I honestly wonder what movie the critics I've read saw. Did they actually bother to watch the film, or were they text-messaging someone and occasionally taking notes based on whatever caught their eye? Were they there with a large collection of annoying Orlando Bloom fans ranging in age from 12 to 22 and screaming their heads off at inappropriate intervals, declaring for all the theater to hear that they were willing to give up their bodies for this young man they don't know at all, squealing in jealousy every time Nathalie Cox or Liam Neeson or David Thewlis touched the boy?
This was not the film the reviewers of The New York Times or The New Yorker described. It is flawed, yes. It feels as though it were severely edited down from a much longer film in which relationships and politics were given time to develop. Yet there is still enough for a semi-intelligent viewer to catch on that there is more to the film than what the reviewers got.
The reviewers I read claimed the film ignored religion, or had a character at its center who was fighting in a holy war though he didn't have the impetus of faith. That was clearly untrue. Yes, Bloom's Balian is struggling with his faith after losing his child and then his losing his wife to suicide. The townspeople are absent, the cleric cruel, wallowing in Balian's misery. He goes to the Middle East to find redemption for his wife and for himself. Yet he is not without faith entirely. He feels God has abandoned him, yet he does not act as if he has abandoned God, but by the high ideals his faith and his father set for him.
This is not a historically accurate film. It's not meant to be. It's more of an essay on the nature of faith versus religion. What makes a good man. When is it all right to compromise, and when is it not. What is more important, stones or men. What is truly God’s will, and how does one know. What makes a good leader.
Yes, the turn by which a blacksmith becomes the knight is contrived, but I wasn't expecting much more. This is a Ridley Scott film, after all. His films are often filled with certain plot twists which, when looked at in the bright light of the lobby, don't pan out as neatly as you'd like them to, but allow the plot to move forward.
There are bad men and men who are better and men who compromise. Everyone is tainted by the wrongs done over that patch of land. There are certain anachronistic speeches and actions, but they are made to further the point. It's a much more thoughtful film than The Gladiator, and a more effective one, perhaps because of the center of the film being set on a more universal and positive aspect of humanity than simple vengeance.
There are characters who lack full explanation to the point of caricature, yet the performers do well within them, fleshing out what could have been human place markers. There seemed to be no ill-cast actor. And, this being a Ridley Scott film, the cinematography, especially of the battle scenes, is excellent. This is most definitely a post-Lord of the Rings film, but still carries Scott's distinct flourishes. Best period battles I've seen in a long, long time.
This isn't the most eloquent defense of a film, nor have I made the points I wanted to make. I've never been a very good reviewer (I wish I could be as good at this as ET or Erin). Still, at least I bothered to watch the movie before I wrote about it.