You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Kingdom of Heaven: Film is more like purgatory
2005-05-06
A service of the Rantburg Film Review Board.
All signs point to Kingdom of Heaven having something to do with the Christian Crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries. If, that is, by "all signs" you mean the synopsis at Yahoo! Movies. Actually slogging through the film is another experience altogether. Director Ridley Scott's apparent stab at recapturing the success of Gladiator is a staggeringly lazy, leg-twitchingly dull, unholy mess.

This reign of dreariness stars Orlando Bloom, who has a frankly bizarre attraction to costume dramas (see Pirates of the Caribbean, Troy), as a blacksmith. The year is 1184. The place is France. The atmosphere is bleak. (Oh, and boring.) Bloom's character, Balian, is recently widowed and prone to staring moodily at fire. By tragic circumstance of era, he cannot simply get his life back together by appearing on a Dr. Phil episode about healthy grieving. So when Liam Neeson shows up, all "I am your father, Luke," Balian sets off on this fateful (boring) journey to Jerusalem.

If any of this sounds remotely diverting, it is important to remember that it is not. And the problem is not simply that Kingdom of Heaven is about 97 million hours long. It's as though Scott, along with first-time screenwriter William Monahan, has declared a jihad on entertainment value. The most engaging part of the movie comes a mere (and yet interminable) 15 minutes in, when Neeson's character suffers some grievous (and tedious) injury and is told of his uncertain fate. "Get me some more wine," he says wearily, and already you're right there with him.

Just how mind-numbing is this pseudo-epic? When I first scratched out most of these words, it was actually in the darkened theater while the movie was still playing -- despite my increasingly desperate entreaties to every deity imaginable. Nearly two hours in, the movie showed absolutely no indication it would ever stop. And it would be an exercise in futility to bother keeping track of the muddled plot.

When it comes right down to it, the measure of any movie is if it's worth your time and money. This is especially true for a major-budget summer action piece. Other than accomplishing the awesome feat of making Alexander look triumphant in comparison, this was utterly without value even when it was free and viewed as part of a workday.

As such, it seems amazing that Muslim anti-discrimination groups have been concerned about their religion's portrayal. The only thing Kingdom of Heaven is in danger of inciting is mass napping.
Posted by:Steve

#9  Uh, my apologies Steve. Of course I meant Phoebe. OOOPS. :-)! What I said, above, applies to Phoebe--guess I'll forward my response to her.
Posted by: ex-lib   2005-05-06 23:10  

#8  Ex-lib.

Half of this nym is wrong...
Posted by: Pappy   2005-05-06 22:15  

#7  I like reviews of train travel and high quality B&W (tasteful) glossies of railroad accidents.
Posted by: Phoebe Snow   2005-05-06 18:56  

#6  isn't that just like the AOS to circle the wagons with ...er..facts
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-06 18:34  

#5  As evidenced in Steve's overblown treatise here...

Uhhh, dude, the byline on the article is ''Phoebe Flowers''. Unless Steve is writing under a pseudonym, he only posted it.
Posted by: SteveS   2005-05-06 17:52  

#4  The movie review is one of my favourite writing genres, not least because in these PC times, its one of the few places that people can actually say what they think about something. I think we should have more RB movie reviews.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-06 17:33  

#3  Nah, I doubt it. I haven't seen a movie in a theatre since ''Apollo 13''.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-05-06 17:04  

#2  Steve: Wow. A lot of words to say only that YOU happened to have found the film boring.

Any decent writer can craft a clever insult session and call it a ''critique'' or a ''review,'' but few can actually provide a reasoned discourse on films.

As evidenced in Steve’s overblown treatise here, I found his “slash-and-burn” approach to be a case in point. Steve's so-called “review” lacked substance and amounted to nothing more than pretentious drivel couched in media-speak. I’m certain he will be welcomed by the worthless cadre of self-acclaimed ''film critics'' overpopulating many of the nation's newspapers and magazines, who offer much of the same inflated nothingness.

Therefore, I would urge people to make their own decisions about the ENTERTAINMENT they choose, and stop taking movies (i.e., fiction) so seriously. Besides, I’m sure it’s worth $8 for the spectacle/escapism aspect alone. After all, it’s a fact that Ridley Scott does a pretty good job directing/producing. At least some think so.

All that said, I'm not sure if Orlando Bloom is mature enough, or has enough depth of experience or personal character to handle the role he was selected for. From the previews it looked like he was working hard, but struggling. We shall see. Many other fine actors worth noting, though--and you can be sure Ridley has, as usual, expected a lot from them and has pushed them in their acting abilities.

So ignore Steve, calm down, and go see it. Remember that you probably waste more money each month on uneaten groceries. And if you’re still worried about it, bring a pillow.
Posted by: ex-lib   2005-05-06 16:47  

#1  I read it has CAIR's Seal of Approval so it wasn't on my list of weekend things to do. The fact that it also seems to suck makes me feel even better about taking a pass.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-05-06 15:45  

00:00