Roughly an hour into the film, there’s a meeting between the protagonist (Balian) and the King of Jerusalem that occurs over a game of chess. In it, the King lays out what appears to be a metaphor for the film itself and Balian’s personal character arc, that of a chess piece ceasing to be moved by others and starting to move for itself.

I am still waiting for Balian to display any sense of agency within the plot. He seems to just exist, bouncing from moment to moment and failing upwards, always doing the right thing and never really experiencing any struggle over and above those from the start of the movie.

In one ways this could be seen as rewarding a man for being moral, but in others it feels like a story comprised of moments stitched together with “and then” and not “therefore.”

This definitely is drawn into contrast when Balian does finally make a decision and it's arguably the morally right and practically wrong one.

I had to revise my initial take because the more I thought about the movie, the more I realized there was to unpack. It's stances on acting according to an ethical code. It's cyclical nature. The pure balls to shoot a battle scene during the day and in the open - something nobody would do in 2025. I don't think I've thought enough about the film to really dig into essay territory, but it got me to think about it after I was done viewing and that earns an 8 in my book.