I saw Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven - Director’s Cut (2005) yesterday. An epic that has a lot on its mind and many things to say about the Crusaders, all backed up by excellent production design, cinematogrpahy and editing. The acting too, is unexpectably good with Orlando Bloom a surprisingly fitting choice for our hero, even if Edward Norton steals all acting honours.
[quote=“John Welles, post:2401, topic:1923”]I saw Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven - Director’s Cut (2005) yesterday. An epic that has a lot on its mind and many things to say about the Crusaders, all backed up by excellent production design, cinematogrpahy and editing. The acting too, is unexpectably good with Orlando Bloom a surprisingly fitting choice for our hero, even if Edward Norton steals all acting honours.[/quote] i have this in my dvd collection, John and i don’t really know why this film got a lot of bad reviews, it is not a classic epic, but isn’t bad and is certainly watchable.
I have never seen the Director’s Cut; I saw the film in cinema and afterwards on DVD, but that was again the theatrical cut. The longer version was never released on DVD in Holland or Belgium (only on Blu-ray) and I never bothered to order the expensive 4-disc version that was offered on the net (I guess it’s cheaper now).
I didn’t dislike the movie, but didn’t love it either. The production design was magnificent and there were a few tremendous action scenes, especially near the end, but all in all there was too much Hollywood dross, with Arabs speaking Arabic in one scene and English in the next one (even to each other), a sloppy pacing, too many uninspired moments, and a fatally miscast actor in the lead. Bloom is not a bad actor, but he’s not the right man in the right place. He is no Russel Crowe.
I was a also disappointed because I had loved Gladiator and therefore had very high expectations. Wow, a film about the Crusades! Made by Ridley Scott! Wow! Well, not so wow. Gladiator has a lot of Hollywood nonsense too (and the script is not much more than a more potent version of The Fall of the Roman Empire), but it seemed not to harm the movie, in the case of Kingdom it did. Why? Probably because the Crusades have more relevance to our days than the days of Commodus and his gladiator games. In the case of a movie about a Roman general fighting a mad Caesar, it’s not that important that the story doesn’t make much sense, but when crusaders are fighting muslims over the Holy Land, things are different.
But, as said, I have never seen the longer version. The extra scenes won’t erase some of the shortcomings I mentioned, but maybe they can do something about those lulls, and the rather sloppy storytelling of the movie. I have seen before that a longer version of a movie actually seemed shorter, simply because it was more coherent. I’ll probably have to wait until I’ll have a Blu-ray to watch the longer version.
Well, as I said; the extended cut adds a lot more to it than the theatrical cut. The story is more potent and more thoughtful.
Almost everyone involved in the film said the extended cut is the better cut as it is just better.
And you’re right about Gladiator being basically another version of Samuel Bronston’s production.
Watched THE DESIGNATED VICTIM and I enjoyed it although the murders could have been bloodier.
I also watched COMMANDO with Arnie which I haven’t seen in years, good brainless fun.
Re Kingdom of Heaven:
I’ve never seen the Theatrical Cut, and by all accounts, I don’t want to, as 20[sup]th[/sup] Century Fox seemed to have cut out some of the best bits (like King Baldwin V). So perhaps you should give it ago - from what I have heard the Director’s Cut is very, very differant from what was released in the cinemas.
[size=12pt]Stick[/size] (1985, Burt Reynolds)
Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard (who co-wrote the screenplay) and directed by Burt himself
A typical 80s style thriller, half serious, half tongue-in-cheek, not always funny, but trying very hard
The story’s rather superficial (but told in a tortuous way) and seems a poor man’s version (with some changes) of Dashiel Hammett’s Red Harvest which led, as you might know, to Yojimbo/Fistful . As a result the story of an ex-con and fortune seeker who gets stuck (after accidently witnessing a shootout) between two gangs, sounds awfully familiar. Actually the changes are made to make the story more look like A Fistful of Dollars.
Burt looks a bit anemic here (seems he was recovering from a serious jaw injury) and as a whole the film looks pretty uninspired, but some explosive action helps, and the usually more restrained George Segal is fun as a very talkative rascal.
And as for Charles Durning …
[url]http://img30.imageshack.us/i/002222231.jpg/[/url]
![http://img30.imageshack.us/i/002222231.jpg/[/url]](http://img30.imageshack.us/i/002222231.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
Jeeeee
Burt’s career was pretty much going downhill at this point compared to his 70’s heyday. Stick is a bit of a mixed bag, and prefer some of his other directed works. The End and Sharky’s Machine ( this is one you should give a view if you have not viewed recently ). Have a fondness for one called Breakin In from 1989 where he plays an older safe cracker. Gentle pace film which does have a certain charm. But back re Stick read somewhere Burt had to shoot some more action scenes for the film, as per the studio / producers orders. But yes a very 80’s film in style.
Watched few Jack Nicholson classics , One flew over the cuckoo’s nest and The Shining.
I have seen Sharky’s machine, but a long, long time ago.
A much darker movie than this one, if I’m not mistaken
I think in that aspect Malone wasn’t bad either, a sort of Burt Bourne meets Jason Reynolds
I don’t dislike Burt, in fact I like the guy, but he made a lot of second rate stuff, Smokey and the Bandit and that sort of rubbish
Sharky’s Machine is alot darker film than Stick yes.
Ah Malone yes… I do not mind that one, and his character is very similar to another film ( even down to his dress sense) he starred in around the same time Heat. But Smokey and The Bandit stuff is not my thing either.
in my opinion Burt Reynolds is the perfect example of a actor who wasted his career. as you say doing too many " good ol boy" " comedy" crap. much better in serious roles in films such as " Deliverance" " Sharkey’s Machine" “Hustle” " Malone" and some others. These “comedy” films that he did too many of, teetered on the verge of embarrasment when first seen, and almost all are embarrasing nowadays. a total waste. Although not finiancially which i suppose is all that counts.
Actually saw Smokey and The Bandit at the cinema for my sins, but the audience were wild about this film. Maybe not so much today though 
.
THE SECT. Turned it off due to the extreme lameness of the plot.
At the certain moment, late seventies, early eighties, everybody was making silly movies. Clint made those films with an ape that had good titles (Every which way but loose isn’t a bad title, Id say) but were otherwise atrocious. Burt just made a few movies he’s now identified with in this period, notably those Smokey things. There’s also the point that he made too many mediocre films and not enough great movies (we’ve mentioned them above) to avoid this identification. I think Every Which way but loose and Any which Way you can are (among) Clint’s most successful movies too, but he’s not identified with them, they’re more or less a sidenote in his career. If Burt had made more films like Deliverance or Sharky’s Machine, those silly comedies would have been sidenotes too (and to me they are)
Blood Alley (William A. Wellman)
Interesting but somewhat dull John Wayne vehicle. Obviously Republican propoganda. This would be Wellman’s last film that wasn’t a war movie. It’s also something like his 3 to last picture. Wayne and Bacall don’t have the best chemistry. In fact, Wayne has better chemistry with his imaginary girlfriend, “Baby”. (He made her up during a long prison sentence. ;)) But it’s an easy enough film to watch. But nothing special.
Have not viewed any of the silly Burt car ones since the early 80’s and probably never intend to view again. But his good films are of course another matter.
Viewed Burt recently in an interview with Orson Welles from the mid 70’s, and come across as a laid back intelligent man who was looking forward at the time to directing more films.
[quote=“korano, post:2416, topic:1923”]
Blood Alley (William A. Wellman)
Interesting but somewhat dull John Wayne vehicle. Obviously Republican propoganda. This would be Wellman’s last film that wasn’t a war movie. It’s also something like his 3 to last picture. Wayne and Bacall don’t have the best chemistry. In fact, Wayne has better chemistry with his imaginary girlfriend, “Baby”. (He made her up during a long prison sentence. ;)) But it’s an easy enough film to watch. But nothing special.[/quote]
Wellman and Wayne made interestingly 3 films together in these years. At least one of them (The High and Mighty) was very successful then. Nevertheless all 3 are more or less forgotten nowadays and nobody would mention them in a list of Wayne’s best or typical films.
I have also seen for the first time 2 Wayne movies from these years.
The Sea Chase (John Farrow 1954) is similar to the Wellman films not the typical Wayne stuff. Easy to watch, with some stupidities in it, it tells surprisingly the heroic story of a German skipper (of course not a Nazi, but still a patriot) who mocks with his merchant-ship the British marine at the beginning of WW2.
While Sands of Iwo Jima (Alan Dwan, 1949) is one of Wayne’s important films. Also very successful, and he got an Oscar nomination (not really deserved) for it.
The scenes between the fighting and the characterizations of this patriotic war movie are dramatically absolutely dated, but the action is well done.
Yeah definitely not one of Waynes best, imo. Did you like this one?
CLASH OT THE TITANS (2010) - I really enjoyed this, a whole lot better than I was expecting