Quick Movie Reviews
Rating of
4/4
Logan D. McCoy - wrote on 06/23/2023
The theatrical cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" is rather murky and its characters aren't particularly deep, but I actually prefer it over Ridley Scott's bombastic and overrated "Gladiator." Furthermore, if you truly want to see something great, then the Director's Cut is just the ticket. The exciting battle sequences and grandeur are all still present, while the story this time is told with more clarity and enriched with essential character development. Except for Scott's own "Blade Runner - The Final Cut," no alternative version of a movie has done more to improve its state after its original release.
Rating of
4/4
Indyfreak - wrote on 07/25/2014
This is Ridley Scott's best epic to date. Not Gladiator. Bigger story, more fleshed out characters, and better action scenes, and an awesome soundtrack.
Rating of
2.5/4
Old Winter - wrote on 11/18/2012
A weak lead and a plot straight out of a cereal packet hampers this film greatly. The born on the wrong side of the blanket tedium is beyond groan worthy. Bloom's shortcomings were painfully easy to hear when rousing his troops on battle's eve. This is no Henry V moment. The action sequences and visuals are stunning and saves it from bargain bin B-movie.
Rating of
3/4
Mohammad - wrote on 07/17/2012
The plot is ok but the soundtrack of the movie is super awesome!!
Rating of
4/4
Zeljka - wrote on 05/25/2012
Full reviews of other fans here give enough praise to the movie - I'll just add my ten cents: please, skip the theatrical release, go straight for the director's cut. The first version had cut out mercilessly all the crucial scenes, dialogues and even characters that actually gave the real, deeper meaning to the whole movie. Without them, the movie was just an action flick like any other, except for being more visually attractive and set in the medieval times.
Rating of
2.5/4
mitchellyoung - wrote on 07/31/2011
There's a fascinating blend of story and history buried amid gruesome battle sequences and overlong dialogue segments. Ridley Scott, if he had censored himself and turned in a less bloated film, could have had a fascinating story of religion and honor, because the pieces are definitely there.
Rating of
2/4
PsychoKing1227 - wrote on 04/19/2010
The only interesting parts of this film were hidden by gruesome battle sequences that progressed little of the story. A magnified rendering of violence that is overplayed and underscored. Not the best film I've seen in years, but I will say that as of 2005, it was one of the better films, and this is of course not saying too much about it. Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson were also at the bottom of their game.
Rating of
3.5/4
TheRedDeath - wrote on 01/28/2008
I didn't like this movie at first, because it was the theatrical release. I found the plot confusing and the characters under-developed. But, later I managed to get my hands on the director's cut version and I thought i should give this movie another chance, having heard that the DC is way better. Boy, was I right! The long version is way better , bringing depth to the characters and making the plot less confusing and weird. Also, in both versions, Eva Green and Edward Norton do a stellar job.
Rating of
2/4
Alex - wrote on 05/20/2007
Disappointing. Bloom does at least muscle up a little bit, rather than being a hero of no personality (LOTR). Scott's flick doesn't portray the Crusades correctly in my mind. What happened to Gladiator? This is an average movie.
