Darn. I would have liked to go to see a balanced movie about that era.
According to many Muslims, they see the film as being anti-Muslim.
Then we have people saying it is anti-Christian.
Frankly, I don't know this woman, so I will wait for Medved or somebody else to review it.
Here is one take:
"Saladin and most of the Muslims are presented as essentially good guys. They don't provoke war, but they don't run away from it, and they repeatedly agree to "terms" that spare lives. Saladin's final decision in the story is a truly noble one.
The Christians, though, are a mixed bag. Further, the more religious they are, the more fanatical they are likely to be. Balian complains he can't connect with God in Jerusalem, and the Hospitaler (David Thewlis) is a decidedly irreverent "spiritual adviser." These are our heroes. Meanwhile, the clerics are depicted as thieves and fanatics, and the true believers among the Christians are the most violent.
Then there's Balian's odd speech about how Jerusalem is just a lot of stones, and he'd rather burn it all down if it would save lives. Given the present war in Iraq and the hot-button issue of Jerusalem in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, "Kingdom of Heaven" seems ready to anger everyone but the atheists and the action crowd. A little more thought and a little less blood might have made for a better movie."
This review indicates some things were left out to make the Christians look better.....and he later says the same happened to the Muslims:
"Balian held Saladin’s forces at bay, ultimately threatening to destroy the entire city (and, in a detail omitted from the film, kill all the Muslims in the city) rather than let the Christian population fall into Saladin’s hands."
Who knows. I will have to read some more before I decide whether to see it or not.