Reviews

(Maybe spoilers below, if you follow some links and do some research) There have been several criticism's of this film in newspapers (Jeff Simon , buffalo news) NPR, and other places, including IMDb where the premise of the movie is called into question.

First, allow me to point out that Ridley Scott does an excellent job of capturing a book/event/history, and putting it on the screen for the average user to understand. "Black Hawk Down", captured the raid in somolia to a T, even if some things had to be done to fit the 18 hour action into a 2 hour movie.

"Kingdom of Heaven" is no different from that standpoint. The character Balin is introduced as a way of giving a modern viewer some kind of touchstone to the middle ages.

After that 'unreality' of Scott creating a character for the viewer to empathise with, everything else (outside of Balin) is fairly historical, Although i don't think we would want all of Saladin's 10 year campaign on the screen in real time. Scott brilliantly picks out the salient events and arranges them on the screen.

In a nutshell, Saladin was closer to the 'Christian Chivalric' ideal than most Christians of the time (or now, for that matter), Raynauld, Guy were both fanatic jerks, just like in the movie.

Saladin knew how the Christian army would fight, and planned accordingly, and he eventually took Jerusalem, without the kind of massacre that accompanied the Christian taking of Jerusalem.

"But what about the political correctness?"

Is it 'politically correct' to want to stay alive? The leadership of Jerusalem, up until Guy was crowned king, understood that they were Christian leaders of a mostly Moslem population. Had they tried to tow the 'hard line' the locals would have staged a revolt and wiped out the king and everyone else (common events in the middle ages). So, Balwin IV (who was a leper) continually fought against anyone trying to provoke a war. After his death, Guy (one of the newcomers spoiling for a fight) undid all of that work as quickly as he could, went out and got a severe ass whooping.

Raynauld's death was portrayed as most accounts have it (whether they are myth or not, I have not determined, but Scott is consistent with the standard tale)

All in all, I personally liked the movie. It was exciting, had excellent special effects, a looming sadness (you pretty much know how it will end). (hence my rating).

As for criticism, if you don't like the movie, fine. If you don't like the device of placing a more 'modern' character into the story, fine (but then i ought to find you reading the Canterbury Tales in its original form, for 'authenticity')

But don't slam it because you think the concept of the leaders of Jerusalem wanting peace is absurd. That is one of the places where Scott hits the arrow right in the target.