Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-24 20:16:35

Better than the theatrical release .

This Director's cut is way much better than the theatrical release. This latest dvd release displays Ridley Scott's original vision of the film & it incorporates all the deleted scenes into the movie. I thoroughly enjoy Ridley's movies & this one ranks up there. I won't give anything away on this review, just watch it when you get a chance...it is definitely worth watching again. The whole thing just makes much more sense.

2012-05-24 08:49:04

Awesome! An entirely new and enriched movie

I had thought the theater-released version was good...this blows it away...now certain scenes don't feel out of place anymore...a richer and better developed story (don't want to give too much details and spoil it for you), but rest assured, it's a long one with intermission in the movie...but well worth it!Enjoy...

antimosquitos 2012-05-24 14:20:30

loved it

To those who tout 'freedom' of speech about the bad taste in Islamiccartoons, you damn well know that you would not be able to print upsomething negative against Jews, they would have this whole mediashouting anti-semitic. Nor could we print something degrading thecrucifixation of Jesus or anything degrading about Mary, use your braininstead of this ridiculous 'freedom' of speech. Okay, so then I'llprint up a cartoon of my father banging your mother. Freedom of speechright? The absurdity of stupid thoughts baffles me. Lets re-runcartoons depicting the whites hanging blacks in their backyard trees,or Hitler killing the Jews, it's a cartoon, freedom of speech man, Ican print whatever I want. Even on this board, there are limits on whatyou can say and can't say. So don't tout that freedom of speech. Thosenews media did it on purpose to continue the angst against the Muslims,although Muslims are dumb enough to over-react by killing others,burning down buildings, etc...this type of reaction is not in the Quranor in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The bestthing they did was boycott their products, which crippled the economyfor a few days. If we are to be peaceful Christians as we claim to be,printing such negative cartoons is a disgrace and childish.This movie was an excellent movie, though the theme of him sleepingwith her and then not marrying her was a bit trifling, but very typicalof horny men. Anyway, other than that, excellent movie.

Jizdenky 2012-05-23 22:34:49

Flawed but Worth Watching

'Kingdom of Heaven' stands in terms of the technical qualities. It is atreat to watch visually. The locations and set designs are wonderfullyshot. The recreation of Jerusalem is stunning. The costumes, mix oflanguages and sets all give a feel of what time may have been like inthat era. To sum it up, it stands out visually and technically.It's the performances of the main leads that make the film flawed.Bloom, though has presence, his character seems a littleone-dimensional and he mostly carries out the same (emotionless)expression throughout the film. Eva Green's transformation seemed alittle unbelievable. The actress is beautiful and she too has presencebut her role wasn't developed enough. Liam Neeson repeats his 'Gangs ofNew York' type supporting role (this time it's with swords instead ofguns) while Irons and Norton are brilliant. Massoud is outstanding.Another thing I liked about this film is that it didn't portray theArabs as 'bad guys' (something which became so common in numerousAmerican films of recent times). Massoud portrays Saladin as a gooddignified and honorable leader. He isn't portrayed as a hater ofnon-Muslims but a man who wants there to be peace between people. Wesee in a beautiful scene towards the end where he picks up a fallenChristian cross and sets it right.So, 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a pleasant watch even though it's a flawedfilm. It's certainly worth a watch considering the subject matter andquite relevant in today's world when so much is going on in theMiddle-East and so much negativity about Islam is portrayed in thecurrent media.

george.schmidt 2012-05-21 04:07:51

Ridley Scott's epic yet logy take on the Crusades has moments of true majesty

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005) *** Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons,Brendan Gleeson, Eva Green, Edward Norton, Marton Csokas, NasserMemarzia, Alexander Siddig. Ridley Scott's epic yet logy take on theCrusades has moments of true majesty in his tale of a blacksmith (Bloomdoing the best he can with his weighty role) who reunites with hisabandoned father, a knight (Neeson), who enlists him into battle forChristianity as the Muslim hordes threaten to reclaim their homeland inthe eye of the storm of Biblical Jerusalem. In spite of the impeccableproduction design by Arthur Max, colorful costumes and art directionby, respectively, Janty Yates; Maria-Teresa Barbasso and GianniGiovagnoni (with Robert Cowper, John King and Marco Trentini) ; theethereal musical score by Harry Gregson-Williams and Stephen Barton;and John Mathieson's skillful cinematography, screenwriter WilliamMonahan (his big screen debut) doesn't know how to trim the fat andgoes in circles with the timely theme of the seemingly impossible questfor peace in the Middle East and the ramifications by those who shouldknow better. A noble attempt by Scott and company that could've usedsome judicial editing.

jeremiah-39 2012-05-20 23:44:13

This is not a good movie. Rent something else.

The first 45 minutes or so of this movie were *alright*. Then it gotpretty boring, and I stopped paying attention and started thinkingabout more exciting things...like tax accounting and paint drying.OK, but seriously...I thoroughly enjoyed Gladiator; it was anentertaining movie (I say this just to give you a frame of reference).Kingdom of Heaven was NOT anywhere near as entertaining as Gladiator.OK, let me give you one example of something that annoyed me. Theprince or king character (I can't remember which) who had leprosy. Thischaracter was about as idiotic and annoying as the disfigured,mask-wearing character in "Hannibal", another disappointingRidley-produced movie, though not as bad as this one is. I'm not hatingon Ridley Scott...I'm just hating on this movie, because it just wasn'tvery enjoyable to watch.I recommend that you find another movie to rent, and don't waste yourtime or money on this one.

fearfulofspiders 2012-05-18 06:07:26

Good Story, With Terrible Pace...

Unlike the very engaging story that is Gladiator's, Kingdom of Heavenwas more intriguing, and a huge letdown more than anything. Once again,Scott has made us a gritty R-rated history film with lots of blood,which only adds to the dramatic effect here and there, whereas else, itdetracts.The acting is pretty good. Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, and OrlandoBloom steal the show -- especially Norton as the leper king ofJerusalem. Brendan Gleeson is stuck in his Troy role, and Jeremy Irons,while adequate, his character's screen time is just too short tocomment on.The music is average. It doesn't have any scope, and only one thememanages to capture one's ears. Harry Gregson-Williams' score focusesfar too much on subtlety, but when the action arrives it pretty muchsounds like previous compositions of his -- one of which, a futurerelease, The Chronicles of Narnia, in which the two sound very similar.The writing is okay, but with all the events leading up to the bigbattle, there's hardly any action to soothe one who is falling asleepin their chair. There's little skirmishes here and there, but they onlylast a couple minutes, and then it's back to more debating. The finalbattle particularly is very bad. The wide angle shots aren't original,and the editing of the armies converging into battle is so poorlyedited, how Scott thought this would pass as viable entertainment isbeyond me.All in all, I'm not keen on history so I can't tell you if this isaccurate or not, but the story as a whole is very good and the endingis very thought-provoking. However, if one is looking for action alongthe way, then they will be sorely disappointed, as tension is the onlylingering substance of excitement we get.I only recommend this to someone who needs to see it to believe it, aRidley Scott fan, or a fanatic of historical times.

Grann-Bach 2012-05-17 19:16:31

Well-done

I watched this mainly with the hope and intent of being entertained...and on that, this did just fine. If you're looking for a review thatevaluates the historical, religious and so on and so forth, aspects,I'd advise reading someone else's(but hey, if you want, by all means,stick around... I've got a deck of cards around here somewhere). Theplot isn't bad. The acting is very good, with both powerful andunderplayed performances herein. The action is very, very cool,immensely intense(even if there are points where it's... kind ofobvious that it's staged) and with good use of time and camera work.This is quite epic at parts. The music is great, a grand score. Thechoreography is commendable. The cinematography and editing are bothimpressive. There is a considerable amount of violence in this. Effectsare nicely done(apart from those things I alluded to in the...otherparenthesis). This should most definitely not be watched by children...and it may very well offend some adults. Casting was done well. Irecommend this to those interested in the story and the period, andwhile there is a reasonable amount of it, those looking more for fightscenes and such may want to look elsewhere... from the Trivia, I gatherthat this was not meant to be that. 7/10

jmcleod_5 2012-05-17 09:34:11

A brilliant film-maker in all respects

Ridley Scott proves once again that he is one of the truly greatfilm-makers of modern times. He hardly ever puts a foot wrong. Even hismediocre films are a cut above the rest. So to speak. I don't care whatanyone says I liked Hannibal and I even liked G.I. Jane. Who wouldn'tafter seeing Demi Moore buffed up like that.Now I'm not a big fan of Orlando Bloom. He was a journeyman in Lord ofthe Rings. He was so-so in Pirates of the Carrebean. The less saidabout Troy the better. Maybe it's because he is surrounded by superiorand more seasoned performers. He looks puny and insignificant besideViggo, Johnny, Eric and Brad. In this film however he steps up to theplate and handles himself well against veterans like Neeson and Irons.He seems to have beefed up. He doesn't look so wimpy anymore. He alsoknows very well by now how to handle the sword. As he should.The way religious matters were handled in this film were very welldone. There was good and bad on both sides. I'm not religious per sebut the flux of Muslim bashing in a lot of recent films (particularlysince September 11) is becoming tedious and totally unnecessary. Weshouldn't let a few rotten apples spoil the barrel. One last thing. Why is the very good actor Liam Neeson getting cast asthe sage wise father-figure, who dies a brutal death after only a fewminutes of screen time, in nearly every film he is in. (Gangs of NewYork, Kingdom of Heaven, Batman Begins, even The Phantom Menace.)Where's the roles like he had in Rob Roy and Schindler's list? Don'tget me wrong. His small roles in these films are great but I miss theNeeson of old.After all that I must say that Ridley Scott, the man who gave us Alien,Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Thelma and Louise, Hannibal,Matchstick Men and Black Rain has done it again. He is a true Auteur.

God-Killer 2012-05-16 21:38:50

Phenomenal, Thought-Provoking Movie

Firstly, this is a powerful film that is accurate in portrayals of boththe Christian and Muslim religions. Sure it isn't entirely accurate inaccordance with what actually happened in history, but with that inmind, 'Do Not' go and see this movie and come back here to complainabout how inaccurate it was. I've never once spoken to someone whoseprimary goal in a movie was to pick out what is possible, impossible,and incorrect.Ridley Scott has once again, in a fashion manner similar to Gladiator,re-created a masterfully picturesque film. What's not to like, greatperformances from both Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons, not to mentionBloom in a bold return from his cowardly display in Troy. Eva Green andGhassan Massoud, especially since this was their first big roles.Albeit long, this went in depth into the religious and political idealsof both Christians and Muslims. Other than the performances, Jerusalemas well as the other landscapes were visually mind-blowing! And mostimportant of all, the message that the film sent... another reminderthat it was not the Muslims who laid the blow, but the Christians.Overall another masterful piece of directing from Ridley Scott, Greatperformances and visuals abound. Once again, please don't go see themovie and come back to complain about history and script-related. Iknow it's slightly inaccurate but movies are for supposed to entertain,please, and in most cases (such as this one), motivate and stimulatethe mind. Fantasize.

mccallums4 2012-05-14 22:32:53

Best movie of 2005 - no question!

If you're a Ridley Scott fan you will LOVE this film. If you know oraspire to know more of the Crusades, the Knights of those times andgosh, you just like a good story - you will love this film.The light, the characters, the battles . . .the scenery (enhanced ornot), the acting, it will delight you. Kingdom of Heaven will makeOrlando Bloom, and there is some delightful and satisfying casting inthere too.Ridley Scott brings history to you with bells on, and if you knewnothing about the history of the era before you saw the film it willnot only enlighten you, it will make you glad we live in civilisedtimes AND have you surfing Amazon for books on the subject.

James Aartsen 2012-05-14 12:58:14

Director's cut masterpiece, original version horrible

The original theatrical version of this film was terribly ruined byRidley Scott himself. He had very little faith in the final cut beingwell received by American audiences and decided, along with theproduction team and financiers, to shorten the film by 45 minutes.Those 45 minutes of footage were brilliantly revived in the DVDDirector's cut.This is possibly the worst mistake of Scott's career. I think Gladitor,Black Hawk Down and American Gangster are brilliant films, so I likeScott. I really do. I felt really let down the first time I saw thefilm. Orlando Bloom did not 'bloom' at all in his representation ofBalian, the blacksmith turned saviour of Jerusalem. The plot did not godeep enough into the lives of Sibylla and Guy of Lusignan - the shortlived king and queen of Jerusalem.The plot moves far too quickly and events seem to unfold without muchpause for thought on why they are happening. Sibylla goes mad, getsdepressed, cuts off her hair and goes into hiding all of a sudden. Asubplot involving Sibylla's child in the Director's cut shows why thishappens. You can see the self-hatred she feels when she realises theconsequences of her manipulation. It elbourates on the situation ofBalian's father in the French village and the animosity between himselfand the Lord, which ties together beautifully with the attemptedcapture of Balian while he is traveling east with his father. You learnthat the man who Balian kills at the start is his half-brother, jealousof Balian's inheritance.Those 45 minutes completely change the dynamics of the film. I cannotstress enough how much better the Director's cut is. I have never seenAlien, which many regard to be Scott's best film, so I cannot comparethis to his other films. But I will say this: The Director's cutversion of this film should have been the original. Damn to hell allpreview audience opinion polls. I think the director's cut of this filmis better than any other film of its genre. And that includesGladiator.

W.R 2012-05-14 03:14:46

Okay movie, could have been better

I have to say that when I saw this I was really disappointed. Althoughit gave a farely accurate picture of what the Crusades really were, itseemed too unbelievable and kind of corny. It is hard to explain and Idefinitely don't want to spoil the movie, but it seemed that the mainplot of the movie was kind of unrealistic and over dramatized.I haveheard rumors that the movie was a true story, but I need to check onthat. Besides that the acting was really good and the battle sceneswere amazing. I was surprised that the movie was pretty muchhistorically accurate with the Crusades, with a few minor details thatI won't mention. It gave an unbiased approach to the Crusades, despitewhat other people might say. If you don't believe me study about themand see for yourself. Otherwise it was an alright movie i would give ita C.

geophyrd 2012-05-13 13:53:20

Tremendous movie...everything that Alexander and Troy should have been

Before I review this movie, I have a couple of caveats worth caveattingFirst caveat: I'm into history. I've been in the SCA for more than 20years, have fought in armor and love studying medieval period history.I am one of those guys who gets annoyed when the heraldry's wrong, letalone the history. I like it accurate. Some films get it right (Fleshand Blood, Braveheart) and others pretend (Alexander, Troy) and othersdon't even bother trying (Robin Hood, Price of Thieves, Army ofDarkness). I have uses for all of them, but the first one holds aspecial place in my heart.Second caveat: KoH came out at the same time (approx) as Troy andAlexander, both highly inferior flicks. I think its why the flick gotburied. It shouldn't have been. If it came out a year earlier or a yearlater, this would have been a blockbuster.The review: KoH was excellent. The story line was intriguing and rangvery true. The characters are (I think) mostly fictional but there wereno doubt men and women just like the characters. The battles werespellbinding and for once, they used CGI the way it should have beenused: to enhance the reality not the surreality.The story is simple. A blacksmith whose wife just dies meets hisfather, a noble who raped his mother years before. The man apologizes,offers to take the blacksmith with him to Jerusalem to join thecrusades. Along the way, stuff happens. When he gets there, more stuffhappens and when it is all over, stuff stops happening. What liesbetween the beginning and the end is a fascinating, enjoyable story.The actors (Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson briefly andeveryone else) do an excellent job. I don't know who played the kingbut even in his leper clothes, he was excellent.I highly recommend this movie. I watched it a little grudgingly but gotinto it quickly.Oh, and the heraldry was (I'm pretty sure) right for a change. KingRichard's standard on his chest was the one he adopted during thecrusades, the 2 Lions Rampant and Countered, not the Lion Rampant andRoaring that always gets used but was only used by him when at home.Yeah, a bit anally retentive, aren't I?

Mr_Sensitive 2012-05-09 04:01:59

Badly Written Screenplay Distroy Whole Movie

This got to be one of the worst ever written screenplay for an epicmovie. I'm so disappointed that Ridley has chosen this movie to workwith, with his caliber he should have know very well how badly writtenthe story is.Synopsis: Balian and his estrange father set out to Jerusalem duringthe Crusade in the 12th century to wash off the sin they've committed.Along the way they faces many problem and finally found himself as adefender to the great city.Don't want to say this but the screenplay is really horrendous. Despitethe movie is over two hours long everything seems so brief and cut intochase to the point that you'll say, "what the hell is going on?" Thecharacter is shallow and the situation is of sudden. The story is fullof flaws: example. After one class of sward fighting Balian find himmaster at it and able to take on the whole Jerusalem army???? Thesubplot is nothing but an excused to have some sex scene. And thedialog is awful and uninspiring. And the scores are not good.What save the film from failing incredibly is the work of Ridley, theset of the movie is awesome and epic looking and the costume is verynice. Plus some of the battle scenes are all right. The editing isstill suck big time though, almost as bad as screenplay.I must admit Orlando isn't all-bad at least you won't get distracted byhis women like face. But still he is not as manly enough as RussellCrows, so I think the movie could have done better with other actor.Lastly: The movie is save because of the big name director and actorsotherwise I think it will definitely be just a complete trash.Reason To Watch: Because it is a Ridley Scott film.Reason Not To: One of the worst screenplays for an epic movie.Rating: 5/10 (Grade: D-)

terrors89 2012-05-08 20:41:01

Too long, but really good, if you like history

I enjoyed this movie because of the attention to detail that the writerWilliam Monahan and Director Ridley Scott brought to this movie.However, this attention to detail at times slowed the movie down to apainful crawl and it seemed like a 3 hour long movie even though itsonly 2 hours long. However, since it's an epic it is a worthy effort byMr. Scott and his cast did a workman like job in delivering the story.This movie deals with the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim army ofSaladin around 1188 A.D. The movie starts in France where a blacksmithnamed Balian, played by Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean) wasmorning the death of his wife who committed suicide. Because shecommitted suicide the local priest reminds Balian that she won't go toheaven. Baron Godfrey, played by Liam Neeson (Phantom Menace,) meetsBalian and tells him that is his dad and offers to take him toJerusalem to be groomed to be his replacement. Balian declines theoffer, but when he kills the priest of his village for remarks abouthis dead wife, Balian joins Godfrey. However, Balian is hunted down bythe villagers and he along with Godfrey and some of his men are forcedto fight to defend Balian. During the fight Godfrey is mortally woundedand dies before getting Balain to Jerusalem. Before he dies GodfreyKnights Balian and he is now the owner of the Godfrey's land east ofJerusalem. Jumping to the climatic scene, Balian is left to defendJerusalem after the Army led by Guy is wiped out by the Muslim army inthe desert. The acting was OK, nobody stood out yet nobody did a bad job. The onecharacter I enjoyed the most was Tiberius, played by Jeremy Irons(Being Julia.) His character was by far the toughest of the good guysand he was smart, albeit a little bit of a coward in the end. I am notquite sure if I can ever accept Orlando Bloom as an action hero. He wasperfect for the Lord of the Rings movie as well as Pirates, yet inthose he had a strong ensemble cast. I just don't know if he is thekind of actor that can carry an action movie.I liked what Ridley Scott did with the movie. However, it was too longat times. The opening act where we get Balian to Jerusalem was way tolong. I liked that he showed how dangerous the travel was across theMediterranean but adding everything together in the first act, just toolong. His battle scenes were not original or creative, but not everymovie has to bring something new to the genre. So what if the sceneswere copies of Lord of the Rings, until that movie we hadn't seenanything on such a grand scale, let's enjoy it a little while. WriterWilliam Moynahan did a great job of adding detail to the script, someof it being based on factual information, I am amazed that this is hisfirst writing effort on the big screen.The one thing that made me really upset was the music. Epic movies needtheir own original music, but to borrow music from other movies takesaway from the movie. On my own I heard music from the movie The 13thWarrior, by Jerry Goldsmith, and I heard somebody say that he heardmusic from the Gladiator in this. If you are going to spend money tomake an epic, spend money on making the music right too.While you might need to bring a pillow to watch the movie, I still sayit is worth watching in a movie theatre. The attention to detail thatwas brought to the movie, complimented by the acting makes for anenjoyable movie.

paulovrosa 2012-05-07 01:50:27

How can a simple blacksmith become a knight, etc,on his own?

Ridley Scott still got it and he is one of the best, but regarding thestory and plot, how can simple blacksmith (is there another kind?)becomes a war complete strategist, inventor, excellent fighter , andhave strong moral principles, those of a knight? Leaving aside hisother attributes, no pool of genes can explain that, only if he is agenius and what a genius! Anyway, this film rates high among others,almost reaching Gladiator, which is the best ever. Those who tried,such as Troy, King Arthur (this one sucks!), Alexander, etc, i forgotabout them the minute i left the cinemas. Orlando Bloom is more than OKin his role and the other actors just made it by.

moonbootica 2012-05-06 05:57:35

A rather good film

I really enjoyed this movie and was surprised it got slated by thecritics, perhaps they did not like the message or seeing Saladin beingmerciful, who knows. It had excellent action sequences and thephotography was amazing, loved the costumes and scenery as well. I meanthere was a Battle of Hattin (1187) where Saladin captured the cream ofEuropean nobility which included King Guy of Jerusalem, as well as theTrue Cross, after the Bishop of Acre was killed in the fighting.Prisoners included Guy, his brother Amalric II, Raynald, William V ofMontferrat, Gerard de Ridefort, Humphrey IV of Toron, Hugh of Jabala,Plivain of Botron, Hugh of Gibelet, and many others, this was a majorsetback for the Crusader movement and of course following that was theSiege of Jerusalem (1187) which saw the near total collapse of thecrusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and was the catalyst for the ThirdCrusade. So it was almost historically accurate (perhaps another reasonthe critics got all huffy). It was a great historical epic and Ithought Orlando Bloom was not too bad as the leading character and LiamNeeson was very good despite his short time on the screen. So watchthis movie, it will get you thinking of the past and the present andperhaps you will be more the wiser for it. Ridely Scott is in adifferent league to the directors of Alexander and Troy, which wereboth trying to be Gladiator but failed miserably. This film capturesthe essence of Gladiator.

2012-05-05 01:15:58

Too bad it didn't do better at the box office

I really enjoyed the theatrical cut, and now, get ready for all the nice storylines that were deleted. What you'll see on the director's cut (referenced from AICN) SPOILERS AHEAD!!:- did you realize that the priest at the beginning is actually the half-brother of Balian (Orlando Bloom)? Their relationship is much more complicated and unpleasant in this version, and we learn that Balian is in jail following his wife's death, thanks to his brother's claim that he is possessed by the devil.- We also learn that Balian was an engineer before he became a blacksmith, that he built war machines when he was part of an army, and he's released from prison because the local lord needs Balian's help. So much more work is put into the establishment of Balian's character that by the time we actually meet him in the film now, we have a sense of who he is.- The lord that Balian works for? Turns out, he's Neeson's brother, and when Godfrey shows up in the village, he's coming home. There's an entire scene that takes place at the castle where it's clear that his absence made it possible for his brother to take over, something that his brother doesn't want to see change. Since Godfrey has no heir, if he dies, then his new lands also become the property of the brother, something that makes more sense of the battle scenes involving Neeson and his group of soldiers. - When Neeson goes to talk to Balian the first time, he stops at the door to the smith's shop, looking out at a particular spot. He flashes back to when he was younger, to when he was with Balian's mother, and that one moment says all we need to know about the particular paradise that Godfrey seeks and that he knows he'll never find again. It explains so much about why he would want to come and make amends and reach out to Balian. He's looking for absolution, and he figures he can find it this way, and the film shows us instead of just telling us.- Baldwin IV is shown refusing the last sacrament from Patriarch Heraclius. - Another major change is the re-insertion of the character of Baldwin V (who was shown in some of the trailers), here depicted as the son of Sibylla by Guy. He is portrayed as suffering from leprosy, like his uncle. His death is depicted as an act of euthanasia by his mother, using poison. - Balian also fights a climactic duel with Guy. - Additionally, Eva Green's role as the Queen has been expanded, and she's not there just for Orland Bloom's sexual interest.- More insight into absolution, forgiveness, and politics in this time period.

ssbn1 2012-05-04 20:22:26

Good, Bad and Ugly

Some readers have commented, with sincerity on the "fairness" the movieportrays the 3 religions mentioned. One writer however, notes that theChristians seem to be the "darker" perhaps less-than-moral antagonists.Relativity aside, one thing could perhaps counter or at least give onepause- Baldwin, as played brilliantly by Edward Norton, is, in fact anenlightened Christian king with clearly the weight of heaven upon hismind and body. I am not a defined Christian, but rather think of myself as a humanist.Perhaps my position is best described in the character of Hospitaller:"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen thelunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. Ihave seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holinessis in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defendthemselves, and goodness... and what you decide to do every day, youwill be a good man - or not."