Kingdom of Heaven Critique

Has anyone seen the new film "Kingdom of Heaven"?

I, for one, have enjoyed it to a great extent.  Of course, there are many historical inaccuracies, but at least the film was in the right direction. 

Note: If you have not seen the movie, please read no further, because spoilers are ahead.

Historical inaccuracies:

1. Balian was constructed in the film to be the modern hero.  In history, he was much older, and was never a blacksmith.  He married Maria Comenus, the first wife of the previous king of Jerusalem and a Byzantine princess.  Balian did, however, play a crucial role in the negotiations that led to the surrendering of Jerusalem.  But contrary to the movie, Balian did participate in the Third Crusade, and helped King Richard I negotiate a peace treaty with Saladin in 1192.

2. Sibylla remained loyal to Guy de Lusignan and followed him after the fall of Jerusalem.  She negotiated with Guy's opposition, gaining support on the condition that she anull her marriage to Guy but maintain the right to choose her own husband.  At he coronation, she chose her new husband - none other than Guy de Lusignan.  In case any one is interested, Sibylla died of a plague in camp soon after the fall of Jerusalem, along with her daugher.

3. The movie stripped Raymond of Tripoli of his proper role in the conflicts that led to Jerusalem's demise.  Raymond was the chief opposition to Guy de Lusignan and Balian his supporter.  The Kingdom of Jerusalem divided itself into two factions: one sided with Raymond and Balian with the help of the Knights Hospitalliers, another sided with Guy, Reynald, and Sibylla with the aid of the Knights Templar.

4. Saladin did not raise an army of 200,000 men.  He had a total of around 20,000 men.  The Kingdom of Jerusalem amounted to about 10,000 men.  At the time, the city of Paris only had around 50,000 residents.

5. Balian and the rest probably did not speak English.  Just joking, but what can we expect from Hollywood?

Nevertheless, the movie does contain some accuracies that merit a thumbs up:

1. The Horns of Hattin is depicted as it actually occurred.  Although the director decided not to show the actual battle, the circumstances surrounding the battle (e.g. the lack of water) were very accurate.

2. King Baldwin IV was, indeed a leper.  Had he not been afflicted with leporacy, he would have become a very effective ruler.

3. The death of Reynald was accurately played out.  After the Battle of the Horns of Hattin, Saladin offered the captive Guy a chalice of ice water.  Guy extended the chalice to Reynald.  Saladin furiously told took the cup away from Reynald and executed Reynald for his atrocious attacks on Muslim caravans.

4. Saladin was rightfully depicted as a rightous, honourable, and wise ruler.  Both Christian and Muslim accounts portrayed Saladin as a just and admirable sovereign.  Contrary to the massacre of non-Christian residents in Jerusalem by Christian crusaders in 1100, Saladin did not harm non-Muslim residents in Jerusalem, and allowed safe pilgrimage of Christians into Jerusalem after 1192.

Agree with most that was said. However:

If you want historical accuracy, read credible history books.

Orlando bloom spoiled it for me.  I really enjoyed the part where Saladin sliced that fat ginger guy's throat.

The film was ok but nothing special.

One inaccuracy i spotted were that after King Baldwin IV died, the infact Baldwin V, who btw was son of Sybilla, succeeded him as king of Jerusalem and not Guy of Lusignan.

I think though, Baldwin V died almost the next year and his mother Sybilla was crowned queen as the film showed.

Another one was that Balian's father name wasnt Godfred but Barisan of Ibelin.

more accuracy can be found in an old egyptian movies i think around the early 80s or maybe late 70s. the movie is called (al nasser salah al deen). for sure the production wasn't as good as this one but the story is much better.

what i didn't like about this movie is that maybe the director showed salah al deen as an insane killer who will never show mercy and never care about anything when bilian decided to protect the old men and women and children however, everybody knows who was salah al deen and how fair was he.

in the other hand, bilian as they showed in the movie he was a young blacksmith! who suddenly turned to be a great army leader and very good in using swords and everything. it is unlogical and his story was different as mentioned before.

also the director showed that christinas were (umm i dunno how to say this but it was kinda stupid and unfair) he showed that christians were killing non christians just for this reason as we saw guy and his friends and also the guy who was saying killing an infdale is not a murder or something like that. and later when bilian was giving speech inside the city the priest was saying this is blasphmy and everybody was laughing at him. this wasn't good about the movie. but also for salah al deen he showed that he was silly like when bilian asked him what is worth it? salah said nothing and then said everything. i got it that way: salah al deen doesn't beleive in this city but it was his lust to take over more places and stuff like that then the thumbs up hahahaha. ironic.

thanx