Just got Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut, and it's very good, much better than the theatrical version (even though I loved that one too). For you history buffs, it goes into more detail and brings out more of the important characters and story. I'm not a history buff, but I love detail, so I'd warmly recommend it. The Director's Cut is over three hours long. 
E.
Splendid - I'll start loking for it. Many films, if your a incarnate film fan, really become much better when the film doesn't have to conform to the patience of the majority of moviegoers.
True. I won't give any spoilers, but I can say that several new twists in the story comes to light in the director's cut. They've changed several dialogs to make it more interesting and more detailed. Families are, for example, more detailed, and more characters appear. 
E.
I loved the origial film, it was wery nice and moody, I especialy loved the leper king, I think I must look for this one.
The meeting between the leper king and Bailian is longer, with discussions about wall defenses for Jerusalem, chess and much more. He gets a much bigger role. Also, we find out that Bailian (who is based on a historical knight) knows alot about sieges, and has seen warfare in Europe. (sorry about the spoilers)
E.
i am working on an Ars charecter based on the leper king, I so love that charecter.
'tis quite interesting that they merge the two (three) brothers ((Hugh)Balduin and Balian) into one character. The firstborn child child of Sibylla was named Balduin (or Baldwin) after Balduin d'Ibelin known as Balduin d'Ramla. But 'tis a minor detail... 
yes, history buffs for teh win!
GREAT -I'll have to acquire it very soon! Itt seems that the director's cut adresses some of the few reservations I had on the film - one being Balians sudden development of tactical sawy: My point so far, when friends more critical of the film than me argued this point, being that the film storyline seems to stretch over several years (looking at some of the events in the film and the changing of the seasons) but that they might have opted not to let this actually show in captions etc.
It really is a wonderful and beautiful film - the changed in history in terms of making a better story is fine. Even making a film on this plot (Jerusalem, as well as the Crusades, being a touchy subject) not getting too entangled in the politics of present times nor just refraining to comletely blindly narrowsighted nothingness. Scott hasn't only made a visually and plotwise well-crafted movie, but he also has a message and that's an achievement.
My only real objections with the film has been, though having enjoyed many of his other works, the casting of Orlando Bloom as Balian. I had problems identifying him with the character. This might always be a challenge to people who've had their breakthrough in rather recent specific roles. I found him a bit to polished and would have liked a more nitty gritty casting of Balian. His plot-central speach in the very end before the siege seeming somewhat artificial and polished...
Now I gotta sleep and then to town to get the Director Cut! Yummi!
I haven't seen the director's cut, but I did see the theater version, and I have to say I had some issues with it. There seemed to be an attempt, as many recent medieval movies have done, to put very modern values on a period piece. The cooperation between the different peoples I'm just not sure I'd believe, perhaps it happened, but as I understood it the Crusaders were far more intolerant than anyone today of Mideast culture and people.
The irreverance displayed was also troubling, considering that this was the Holy Land, yet the extremely faithful, the fanatics, seemed to be in short supply. The fanatics were more fanatical about land grabs and treasure (which I'm sure has its accuracy), but overall some of the greatest legends of the Crusader Knights and the feats they accomplished that were almost miraculous were just not there.
There seemed to be some apoligy, an effort to make Europeans and/or Christians seem oafish and stupid. Maybe this was true to an extent, but there still seemed to be a lot of embellishment.
That's just my two cents. It seemed to be as romanticized and innaccurate/revisionist as some Western movies made of actual Native American life and the West. But I could be wrong, a lot of my history is a bit second hand.
I went to see this movie with a fellow historian, and we both hated it. It was simply riddled with serious inaccuracies, and being a specialist in the crusades, I couldn't really see beyond that. I happen to know the person who advised the film-makers. You won't find his name in the credits; I've heard that when he saw how little attention they'd paid to his advice, he insisted on having it removed.
The film wasn't even well-acted, and as some posters have already noted, it was clearly subordinating historical veracity to commentary on the modern day. That said, this did give it the redeeming feature that it presented the majority of Muslims in a good light; even though it did this rather crudely, I felt that it was a useful antidote in these troubled times.
Of course, all this is just my opinion, and I can accept that others may have got more out of the film. Heck, one of my favourite movies is The Thirteenth Warrior, which I regard as a delightful mish-mash of two historical texts, but I bet plenty of people out there can't stand it!
Like most film trying to portay historical periods it probably has its inconsistencies, yet it seems that most of it is related to rewriting or combining characters, wheras the setting seems credible. I also think it's quite a task to make a film void of present sentiments - nevertheless I think is a choice of Ridley Scott to make the theme of the film a commentary to conflicts not that foreign. Not only on the conflict(s) in the Middle East but also a comment on tolerance in general.
The story of the Crusades have been revised following a change in modern sentiments. To the natives to the Levant, the Christian Crusades never really left the same impact as the mongols did. They were a real threat to the muslim and Arabian culture, whereas some only accord the crusaders a footnote...
Being the nature of most conflict I think it's a conscious effort that the film portrays hardline confrontationalist as well as peacestriving mediators on both sides in the conflict. This is true to this day's conflicts in the region. I think this isn't so far from realities, except it's hard to say who was actually who. For example a character as Raynald de Chatillon did exist and he was widely know for plunder and piracy, he was however not a Templar nor do I know whether he actually did these tings to provoke war. Salah al-Din was by most sources - even European giving him huge reckognition - acting much more honorable than the Europeans he fought (not the least Richard Lionheart) so in this I think the film is on solid ground. All in all the Christians had been better treated than they themselves had treated their conquered.
All in all.. Concerning fanatics, then people had plenty of reason to go to the Levant besides fanatism. Some of them, this is especially seen in accounts from Christians describing latecomers in the following crusades, acted with a lot of arrogance and ignorance. Maybe the military orders were among the most militant, yet others have argued that they actually had greater knowledge and respect of Arabian culture - maybe due to their longterm presence in the Holy Land maybe due to the fact that they were better educated then most others. And yes, some of the Ltin Kingdoms in the Levant had terms of truce with Salah al-Din, who himself had many other perhaps more important struggles to handle then the ones with a handfull of small crusader kingdoms. And as intolerance goes - maybe the ones that made it to the Holy Land - and actually decided to stay - might have been amongst the less intolerant.
I reckon that besides film, all history, albeit a science, is amongst the tings most subject to the eye of the beholder - thus not only films of the past but certainly the academic delving into the past as well is in an ongoing change.
The crusades might have been instigated by a wide multitude of factors, and the crusader kingdoms themselves unable to survive; maybe the most worthwhile, and with the biggest stayingpower, results of the crusades was something else completely. The meeting with an at the time superior civilization. A superiority not only of knowledge in algebra, geometri and medicine and others, but also of intellectual and worldly openness. This also lead to the bringing back home to Europa of classical knowledge preserved in the East.
So even if the notion of "noble savages" might fit the native americans vs westerns it doesn't really fit the revision of the crusades. In hindsight European/western culture and economy came to dominate the globe, but during the crusade the tables were turned.
I like the movie and I am not a history buff so I realy dont know if such and such is historicaly correct. I like the charecters and the plotline, however it can be a bit to mutch fight, fight, fight for me.
I would think that films like these are not aimed at historians, as they will always find "historical mistakes". That's why it's called drama, and not documentary.
Scott is a big fan of history, and he has a board of advisors for just this, all of them being top ranking historians. I am sure he knew about all the cases in the film where he put drama in front of history. But when making a movie, you've got to aim for the general audience, otherwise the movie won't make any money. And the general audience is not interested in historical nitpickings, they want to see a great story, excitement, passion, suspence and such. This movie delivers these things perfectly.
But, when talking about history, this is certainly one of the more accurate movies in the main stream. Just mention another big budget movie like this that is even more historically accurate? Braveheart? Hardly. Gladiator? Absolutely not... even I, not being a history buff, know that these are not as historically correct as Kingdom of Heaven. But they give to the audience what they're supposed to give. Great entertainment.
Just to mention a comment by Scott when talking about history in Gladiator. It's about the opening battle scene (one of the best scenes ever), where the romans light a small stream of oil on the ground for their archers to light their arrows at. "I don't know if the romans lit their arrows this way. But they now they bloody well did!" No one can really assume to know too much specifics about what happened a thousand years ago. So we're just going to have to guess on alot of stuff, and make it look good. If it doesn't look good, it's doesn't matter if it's historically correct, as no one would like it.
I don't think the Christians in the movie is seen as evil goons. The Templars and some insane and fanatic noblemen might have been. The Hospitaliers, in this film, didn't have a greedy nor evil bone in them. This is how Scott wanted to show it. Is it true? No one really knows...
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers." -Hospitalier (David Thewlis), Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut)
E.
Indeed!!!
I had fun with it as well - but besides the fact of Arabians travelling the lands of the Norse, it's riddled with historic inaccuracies - but the point being that if it works - hey it works!
A descendant of the vikings (who's now looking forward to enjoy AND nidpick the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven),
Jeppe
Yes, the 13th Warrior was great fun, it's in my dvd collection. And I also like Dennis Storhøi, one of our better stage actors here in Norway. He played the fair haired, funny sidekick to Banderas.
But if you want historical detail, then this is rubbish. Vikings wearing plate mail and carrying 13th century weapons? Naah.. But hey, it great fun anyway!
Also, have you noticed: Listen to the music in 13th Warrior when the vikings arrive at the village they're going to defend. Then listen to the music in Kingdom of Heaven when Balien knights all the commoners before the battle of Jerusalem.
E.
and Danish "strong-man" Sven-Ole Thorsen - who deffinately isn't a great stage actor - but who's been a regular buff in many Hollywood productions (I prefering his "silent" role as Tigris in Gladiator)... lol
Indeed - and half-a-mÃÂllenium-later medieval Scottish plaids... But yes fun nontheless!
Soundtrack from Kingdom of Heaven being a stable in my music for roleplaying (I use a lot of varried music) - but it's been some time since I've seen/heard 13th Warrior.... Are they similar? The exact same? Or....?
Just listen to the two scenes 
E.
Grrrrr... now I had gone and wired myself completely up to see the director's cut - and THEN I realise that it will not be out in Region 2 DVD for another 2½ month!! OOoooooH wHy? Evil movie conglomerates! Gnashing of teeth and wails!
Haven't got the 13th Warrior soundtrack, I told you!
Watch the film. The music is almost exactly the same
E.
I liked the film.
I do not entertain the idea that the film is useful to me as a historical source - Ridley Scott is just incapable of cleaving to history.
HOWEVER... as one of the few films dealing with a time and place that fascinates me, I bought both the director's cut and the theatrical release.
I will definitely use it as a prop to point at and say "This Saga is in the Levant, and this will give you and idea of what it looks like and what it is about - the lay of the land and the issues at hand."
-before they go changing it all anyway, and making our Levant unrecognizable from the historical one.
So, I can see a use for the movie, though I also see the regrettable lack of attention to history.
Orlando Bloom still keeps the film from being a great film, however, and they could have made any changes to history they wanted if it would have gotten rid of him.
Saracens on Flying Saucers? Sure!
V