Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the Crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the Crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the Crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.
Videos8
See production, box office, & company info
It is the time of the Crusades during the Middle Ages -- the world-shaping 200-year collision between Europe and the East. A blacksmith named Balian has lost his family and nearly his faith. The religious wars raging in the far-off Holy Land seem remote to him, yet he is pulled into that immense drama. Amid the pageantry and intrigues of medieval Jerusalem, he falls in love, grows into a leader, and ultimately uses all his courage and skill to defend the city against staggering odds. Destiny comes seeking Balian in the form of a great knight, Godfrey of Ibelin, a Crusader briefly home to France from fighting in the East. Revealing himself as Balian's father, Godfrey shows him the true meaning of knighthood and takes him on a journey across continents to the fabled Holy City. In Jerusalem at that moment--between the Second and Third Crusades--a fragile peace prevails, through the efforts of its enlightened Christian king, Baldwin IV, aided by his advisor Tiberias, and the military restraint of the legendary Muslim leader Saladin Ayubi. But Baldwin's days are numbered, and strains of fanaticism, greed, and jealousy among the Crusaders threaten to shatter the truce. King Baldwin's vision of peace--a kingdom of heaven--is shared by a handful of knights, including Godfrey of Ibelin, who swear to uphold it with their lives and honor. As Godfrey passes his sword to his son, he also passes on that sacred oath: to protect the helpless, safeguard the peace, and work toward harmony between religions and cultures, so that a kingdom of heaven can flourish on earth. Balian takes the sword and steps into history. —Sujit R. Varma
Top review
Watch the 3+ Hour Director's Cut, not the Studio's 2+ Hour Butchered Cut
There are two versions of this movie that are strikingly different in their impact and emotional meaning. The theatrical release is a 2-plus hour-long studio edit. The director's cut is 3-plus hour-long edit that was released later. I watched both versions back-to-back, and without question, the director's cut is the superior. It's not just a matter of additional footage putting more meat on the bone--more heart is added to the film as well.
The movie is a violent and gritty portrayal of the Crusades era in medieval times, but wrestles artfully with complex issues of faith, morality, justice and diversity and what it means to live a godly life. Apparently, the studio decided such thematic depth was a drawback and that audiences are mostly superficial morons, so they insisted on an edit that presented it as an action movie, leaving in just enough character development to feebly sew the action scenes together. In the process, not only character motivation was lost, but important plot developments in the story.
After watching the shorter edit first--which seemed disjointed and filled with holes in the way of crappy edits--I had to go look up the movie's synopsis online to understand what the hell I had watched. In the director's cut, it was much clearer. But the biggest difference is the thought-provoking character development and dialogue scenes throughout that bring an intelligence to the primitive times being depicted.
At the end of the studio edit, I felt uninspired and filled with a sense that the movie had many missed opportunities.
At the end of the director's cut, I felt I had seen a real movie with real ideas. And I was left thinking about it.
Ridley Scott has had some bad luck with studio interference in his edits, most memorably with the two versions of "Blade Runner." You would think they'd trust his instincts after all this time.
The movie is a violent and gritty portrayal of the Crusades era in medieval times, but wrestles artfully with complex issues of faith, morality, justice and diversity and what it means to live a godly life. Apparently, the studio decided such thematic depth was a drawback and that audiences are mostly superficial morons, so they insisted on an edit that presented it as an action movie, leaving in just enough character development to feebly sew the action scenes together. In the process, not only character motivation was lost, but important plot developments in the story.
After watching the shorter edit first--which seemed disjointed and filled with holes in the way of crappy edits--I had to go look up the movie's synopsis online to understand what the hell I had watched. In the director's cut, it was much clearer. But the biggest difference is the thought-provoking character development and dialogue scenes throughout that bring an intelligence to the primitive times being depicted.
At the end of the studio edit, I felt uninspired and filled with a sense that the movie had many missed opportunities.
At the end of the director's cut, I felt I had seen a real movie with real ideas. And I was left thinking about it.
Ridley Scott has had some bad luck with studio interference in his edits, most memorably with the two versions of "Blade Runner." You would think they'd trust his instincts after all this time.
helpful•220
- Walter_Probinsky
- Apr 27, 2019
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
Is Kingdom of Heaven (2005) known by a different name in India in Hindi? If yes, what is it known as?
Answer
Recently viewed
You have no recently viewed pages