical whoppers - I like it. Scott is tackling an area of history where angels fear to tread, and I think that he really manages to give the audience a wonderful Salah ad-Din, and a solid Reynald of Chatillon (apart from some silly shouting). Liam Neeson as Godfrey is wonderfully dry, and probably shouldn't have gone back to France to find his son.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surprising in both added scenes and lack of any extras, Juil 11 2009
I did enjoy the movie when I first saw it in the theater, and since I find Eva Green mesmerizing, I thought I'd get the Blu-ray director's cut.
There's a wealth of new material added into the movie, and some of it is quite interesting. There's a bit more set up, more character build up and background that explains the motivation of the key players. And that has pros and cons.
The cons are that the director's cut feels sluggish, whereas the theatrical version which I seem to remember was more frantic (throwing Bloom's character into the pilgrimage within minutes of the opening) felt more appropriate for a story set in the bedlam that was the middle east of that period.
The pros are that if you loved the movie in its original release, well, this time you get a bit more. This is the third director's cut I've seen from Mr. Scott, the others being Blade Runner: The Final Cut (2-Disc Special Edition) and Legend (Ultimate Edition); and I gotta say that I would side with the movie execs in each one of these 3 instances.
The original release was a good movie (but as one other reviewer mentioned not matching the power of Scott's earlier Gladiator (2 Discs), nor anywhere near the epic and truly beautiful classic Lawrence of Arabia (Widescreen)), and the added material did not make it great; I'm not even sure it made it better.
What's truly amazing is that with all the space available on a Blu-ray disk, we don't get the theatrical version, commentary tracks, interesting tid-bits about the making of the movie, or about the historical figures that appear in the movie. I've taken this for granted, since most recent DVDs offer such material.
So I'd rate the movie as ****, but the Blu-ray package as a **. Then I'm averaging it out. Then I'm tempted to take away a * 'cause I like bringing some balance into the average review which seems a tad inflated, but I won't.
I apologize in advance to all those who loved the movie and thought it was epic, or that it gave insight into something that is fascinating and fascinatingly hard to comprehend; I'm being vague on purpose - again, not to offend.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
An epic, Fév 15 2009
I can not believe this film did not do well in North America. It goes to show you the mentality of the people. Scott will be remembered as another Kubrick. It must be watched in Blueray on a 50" tv to appreciate the visuals. Scott's work will be studied in schools if not already. For those who are religious it will create interest in the Crusades. I found that I reflected on my own beliefs. I want to go to the city of heaven.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
great movie,poor casting choice in lead role (4.5/5), Oct. 22 2007
Kingdom of Heaven is another Ridley Scott epic,set during the time of
the Crusades in the 12th century,a time of war between the Christians
and the Muslims.Orlando Bloom plays Balian,a humble blacksmith who ends
up traveling to Jeruselum and(inadvertently) becomes defender of the
city and its people.I really enjoyed this film.Scott shows again why he
is so sought after as a director.the film contains epic battle
scenes,is beautifully photographed and very well paced.there only a few
minor problems with the film.one is the fact that a humble blacksmith
with little if any training would become a skilled warrior in the very
limited time shown in the film.also the fact that this same man would
then become leader of a nation.that seems a bit beyond the realm of
plausibility.and the casting of Orlando bloom is really weak.He is not
someone who would inspire confidence,mainly because he is too young and
lacks the maturity for the role.the rest of the film is well done,very
entertaining.again,it may not be historically accurate,but so what.you
want historical accuracy,watch the History channel.if you want an
entertaining piece of cinema,watch this movie.normally a movie this
well made would rate a perfect 5* but due to the poor casting of
Orlando Bloom,Kingdom of Heaven gets a 4.5/5
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great but not perfect, and I'm not sure exactly why., Fév 11 2007
Quickly: a good epic, more historically accurate then I guessed, a bit preachy when you think about modern relavence.
Summary: Blacksmith who's wife commits suicide is recruited by his father to join the Crusades and purge his and his wife's sins in Jerusalem by defending the city from Muslims. Father and son bonding followed by father dieing and making the boy a knight and giving him the task of saving the people of Jerusalem. A Lepper king keeps the peace but doesn't last long. An evil ambitious knight gets the trone, and starts a war. Jerusalem is seiged and it's up to the lone Knight (the son) to save her. That's basically it, but it's a Ridley Scott movie so there is of course 100 other things going on and many sub-plots.
The Good: the battle scenes were amazing. Very brutal and very real looking. 99% of the characters were deep enough to be believe and well acted. The story was definately epic and took in a long time period. The story wasn't that contrived, you didn't sit there at the begining of the movie and guess what the ending was. It didn't have the fairytale ending I expected, though it was still a little 'nice', but a far cry from most Hollywood happy endings. The Saladin character was done perfectly, I actually liked him way more then any of the 'good' guys. The seige at the end even if a bit 'hollywood' was great to watch and made me really want to play Warhammer. The DVD special features were pretty good, there was a good mix and the 2nd A&E documentary was excellent.
The Bad: There were times when the pacing just didn't keep up. You would jump from a great battle to a lul that lasted too long. According to the special features this was done so that the audience wouldn't get exhausted by action, I think that may have been preferable. The first A&E documentary was horrible. It was supposed to tell you what was fact and what was fiction but only really existed to promote the movie. The hollywooding up of the Siege was annoying. It was a great scene but why was EVERYTHING on fire. Every arrow shot, every rock hurled, everything had to be on fire and blow up when it hit something. They took the one good knight thing a bit far. This is also typicall hollywood, where the one hero does it all, everything! Ever discussion, every fight, every battle, he had to be there as the voice of reason or the heroic saviour.
The Ugly: This didn't bother me but I know it bothered at least one person I watched this with: the battles and some other seens were rather gory. I found it added to the realism, but it is a bit much for a weak stomach. The historical editing. You know most of this was taken from history, which supprised me, but what I hated is that they took years of time and compressed them to what felt like a couple weeks in the movie. This ruined certain characters. For example Reignald (sp) was to have spent 15 years in a Muslim prision, that was his driving reason for breaking the truce. In the movie he was mad long before being imprisioned and it felt like he was only in there for a week or so. This isn't the only instance.
Overall: This was pretty good. I should have loved it, based on the time period and the story, but for some reason it was just okay. Well actually it's better then okay, but I just wasn't great. I can't even put a finger on exactly what was wrong, or what they could have done to fix it. It's worht seeing, and then definately watch the 2nd A&E documentary and find out just how much of the movie WAS based on fact (that was very suprising). I suggest a rent though, though I can see some people buying just to watch certain battles over again and again.
Final note: the one thing that I think bothered me about this is the parallel to modern times. It just feels like Ridley was making some social commentary (We should have learned from the past) that left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it's the perfect time for a movie like this to come out, maybe not. But that could be what I didn't like.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome, Déc 28 2006
This is a super-passionate, super-intense, super well-done film. I wanted to see it in the theaters, and I'm really glad I installed my surround sound on the HD Plasma TV before I got this disc. Awesome!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ce produit
|
|
D'occasion et Neuf à partir de : CDN$ 12.27
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Les clients qui ont vu cet article ont aussi vu
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
![Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World [Blu-ray]](http://img.amazon.ca/images/P/B000VE4376.01._SL160_PE55_OU15_SCLZZZZZZZ_SL90_V263346038_.jpg)
![Troy (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray]](http://img.amazon.ca/images/P/B000VBJEAU.01._SL160_PE31_OU15_SCLZZZZZZZ_SL90_V265248928_.jpg)
