I hadn't planned on getting this one, as I assumed this was just another one of those epic films that aspires to be the next Braveheart, but succeeds only to be its next rehashed, inferior imitation. Perhaps it's not that Braveheart is so much better than these other movies, or even any better at all, but it could have something to do with it being the first movie of its kind that I've seen which was enjoyable as the original, and redundant for all of those that appear strikingly similar that follow.
At least that's the way I've seen movies like Gladiator, and certainly The Patriot. Sure, they throw in a few twists and tweak it a little and set it in a different time and place, but it essentially boils down to some guy, who is often portrayed to just want to live in peace, who's then provoked and transformed into a fierce, tenacious warrior who will slaughter a whole country single-handedly if necessary. How many Karate Kids can a person take? Drawn out battle scene after battle scene ensues, the same old hand-to-hand combat and sword fights take place, the odds are stacked against the protagonist, and somehow as men are dropping around them like flies in what strangely appear to be choreographed combats by Bruce Lee with weapons, the protagonist remains, occasionally with an arrow in the buttocks or wounded in some other relatively benign place, but for the most part unscathed. Of course, anyone who hasn't fallen asleep is aware he must live on, no matter how bad he appears to be injured, or the movie ends there. I think even the people sleeping can take that much in through osmosis. I want to see a twenty minute version where the protagonist gets bumped off in the opening battle scene and it goes straight to the credits, THE END, 'the guy tried, but hey, how much can one man do?' but that never seems to happen. No, they must reserve him to the end of a 2 or 3 hour movie to then decide if and how they are going to martyr him or whatever will ensure the audience will know what a swell, heroic, honorable guy he was.
In spite of all of this, after reading Miraenda's review and Leigh's comments, I decided to go ahead and get it hoping it would be different. It was, to some extent.
The battle scenes were particularly well done as Miraenda had pointed out, and some interesting decisions had to be made, as Leigh mentioned, as well as some interesting dialogue that does take place between the survival of the fittest scenes.
I didn't bother to see Troy, but I think I like Kingdom of Heaven better than Ridley Scott's other big epic, Gladiator, from what I can recall of it, which isn't much, likely for the reasons I mentioned above. Maybe it's because I don't care much for Russell Crowe. Maybe it's because I like the fact that the protagonist in this film, Balian (Orlando Bloom) isn't simply avenging his wife's or lover's death which has been played out too many times already, but is instead avenging the wrong he recognizes they've committed the best way he knows how. He cares more about doing what he perceives to be right rather than simply fulfilling religious obligations, as this seemed to be the underlying message of the story.
Yeah, I'm the scoundrel who gave it the decent rating, because while it isn't really a kitschy film and may stand out as great particularly for those who haven't seen another like it, this one will likely fade away long before its predecessor, Braveheart (perhaps writing these comments are going to make it stick though
). Unfair comparison? Maybe, I dunno - and yeah, I acknowledge my bias.
Hey, I've now seen all of the movies that are listed in the Best Movie of 2005 poll. Well, all except for Other; haven't seen that one yet. Is it any good Miraenda? I'm going to add that to my queue right now. Hey, wait a minute...
Leigh, the future leader of a nation? What are we talking here, you mean like the Nation of Islam? I'm taking the next rocket to Pluto!
And where's that bananna-riding llama emote when I need it?
Meet Me in the Aisles
Poll
Author
Logged
)
