Why Ridley Scott’s 2005 Crusader flop is a far superior film to Gladiator

First published on Metro

Kingdom of Heaven should rank among the very best of the historical epics (Picture: David Appleby/20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

Like Roman citizens flocking to the Colosseum, audiences are once again filling out cinemas to watch the latest Sir Ridley Scott movie about Gladiators. 

The first movie released in 2000 starring Russell Crowe was not only a huge commercial success itself, but it kicked off the 2000s large-scale historical epic resurgence in Hollywood, with the likes of Troy, Alexander and The Last Samurai all released within four years. 

Fast forward to today and Gladiator II has cracked the same formula as its predecessor (some might say a little too similarly) and is well on its way to being a box office success.

For the legions of people who think about the Roman Empire daily, they are being rewarded with yet another large-scale historical blockbuster that transports us back to that period 20 years ago.

2000’s Gladiator starring Russel Crowe was a huge cinematic success (Picture: Dreamworks & Universal Pictures)

The fall of the historical epic

After over a decade that has been all about superheroes, the hold that historical epics had on the 2000s feels like a distant memory. Some held the test of time, while others faded into obscurity. If the likes of Exodus: Gods and Kings, the Ben Hur remake or The Eagle don’t ring any bells, it’s because, after the initial boom, historical epics simply couldn’t find an audience anymore (or they just became downright terrible).

Lost in the memory of that period is – at least in this writer’s mind – the pinnacle of the historical epic – whisper it – superior even to Gladiator. 

Kingdom of Heaven, released in 2005, tells the sweeping tale of the 12th-century Christian Crusaders’ attempt to fight off the forces of Saladin and his Muslim army and prevent the fall of First Kingdom of Jerusalem. It stars a freshly pirated Orlando Bloom as the protagonist Balian who is found by his father Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson) and brought to Jerusalem to help defend it.

Everything was set up for a huge box office hit. A deservingly big budget to tell the story of one of the most poetic and tragic periods in human history, a hugely talented cast full of some of the most recognisable faces of the era, and the architect of the historical epic resurgence, Mr Ridley Scott himself at the helm. 

A big-budget retelling of the Crusades (Picture: 20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

David Thewlis, Orlando Bloom, Jouko Ahola and Liam Neeson formed part of a talented cast (Picture: 20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

And yet the movie, with its $130million (£102m) budget, fell flat. A bizarre marketing strategy that presented the movie as an action-packed epic and a poorly received theatrical cut release kept many cinema-goers away and it never really gained much of a following since, despite a much higher-rated Director’s Cut that was released shortly after.

There are faults with the movie, and critics at the time found plenty to pick apart. Bloom, for all his devastatingly good looks, could not hold the audience’s fascination like Russell Crowe was able to, or the likes of Viggo Mortensen’s Aragon or – if we go right back to the mid-century age of epic cinema – Peter O’Toole’s Lawrence of Arabia. 

Orlando Bloom’s devastatingly good looks could not make up for a weakly scripted protagonist (Picture: 20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

Not that he had a lot to work with. The script gave us a story so fascinatingly complex and presented us with a protagonist with shockingly little development after a very brief struggle with his wife’s death. Stoic for sure, but not very interesting. 

There’s also the issue with the theatrical version. Sir Ridley is notorious for disliking the constraints set upon him by film studios and has often released Director’s Cuts to expand his movies. Kingdom of Heaven’s theatrical release is still great, but the Director’s Cut is such a gigantic step forward in terms of plot and character complexity that you will find yourself being intensely angry with the studio executives who sanctioned the version that hit cinemas. Even Bloom’s Balian is vastly improved (we’re actually given context why a poor blacksmith is able to lead an army).

The Islamic Empire and the Crusader Kingdom comes to life

Now with its faults and the context behind its poor box office performance out of the way, we’re here to stress just how damn incredible Kingdom of Heaven is. 

Every shot of this movie looks like a painting. The cinematography, setting and colour grading represents the work of artists at the very top of their game. Finding that wonderfully escapist balance between realistic and dreamlike that builds on what Gladiator executed so masterfully, sitting through this movie on as big a screen as you can is the definition of a cinematic experience.

Whether it’s the frosty blue hues of medieval France or the golden sand dunes of the Levant, each region is gorgeously realised, packed (as is Scott’s style) with a production design that makes each set feel realistically lived in. 

What is so special about this world in comparison to Gladiator, is that so few Hollywood movies have ever brought this period of history and this place to life before. The 1935 The Crusades now feels more like a cosplay, and, though the Egyptian 1963 film Saladin the Victorious was an iconic piece of Arabic cinema, it never had the budget to fully realise the era. 

This is a shame because the Islamic Empire was a massively important contributor to global culture in the Middle Ages, and the philosophical and technological advances are rarely ever celebrated in cinema (the lack of this has long influenced how the West understands the Middle East and Islam).

Incredible side characters

Kingdom of Heaven was released when anti-Muslim sentiment was rife throughout the West following the war in Iraq. It is remarkable that such a film could be made that not only recreated the golden age of the Islamic Empire but brought it to life with the nuance and respect that few depictions of the time had. 

That is no better reflected than in Ghassan Massoud’s and Edward Norton’s phenomenal portrayals of Saladin and King Baldwin. Simplified yes (to the people at the back – Kingdom of Heaven is not a documentary), but I cannot think of more rounded, complex and noble characters than these two in the history of cinematic historical epics.

Ghassan Massoud’s extraordinary portrayal of Saladin, the renowned leader of the Muslim army (Picture: 20thC.Fox/Everett/REX/Shutterstock)

Edward Norton’s uncredited but fantastic subtle performance as King Baldwin (Picture: David Appleby/20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

Saladin – who until this moment had felt more of a powerful and dangerous antagonist – is introduced masterfully in a scene when both the armies of Baldwin and Saladin meet at the castle of Karak.

The brief negotiations between these two titans is delivered with such humanity and empathy it is worth reminding readers that this was filmed when hatred between Muslims and Christians was at boiling point.

Seeing Baldwin visually weak with leprosy, Saladin promises to send him his physicians to care for him. Both leaders end the negations with the Islamic greeting As-salamu alaikum, meaning ‘Peace be upon you’.

Though there are other cartoonish villains and good guys in the movie, the level of complexity behind Baldwin, Saladin, Balian’s father Godfrey, the Hospitaller (played by David Thewlis), and Eva Green’s Queen Sibylla (for the love of God, watch the Director’s Cut for some actual backstory for her) is absolutely riveting to watch. 

Better than Gladiator?

So how could we argue that Kingdom of Heaven – a flop at the tail end of the historical epic resurgence – be better than Gladiator, the hugely successful movie that kicked off that whole resurgence? 

Firstly, all the technical aspects. The world building, the effects, the camera work, the costume and set design, all builds on what Gladiator achieved. It’s substantially more ambitious, on a much larger scope and it entirely delivers.

Gladiator – as brilliant as it was, was a much smaller story and had a world that simply felt less lived in. Unlike ‘the dream that was Rome’, the multiple claims to the Holy Land here are presented with such skill that you recognise just how damn loaded it is, without that weight getting in the way of the story.

Then, the characters. Despite the weak protagonist, the rest of the cast delivers complexity and fantastic performances and are supremely more interesting than Gladiator’s side characters.

Once again, remembering the time this movie came out, the risk involved here was gigantic. Each character existed within the lens of contemporary politics, a restriction the likes of Proximo and Juba simply did not need to navigate. 

Lastly, the direction. Kingdom of Heaven is Scott at his towering best. The choice of shots, the blend between action and conversation, the pacing, the combat, the use of music.

This movie, not Gladiator (and upon viewing – not Gladiator II either) is history brought to life in the most satisfying and atmospheric way imaginable.

Scott’s ability to balance spectacle with substance is on full display here, resulting with a film that is simply more technically competent than Gladiator, but also substantially more thoughtful and patient. 

Kingdom of Heaven is Ridley Scott best work in the historical epic genre (Credits: David Appleby/20th Century Fox/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock)

Gladiator was a cornerstone of the historical epic, but Kingdom of Heaven should be appreciated as Scott learning from Gladiator and building something even better.

Accepting a drop in protagonist quality might be too much for some viewers, but on every single other level, this is a far more accomplished film.

It is a masterpiece, a classic, and Ridley Scott’s best work to date.