Kingdom of Heaven

Boone Hudgins · May 14, 2005

Did they go with Arricam so they could use the Angeniuex lens, you think?

Max Jacoby · May 14, 2005

Really, because I can't go to a movie and spot whether it was shot with Primos, Cooke, or Zeiss...

What's distinctive about the flare? I used Primo sphericals on "Twin Falls Idaho" and I didn't notice any unique flaring issues, if any flare at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have a strong light (such as headlights of a car) shine straight at Primos, you get a very nice, red & white flare, circular shaped with spikes leading away from the centre.

On Ultra Primes I've noticed that if you track past a flame for instance, you get a flare before the lightsource itself even comes into shot.

And Cooke S4s always look very nice on faces, but the wider lenses they are a bit soft. That being said the Primo 17.5mm is not exactely the sharpest lens either on wide shots.

Boone Hudgins · May 15, 2005

I saw the movie tonight. It was all right. The look was interesting. I thought it was cool how all the characters looked pretty ruddy at the beginning. Especially Liam Neeson. Of course, that changed by the time they got to Israel.

The score wasn't all that bad. It was similar to any movie set in the sand, though. I wonder when they'll think of something different that still fits as well, though. I do wish that there was more establishing of the different locations, though. Gladiator did that really well, and it kind of seemed like Kingdom of Heaven suffered from sequelitis even though it's not even remotely close to Gladiator. "Oh, they already saw Rome, why do they need to see Jerusalem?"

Orlando Bloom wasn't very good, either. He kind of got lost in the movie. Most of the time you felt kind of like he was just a spectator of everything, he wasn't ever involved. But by the end, he becomes a rebel rouser that everybody just follows. I'm not sure if this part was just written weirdly, or if they cut Bloom down because he just wasn't working out. It's weird to just leave your main character in a different city for ten minutes doing nothing. Edward Norton's performance was amazing, though, even though you couldn't see his face. He should have had more to do in the movie.

I'm not sure how much I like the "when it's blue, it's blue" look that's in about every movie now. It just seems too much. I'm becoming a fan of the 1/4 CTB look. It's subtle, but it's there (of course this all looked like natural light, so gels don't really make sense, but you catch my drift). The scene where Bloom catches up to Liam Neeson with the shafts of light coming through the trees looked great, though. It's such a cliche thing, but it just looked different somehow.

Max Jacoby · May 23, 2005

Reading up on the film in the latest edition of 'Arri News', they shot on Cooke S4s, Zeiss Variable Primes as well as long and short Optimo Zooms.

The first feature film to use the new Master Primes and Master Zoom is Tom Tykwer's adaptation of Patrick Süsskind's 'Perfume'.

Adam Frisch FSF · June 1, 2007

I finally - 2 years after it came out - watched the film on DVD. It was the longer uncut Scott version.

I must say that I was very pleasantly surprised - I thought the film was excellent for most parts. I love Mathiesons cinematography and I think it's his best work ever. I love how he's lit all interiors by totally motivated light and allowing (quite daringly) people to go in and out of darkness. His exterior work, especially at the beginning, is also refreshingly shot in an underexposed way. Something in between day-for-night and day.

The soundtrack by Harry Gregson-Williams was also exquisite.